Post-medieval suggests an afterthought. It would be\npreferable to use the historians\u2019 terms, early modern and modern, for after\nall, this is a period for which the historical sources take over and the\ncontribution of archaeology is reduced. For that reason, where the scope and\nscale of projects allow it, there would be mutual benefit to working with\nsocial and economic historians. Because post-medieval archaeology deals with\nthe recent past, it presents opportunities to capture public interest and hence\nfor community involvement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Much post-medieval work involves sorting out existing\nstructures, finishes and layers overlying older ones which are likely to be the\nmain target of the exercise. A limiting factor is that with more permanent\nconstruction methods, post-medieval buildings last much longer and ground\nlevels stabilise, so that no longer is there the accumulation of deep\nstratified sequences which can make archaeology such a valuable resource. The\nevidence for change is contained in the many phases of alteration and\nmodification manifested by the buildings themselves, which are often difficult\nand not always very profitable to analyse. Building recording accounts for much\npost-medieval work. Figures derived from the Archaeological Data Service\narchives suggest it amounts to between 12-36% of all work with a post-medieval\ncomponent in any year. The understanding of buildings obtained through this\nrecording should inform archaeological excavation. Unfortunately this is not\nalways the case, and there can be a disconnect between building recorders and\nfield archaeologists, which can lead to unfortunate results, such as the\ninterpretation of a \u2018hunting lodge\u2019 found near Stansted airport (Cooke 2008,\n244-8, 266-7).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The early modern period, the 16th and 17th centuries, was one\nof great political and social change, processes from which housing and\nbuildings were not exempt. It saw the end of the tripartite house, of a hall\nflanked by parlour and services, which had been a constant since the 12th\ncentury. Carpentry methods also saw significant change for the first time since\nthe 14th century. The development of the chimney made it possible to insert an\nupper floor in the hall, the social function of which became less important\nthan it had been. The upper floor provided more rooms, creating scope for\nenhanced privacy reflecting change in living patterns and doubtless satisfying\nlong nurtured aspirations. The upper floors could also be cantilevered out from\nthe side of the house, creating the long wall houses which were ubiquitous in\n16th century towns and villages. In large houses, the floor plan became less\npredictable as people experimented and the hall became more of a flexible\nentrance area. Nevertheless, numerous cottages, often two-cell, were built with\nopen halls at the end of the 16th century and into the early 17th century. In\nlarger houses, the floor plan becomes less predictable as people experimented\nwith and the hall became more of a flexible entrance area. Display gables are a\nfeature of 16th and 17th century houses, but one which as well as making a\nstatement, reflect greater use being made of attic storeys, whether for work\nrelated storage or accommodation. This was made possible by the supersession of\nthe crown post roof by other forms, notably the clasped purlin. Such houses\noften had long rear ranges, which have often survived behind rebuilt frontages.\nFrom early in the 17th century, the lobby-entry ground plan became widespread,\na front door opposite the chimney forming an entrance lobby. In later examples,\nthe door is made central if it was at all possible to achieve a symmetrical\nfa\u00e7ade. Typically the stair is located the other side of the chimney. This\nlayout can be found across the social scale and continued into the 18th\ncentury. Sliding sash windows, roofs parallel to the street, classicising door\ncases, and projecting bays give later 18th century and early 19th century\nhousing a quite different appearance, accompanied by plan form alterations reflecting\nchanging fashions, typically the chimneys no longer dominant and finding a new\nlocation at the ends of the building. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Much of the research on vernacular architecture over the\nlast 50 years has concentrated on the older buildings, which are now in many\nyears better understood than the early modern ones. The single most valuable\nnew tool in investigating historic buildings, tree-ring dating, has reinforced\nthis trend: not only has it been targeted at older buildings, but more modern\nones are less susceptible to its use because of the quality of the timber found\nin them. In effect, there tends to be a cut-off for dates obtained of c<\/em>.1650. In the historical period,\nreliable dating is essential to interpretation and argument. Accurate dates\nwould be very valuable in assessing the transformation of towns and villages in\nGeorgian times, particularly putting them in a social and economic context such\nas the highly cyclical fortunes of the cloth trade. