Keeping out the Cold, Keeping out the Light

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Why?

Because it has been found in fourth century context on numerous occasions.

So what makes you think this hasn't already been done?

It has been done before and is still being studied.

Maybe, but we are not talking about Rome (or Constantinople here), but about houses in general. And these would generally be different from a city block such as in Rome.
Typical for provincial towns such as Londinium for instance was general dereliction, a layer of dark earth covering plots where houses had been torn down or otherwise diappeared.

When discussing housing, you always have to make sure you are talking about what kind of housing, where, and what is left of it in archaeological context. General dereliction is found in all eras. A provincial town, a village or even a large town will always have layers where houses were torn down. take Ostia for instance. There are numerous layers from even before republican times there, and it was built over and over and over. Same with Pompeii. Also not all housing throughout the empire was the same. Villae have extensive differences, and town houses and farms even more.

I'm not sure about glass, but it's recognised that roof tiles (a far more common thing - every shed had them) disappeared from every roof but a few in for instance Rome, not to re-appear again until the later Middle Ages or afterwards.

Roof tiles did not disappear completely, yes the Roman way of tiling did, but slate was used througout Britain in the late Roman era, and thatched housing was a general form throughout history. The difference in building with stone vs wattle and daub has always existed. It is difficult to make one single claim about this.

Well, as far as I'm concerned that's not a 'general held belief'. What we DO see however is that the money to build in stone or with 'Roman technology' is lost, so it's more a question of economics that a loss of knowledge. Of course, if demand drops to a barely existing minimum, not many people will be trained in such professions.

Money as a commodity and as a form of payment is quite overrated. The Roman monetary system was not as widely spread as you might want to believe. Trade with money as well as trade with commodities existed alongside one another. Especially papyri from Egypt attest that money was not always used when acquiring property or labour. It is incomparable with the prominent place money takes in our society and should therefore not be compared at all with our system. Sometimes people like to see the price edicts of the later Roman empire as proof that money was widely used for payment, just like it is today, but that is not actually the case.

M.VIB.M.

[Robert Vermaat]

Because it has been found in fourth century context on numerous occasions.

Numerous? Now you're overdoing it. And finding a hypocaust is one thing, finding one that operated well enough by the late 5th century is quite another.

Villae have extensive differences, and town houses and farms even more.

Very true, because you're repeating what I said in other words.

Roof tiles did not disappear completely, yes the Roman way of tiling did, but slate was used througout Britain in the late Roman era, and thatched housing was a general form throughout history. The difference in building with stone vs wattle and daub has always existed. It is difficult to make one single claim about this.

No, roof tiles disappeared. Slate aren't roof tiles, it's a mean to cover your roof, and so is thatch. I'm not sure why you mention slate and thatch, after all I did not claim that after the Romans, no one knew how to cover their roofs!
My point was that tiles, and by that I meant the baked version, not a material straight from nature, changed from being on every roof to being on just a few roofs (such as monasteries in Rome). I could have mentioned African pottery, too (and yes, I know the people continued drinking from wooden beakers, or horns, etc.).

Money as a commodity and as a form of payment is quite overrated.

You totally miss my point. Please read first, then answer (did I not read that comment from you on FB today? It was about Steampunk - you were quite right, btw.).
Money wasn't the issue, it was not being to pay for the means of Roman consruction: stone walls, glass windows, tiled roofs. It was due to a massive recession, and how they paid matters little: coin, slaves, cattle, whatever.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

I am not here to diss your statements, i just try to add some other perspectives.
The Hypocausts of the late 3rd and 4th centuries as found in Constantinopolis and also on various other locations are by no means proof, but it should not be seen as a total loss of Roman knowledge, thats all i meant.

My point was that tiles, and by that I meant the baked version, not a material straight from nature, changed from being on every roof to being on just a few roofs (such as monasteries in Rome)

Sorry but it is not true that they were on every roof. They were on roofs of Villae, some city houses in the North and stone buildings. That they were used on official buildings like temples or government/military buildings and villae as well as some houses is one thing, but you cannot say that they were on every roof...

It remains however an interesting discussion since a lot has still to be discovered about the late Roman era, and it has been less extensively researched as for instance the Imperial period.

M.VIB.M.