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The way building recording is administered in the planning\ndevelopment control process often fails to give completely satisfactory\nresults. Heritage Statements, the minimum requirement to accompany work to\nhistoric buildings, are assessments of significance, not records. If repairs or\nopening up become necessary in the course of works which were not expected to\nreveal anything about the fabric of the building, then there is often no\nprovision for recording. Similarly, building recording conditions may ensure\nrecording is carried out before work starts, but not require monitoring of what\nhappens when it does, when things are likely to be found which will materially\naffect subsequent interpretation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many cottages were built in the 16th and 17th centuries. They\nor rather their occupants were a source of concern to contemporaries lest they\nbecame a burden on the parish, issues reflected in legislation concerning\ncottages, incomers and the Elizabethan Poor Law. Their location, and the amount\nof land they had, are important factors in understanding them. These cottages\naccount for the majority of the one hearth houses which in Essex comprised\nabout half the households recorded in the 1670 Hearth Tax (Ryan 2012). Graphic\nrepresentations of them are a conspicuous feature of the late Tudor estate maps\nmade by the Walker family (Edwards and Newton 1984). Yet they are a category of\nbuilding which has been little studied and which are under pressure from\nimprovement, extension and fire damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Farm buildings are also under threat, from redundancy and\nconversion. Whereas the only surviving medieval farm building is usually the\nbarn, a wider suite of post-medieval buildings are to be found, reflecting\nchanging practices and economic conditions, with an increasing tendency towards\nbetter planned and model layouts. However humble, these buildings are in\nincreasing demand for dwellings, as the traditional farmstead becomes redundant\nand vanishes from the countryside. Of the listed barns in Essex, about 311 are\nmedieval and 1553 post-medieval. Again, these later buildings have been\nrelatively little studied. Some have\nbeen successfully tree-ring dated, and they probably have more potential for\ndating than contemporary houses. Barns represent significant capital investment\nand their chronology must reflect the changing fortunes of agricultural\nholdings and agriculture in general. Building recording when they are converted\nrarely includes tree-ring dating, and often includes little information on how\nthey have been used, even in recent times. Conversion often sees the loss of\n20th century grain processing and other equipment, which is often overlooked or\nremoved before recording takes place. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Isolated but useful tree-ring results are being obtained all\nthe time and published in the annual summaries in Vernacular Architecture<\/em> (VA). \nThe Godwick Great Barn at Tittleshall in Norfolk has been dated to 1597\nand shown to resemble the large barns at Paston and Waxham (Arnold and Howard\n2013). A brick barn at Aldeby Hall in Norfolk has given a date of 1614-26, with\na later phase of 1726-51 (VA 2014, 112). But until more synthetic work is undertaken,\nsuch dates will be more meaningful if obtained in the context of a wider\nproject. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A study of Coggeshall centred round tree-ring dating of its many\ntimber-framed houses carried out 2009-12 successfully dated 18 buildings, a\nhigh score for East Anglia, but only three were 17th century and four 16th\ncentury, the latest being 1636 (Andrews 2013; Stenning 2013). Coggeshall was\none of the leading cloth towns of the north Essex\/south Suffolk region in the\n16th and 17th centuries. The industry has, as elsewhere, proved largely\ninvisible in the material record of the buildings themselves. The town initially\nadapted to pressure on space arising from commercial and population growth by\nrebuilding houses with cross-wings and rear ranges to provide more\naccommodation. Later on, particularly in modern times, houses were sub-divided.\n17th century houses generally have more attic space and some are taller, two and\na half storey. Prosperity is manifest in the quality of the houses and features\nsuch as carved bressumers and moulded joists, though the gulf between the\naverage long-wall jetty house and the elaborate display of Paycocke\u2019s house\nwhich belonged to an exceptionally rich merchant, reflects either remarkable\ndisparities of wealth or exhibitionism of a sort which others may have found\ndistasteful. The only clearly legible relics of the cloth trade are a few\nmerchants\u2019 marks, and dowel holes in stud walls for warp frames. These important under-recorded features make\nit possible to identify workshop spaces. \nThe process whereby these early modern houses were remodelled with a\nGeorgian aspect tends to fall outside the potential of dendrochronology,\ncarpentry, and other architectural features to provide precise dates, and is\nrarely well documented. As a consequence, these later phases of buildings are\noften treated perfunctorily when it is possible that more painstaking\nexamination placed within a wider survey might yield results. For the moment,\nthe transformation of such towns and villages in the 18th and early 19th\ncenturies is not well understood. It needs to be seen in the context of houses\noften being rented, and by the 18th century if not earlier divided for multiple\noccupancy, features evident from the analysis of a 1575 rental and of later\ndocuments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Norfolk Historic Buildings Group has carried out similar\nprojects in Talconeston and Little Walsingham (Longcroft et al<\/em>. 2009 and 2015). At the former, most of the houses were 16th\nto early 17th century: indeed most of the parish seems to have been rebuilt in\nthis period. Features of interest were cross-wings, smoke bays, and a well defined\nsequence of roof types. At Little Walsingham, over 70 buildings have been\nrecorded. Several of them have been identified as possible hostelries in this\nimportant pilgrimage centre. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The re-interpretation of taper burns as apotropaic or witch\nmarks is a striking insight into the mentality of the people who made them (Dean\nand Hill 2014). Although dating remains to be made more precise, it is clear\nthat the majority of these marks are post-Reformation, 16th or 17th century. As\nsuch, they could be considered more informative about popular belief than\nwritten records. Although their presence is often noted, more detailed\nassessments of their distribution and chronology could shed further light on\nthis practice. An analogous practice is that of concealing objects in and\naround chimneys, something which it seems can involve continual additions over\nmany years rather than one-off deposits (Easton 2014). <\/p>\n\n\n\n As to larger houses, a major study of Hill Hall, Theydon\nMount, Epping, has been published, combining archaeological excavation,\nbuilding analysis and documentary research (Drury 2009). This is an important\nexample of late Tudor classicism. The reports on ceramic building material and\nfinds are particularly valuable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Excavation in post-medieval contexts in urban centres tends\nnot to be rewarding, the results difficult to untangle and relating to evidence\nmore readily understood from historical sources. Where archaeological evidence\nis well preserved, it has the potential to put flesh on historic maps for towns\nand villages where buildings have been demolished. Such a site was Rope Walk,\nIpswich, where the excavator noted the scope for further social history\n(Sommers 2010). Redevelopment should not be permitted to sweep away even\nrelatively modern housing without a record being made of it. Finds too, when\npresent in sufficient quantities such as clearance deposits, can be informative\nat the level of social history. Cologne or Frechen drinking jugs from a pit at\n6 Market Place, Mildenhall, identify a nearby building as an inn (Craven 2009).\nExcavation in the garden of a house at St. Neots, Cambridgeshire, has produced\ninteresting documentation for the material culture and way of life of a\nhousehold in the early 20th century (Cessford and Dickens 2013). The\narchaeological assessment of Colchester (Gascoyne and Radford 2013) has a\nvaluable account of early modern housing in the town, but it is noted that the\npost-medieval archaeological survival is much reduced by the existence of\ncellars on the frontages. An illustration of the complexity of post-medieval\nproperties, their development and ownership, and the challenge they present to\nexcavators and building recorders, is to be found in a study of Georgian\ntenements in Colchester (Wise 2007). <\/p>\n\n\n\n For a period for which the Industrial Revolution was one of\nthe great features, the physical manifestations of it are often likely to\nconsist of buildings which have had their working machinery stripped out, often\nstanding over contaminated deposits. One\nindustry conspicuous in recent work is brick manufacture, which had a great\nimpact on construction and housing. The textile industries, of wider economic\nimportance, tend to be less susceptible to archaeological investigation, but\nwhen evidence is found, it should be prioritised. There should be awareness of\nthe role of immigrant communities, such as the Dutch and Huguenots, in such\nindustries and their possible impact on the historic environment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The bricks which made possible the building of chimneys and\nthe revolution in the design of the early modern house were only manufactured\ncontinuously from the 15th century. They were made locally to where they were\nto be used, in kilns or, if needed in large quantities, in clamps. Several\nbrick clamps associated with Henry VIII\u2019s palace at New Hall, Boreham, near\nChelmsford, as well as a lime kiln, have recently been discovered. Late\n17th\/early 18th century clay pits and two brick kilns have been found at Wash\nPits Field, Euston, Suffolk. At Buntingford Road, north of Puckeridge, Herts, a\ntile kiln has been found, in use c<\/em>.1480-1700,\nits footprint later reused as a barn (Anderson et al<\/em>. 2014). A two flue\nbrick kiln datable to the 17th century has been excavated in New Street,\nChelmsford (Hawkins and Sudds 2011). These kilns represent a small scale and\nrelatively primitive mode of production which would not have been equal to the\n19th century growth of market towns with streets lined with brick villas. A\nlater chapter in brick making has been revealed at Seymour Street, Chelmsford,\nstrategically close to the railway, where a brickworks operated c<\/em>.1874-1902 by James Brown has been\nexcavated. Here a traditional up-draught Scotch kiln was accompanied by a more\nadvanced Hoffmann-type kiln which could fire bricks on a continuous process.\nIndeed, this kiln is similar to a variant on the Hoffmann process patented by\nArthur Edward Brown, James Brown\u2019s son. Brown had several brickworks in Essex\ntowns and villages, including Braintree where he had brickworks near the\nstation. His was a thriving business supplying the demand for middle class\nhousing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A contemporary Essex brickmaker was Mark Gentry, the\ndominant figure in the Sible Hedingham industry, whose business activity has\nbeen the subject of a recent book (Corder-Birch 2014). Gentry moved to\nHedingham from Stratford and was active there from about 1884 until his death\nin 1912. By 1898, the output of his Langthorne brickworks had been increased\nfrom about half a million to about 10 million bricks. There were three\nup-draught (presumably Scotch) kilns, and four down draught ones, but no\ncontinuous kiln, though one was projected. Much of the production went to London,\nwhere his bricks can be found in the Blackwall Tunnel and Claridges Hotel, as\nwell as further afield, to Ireland and even Africa. None of this would have\nbeen possible without access to the Colne Valley Railway, though the Hedingham\nstation was not close to the brickworks. Gentry was keen to rectify this and\nwas a great promoter of schemes for extensions to the north and central Essex\nrailway networks, none of which came to fruition. Both Brown and Gentry had a\nrole in the development of the character of local brick architecture, as they\nmanufactured terracotta mouldings and plaques which were extensively used in\ncontemporary buildings. Brown\u2019s catalogue of the mouldings he supplied was\nillustrated, and no doubt also designed, by the architect George Sherrin.\nGentry built a roadside lodge to his house profusely decorated with moulded\nbrickwork to advertise his wares. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The railways were crucial to the development of larger\nbrickworks, and with the abolition of the Brick Tax in 1850, had a role in\nenabling brick buildings to cross the vernacular threshold. They introduced\ncompetition from further afield, notably the Bedfordshire fletton industry,\nwhich contributed to a reduction in the number of local village brickworks (cf.\nRyan 1999, 41-4). Small brickworks often\ndid not survive the restrictions on firing imposed in the Second World\nWar. One of the few remaining ones was\nReads at Aldeburgh in Suffolk, now regrettably closed (Prosser et al<\/em>. 2012). This had been established,\nin typical fashion, on a farm in the 19th century. The plant included a disused\n19th century Suffolk kiln, and four 20th century updraught ones which were oil\nfired, as well as a Berry brickmaking machine. These machines were made at\nWestcliffe-on-Sea, Southend, and are still in use in some traditional\nbrickworks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr Beeching\u2019s radical surgery of the rail network in the\n1960s reduced many railway lines to industrial heritage. In Essex, there have\nbeen surveys of several of these lost lines as well as ones in use. They\ninclude the former Elsenham and Thaxted light railway (Crosby 2010), the Essex\npart of the London to Cambridge line (Crosby 2013), the Shenfield to\nSouthminster line (Kemble and Garwood 2011), and the former branch lines to\nMaldon (Kemble and Garwood 2011). The Thaxted line was built under the\nprovisions of the Light Railways Act of 1896, intended to make it easier to\nbuild railways and for them to obtain public funding, with a view in particular\nto helping agriculture then in the grips of a depression. The line was not a\nsuccess and closed in 1952. At March, Cambridgeshire, an excavation has taken\nplace at what was once one of the busiest marshalling yards in the country,\nuncovering two 20th century turntables and a section of Britain\u2019s first\nmechanised or gravity \u2018hump\u2019 for manoeuvring wagons (Railton and Wooler 2013). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Whilst it is usually difficult to link the cloth trade to\nstanding buildings, archaeological evidence for it is sometimes found. At\nGlemsford, at a site north of Lion Road, a double row of 85 post holes have\nbeen interpreted as representing two tenter frames, something which are well\ndocumented as a feature of the townscape in the clothworking belt of south\nSuffolk and north Essex. On land at The Swan Hotel, Lavenham, a building has\nbeen excavated within which there were at least ten furnace bases, datable to\nthe late Middle Ages, which may<\/em> have\nbeen used for dyeing cloth (Brooks 2014). Market towns were populated by\nartisans and tradesmen but evidence for their activities is often elusive. One\nrecord of the latter are trade tokens. A project based at Norwich Castle Museum\nis creating a catalogue of Norfolk tokens, researching who issued them and\ntheir circulation. Industrial buildings which have been excavated or recorded\ninclude a water tank in Dunstable, Bedfordshire, probably associated with a hat\nfactory (Kaye 2013), and a former leather factory at Dereham, Norfolk (Phelps\n2010). The latter was a three storey brick building dating from 1884, later\nused as a warehouse. At Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire, Swan Dock which\nserved the malting industry, later becoming a coal depot, has been investigated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ceramic manufacture is of particular interest to\narchaeologists. The pre-industrial country potteries have left little\nhistorical record. They could represent production on a significant scale. The\nHarlow potteries were important in parts of Essex and Hertfordshire from the\n13th century, but the 17th century Metropolitan slipwares were widely traded\nthroughout the country, and even as far as the Americas (Davey and Walker\n2009). Texts and proverbs on the slipwares tell us something of the beliefs and\nattitudes of those who made and used them. Evidence has been found for the\nmanufacture of Metropolitan slipwares, as well as red earthenwares, at Stock to\nthe south of Chelmsford (Essex Archaeol. Hist. n.s.4, 4 2013, 213). <\/p>\n\n\n\n At Stowmarket, two large pits on a development site have\nproduced a large quantity of glazed red earthenware, and a smaller one of black\nglazed wares, datable to the 16th-18th centuries, together with kiln furniture\nand wasters. Given that, as the report says, \u2018Very little pottery from towns in\nSuffolk has been illustrated and none has been published \u2026 partly due to a surprising\nlack of material\u2019, this is an important discovery and points to a significant\nindustry in the Stowmarket area (Anderson 2015). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Landscape change from the 16th century, in terms of the\nbreak-up of estates and the establishment of the existing pattern of farms and\nfields, are subjects which are not prominent in recent post-medieval\narchaeological work. The assessment of the wider landscape context and setting\nof farm buildings, and their role in their exploitation, should not be\noverlooked when such buildings are recorded or heritage statements are prepared\nfor them. Numerous survey and research projects in coastal areas, mainly\nassociated with climate change, nature conservation, and seaside regeneration,\nhave proved valuable for the post-medieval and modern periods. They have\nprovided information on the development of sea defences, fishing and fishing\nstructures, oyster beds, duck decoys, salt production, hulks and wrecks. This\nwork has been reviewed by Murphy (2014), and detailed accounts can be found\nelsewhere (e.g. Murphy et al<\/em>. 2012;\nIngle and Saunders 2011). The condition and significance of Essex grazing\nmarshes has been comprehensively assessed, with an account of the processes of\nenclosure and reclamation (Gascoyne and Medlycott 2014). Work for the new\nLondon Gateway container Terminal in the Thames estuary has uncovered evidence\nof wrecks as well as World War II defences. Research on coastal areas is on-going\nin the form of the Coastal and Intertidal\nZone Archaeological Network<\/em> (CITIZAN) which will run till 2018, and has a\nthematic approach, which covers ships and shipping, coastal industries, working\nlives, and post-medieval jetties along the Stour. Historic urban\ncharacterisation reports have been prepared for ten Essex seaside towns in the\nEssex Seaside Resorts Project (Essex County Council 2012). The modern history\nof three of these resorts, Clacton, Walton and Frinton, has been chronicled in\nvolume xi of the Essex Victoria County History. A study of seaside piers has\nbeen published by English Heritage (Wills and Phillips 2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The County Garden Trusts continue to study historic designed\nlandscapes. The Capability Brown anniversary in 2016 was marked by new research\nand publications (Bate 2016; Essex Gardens Trust 2016). There was similar\nactivity for the Repton anniversary in 2018. The Gardens Trust (2016) has\npublished guidance on historic designed landscapes for planners and curators. The\nEssex Gardens Trust has added to its local authority surveys by completing an\ninventory for the City of Chelmsford (2012). It is currently working on\nBrentwood Borough and making a start on Colchester. Excavation and survey has\ntaken place on the landscape and gardens of William Cecil’s former Theobalds\npalace in Hertfordshire (Rowe 2012). At Houghton Hall in Norfolk, built in the\n1720s, a remarkable exercise in archaeological recording by Williamson (2013)\nhas shown that the gentle sweep of the parkland is deceptively natural in\nappearance, being in fact the result of prodigious earth moving at a site where\nBrown and others are not recorded as working on the landscape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defenceworks have left their mark on the landscape,\nparticularly on the coast, eastern England having always been exposed to attack\nfrom northern Europe. At the eastern tip of Mersea Island, in the Colne\nestuary, coastal erosion has uncovered an elm revetment and quay associated\nwith a triangular bulwark fort dating from the 1540s (Heppell 2013). Further up\nthe coast, excavations have taken place through the ramparts of Landguard Fort\nat Felixstowe, an earthwork fort on a square plan with angle bastions built in\nthe 1620s to defend Harwich Haven (Meredith 2008). It was later reinforced with\na brick wall or fausse-braye<\/em> outside\nthe battered escarpment round its perimeter which proved a valuable defence\nwhen it was attacked by the Dutch in 1667. A large number of clay pipes were\nfound, a useful assemblage \u2018in an area where few studies have been carried\nout.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n Possible archaeological evidence for Civil War defences has\nbeen found at Kings Lynn. At Colchester, the 1648 siege works have been\nhighlighted as a special feature of the town which would repay further study\n(Gascoyne and Radford 2013). Colchester became a garrison town after the\nCrimean War. The Victorian garrison site has now, like that at Shoeburyness,\nbeen redeveloped for housing. A final stage in the building recording is a\nreport on the officers\u2019 quarters or sergeants\u2019 mess of the Royal Artillery\nBarracks, later known as Le Cateau Barracks (Lister 2013). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The anniversary of the First World War has stimulated\nresearch on its history (cf. Rusiecki 2008). \nNear Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire, World War I practice trenches,\nwith a line of foxholes 100 yards to the south, have been excavated. Some World\nWar I sites have been identified from aerial photographs in Thetford and the\nsurrounding area (Bales et al<\/em>. 2011\nand 2012) The total warfare of the Second World War had a much greater impact\non the civilian population and the landscape, though the effect on the latter\nhas sometimes been surprisingly transient. A Royal Ordnance factory near\nBuntingford, Hertfordshire, which had completely disappeared by 1975, had been\nnoted as cropmarks and then effectively rediscovered upon map research and\nevaluation (Snee 2012). A review of the work of the NMP in Essex includes a chapter\non the military landscape of the county during World War II, which is a\nvaluable interim statement on The World War II Defences in Essex Project which\nhas been in progress since 1993 (Ingle and Saunders 2011, 147-76). To the\narchaeological recording in the county can now be added historical studies (Thornton\n2012, 174-203; Rusiecki 2015). In Norfolk, aerial photography in the context of\nthe National Mapping Programme has been very productive in recovering\ninformation on World War II sites in Norwich, Thetford and the line of the A11\nbetween them (Bales et al<\/em>. 2020 and 2011;\nCattermole et al<\/em>. 2013). Similar\nresults can be expected from the on-going Breaking\nNew Ground<\/em> Breckland landscape study, which includes aerial photographic\nNMP and LiDAR projects. For Suffolk, an overview of World War II archaeology\nhas been published in four guide books produced as part of the World War II Heritage<\/em> project (Liddiard\nand Sims 2014). Surviving World War II structures are regularly being recorded\nthrough the planning system. Ablution blocks and three \u2018Stanton\u2019 type air raid\nshelters have been recorded at the former RAF Horham near Debenham, Suffolk\n(Sommers 2013). At the Swale, Martlesham, Ipswich, a range of defensive structures have\nbeen recorded, including a Type-22 and Type-23 Pillbox, a Lewis\ngun-emplacement, and a HFDF (High Frequency Direction Finder) tower in an\noctagonal curtain wall (Brooks 2012). A survey has been made of a rare and\ncomplete Special Duties Section (SDS) Sub-out Station\nor Zero Station, located under the car park of Pinebanks School, Thorpe Saint\nAndrew, Norfolk. This secret radio station would have transmitted information\nregarding German troop movements and intelligence gathered by local spies to\nthe HQ of local Auxiliary Units. A more specialised exercise has been the\nexcavation of a crashed Spitfire at Holme Fen, Cambridgeshire (Haskins et al<\/em>. 2016). Cold War remains have also\nbeen studied and recorded. Operational Record Books for RAF\nBarnham, Suffolk, have been examined to supplement information on the previously\nrecorded atomic bomb store (Cocroft and Gregory 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Inevitably there is an urgent need for synthetic assessments of the\nhundreds of projects and grey literature reports which have been, and continue\nto be, generated through the planning system. Such work would be likely to\nrebalance the present state of knowledge in many areas of study and give rise\nto new issues and problems that should be addressed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Buildings have not figured prominently in previous research\nframeworks, despite the large numbers of records being made. There is a need for\nbetter communication between conservation officers and archaeologists in terms\nof setting briefs for recording of post-medieval sites and structures. The\nassessments of them should be presented in the wider context of building\ndevelopment and architectural history, making a more accurate assessment of\ntheir significance possible. The provenance of the timber used in buildings,\nwhether local or imported, is a subject that warrants further research. Cottages\nand smaller houses are in need of further study. Work on farm buildings should\nattempt to consider how they have been used, and their relationship to the\nfarmstead and wider landholding. The development of the farmstead c<\/em>.1750-1914, and the way buildings\nreflect changing agricultural practice, remains an important research\ntopic. Regionally based studies of\nbricks and brickwork, like the work of Ryan (1996) for Essex, would assist the\nanalysis of historic structures. Recording where necessary should be done\nearlier in the planning process, as a preliminary to applications so that it\ninforms the decisions eventually taken. It should take place prior to any\nstripping of fixtures and fittings. Recording briefs should provide for\nmonitoring once work has started. They should also be more precise about the\ndrawings required, specifying ground plans with a basic degree of\ninterpretation as a minimum. Special attention should be given to ensure\nrecording where appropriate of the largely unlisted post-1840 building stock,\nmore significant buildings being treated as undesignated heritage assets or\ngiven the protection of local listing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Work in towns would benefit from the existence of urban\ncharacterisation surveys. Changes\nthrough time in the built environment can reflect developments in the character\nand economy of towns. Seaside towns,\nports, wharves and structures associated with the marine economy, all need\nfurther study. High streets, in their\ncurrent depressed condition, are vulnerable to change and redevelopment, and\nshould be monitored for investigation and recording. Urban excavation should prioritise\npost-medieval deposits if in good condition: stripping down to earlier deposits\nis unacceptable in such circumstances. Excavation briefs should make it\nexplicit that post-medieval layers should not be machined off, unless it has\nbeen established that they are of little significance. This should be made\nclear in briefs issued to contractors. Opportunities for environmental sampling\nof post-medieval deposits should not be neglected, so as to better understand\nthe environment in this period. Urban archaeological databases should address\nthe problems of post-medieval archaeology and areas of potential research. Well preserved archaeological remains of 18th\nand 19th century housing are probably rare, and the opportunity to investigate\nthem should be taken, especially if artefact assemblages are also present. It\nis at the level of ordinary living standards and material culture that archaeology\ncan best contribute to the study of well documented periods. Artefacts that\nseem understudied, and which would benefit from regional overviews, are country\npottery, clay pipes, and glass. More resources should be put into the study of\nartefacts which are relatively neglected compared to other periods. Advantage should be taken of specialist\nknowledge in museums and local societies. From the 19th century, there is the\nopportunity to trace the success and distribution of branded goods. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The wider landscape requires acknowledgement as the context\nfor post-medieval settlement and industrial development, as well as farm\nbuildings. Conversely, the impact of\nsocial and economic change \u2013 religion, enclosure, poverty etc \u2013 on the\nlandscape should be taken into account. \nThe county surveys of historic landscapes need to be brought to\ncompletion and updated where necessary, and integrated into the planning\nprocess as valuable tools for their protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Research on defences and fortifications tends to be\nunbalanced in favour of the two world wars, and should take more consideration\nof the impact of the earlier Civil War, the Anglo-Dutch wars, and Napoleonic\nwars. The World War II surveys of Essex\nand the Suffolk coast, whilst requiring further synthesis, need to be extended\nto other parts of the region. Greater\nconsistency is required in recording World War II structures. The material\nculture of military sites is an aspect of them on which archaeology can\nuniquely provide information. Military sites which are being closed down or\nmothballed should be recommended for recording.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Introduction Post-medieval suggests an afterthought. It would be preferable to use the historians\u2019 terms, early modern and modern, for after all, this is a period for which the historical sources take over and the contribution of archaeology is reduced. For that reason, where the scope and scale of projects allow it, there would be mutual […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":565,"parent":27,"menu_order":10,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-10","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nUrban Archaeology<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Industries and Artefacts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Landscape<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Defence and Fortifications<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Recommendations<\/h2>\n\n\n\n