This Medieval\nUrban section of the Regional Research Framework presents a brief review of\ncurrent national agendas, followed by an exploration of recent projects in the\nregion that have contributed to understandings of medieval town life since the\nprevious review of the framework in 2008. It then highlights gaps in knowledge\nand presents areas of new research drawn from within and well beyond the\nregion. This is followed by an overview of current key themes that can shape\nfuture projects towards contributing to these research angles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The archaeological\nrecords of towns offer high densities of rich and diverse medieval deposits,\nstructures, objects and environmental evidence that are related to the dynamic\nand changing medieval urban experience, and to the broader role of urban\ncentres in economy, society and culture. Whilst Historic England\u2019s draft \u2018Research\nStrategy for the Urban Environment\u2019 (2010) should be a point of reference for\nurban projects, there is still as yet no national research agenda for Medieval\nUrban Archaeology (or Medieval – or Urban – Archaeology). However, existing\nresearch agendas for the East of England Region, which frame \u2018the town\u2019 as an\nultimate unit of analysis for interdisciplinary study, continue to provide a\nhighly relevant manifesto for the directions of urban research where each\nelement or site contributes to an understanding of the varied social, economic\nand cultural geographies of the whole through time (Ayers 1993; Wade 1993;\nAyers 1997; Ayers 2000). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shaped as it\nwas through engagement with urban research more widely, many of the themes in\nthe existing regional framework resonate with those drawn together in Grenville\nAstill\u2019s broad review paper for the 50th<\/sup> anniversary celebrations\nfor the Society for Medieval Archaeology (2009). This paper considered a number\nof strands: the impact of urban archaeology on identifying and understanding\nthe processes of urbanisation; the potential to appreciate nuances of urban\ngrowth, decline and changing distinctive character across and within\nsettlements; the scope for researching social and cultural development of urban\nsocieties through considerations of spatial patterns, space, buildings, and\nmaterial culture (urban mentalities as well as economic development); urban-rural relations; and the still present\nissue of a lack of archaeological evidence from small towns. In this regard,\nthe East of England Regional Research framework is highly reflective of\nnational themes, although two in particular raised by Astill are noted further\nbelow: the scope to think about impacts of pilgrimage on towns and networks of\ntowns, and exploring evidence for diversity in religious practice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Themes in the\nregional frameworks also resonate with a pan-European review published in 2011,\nwhich captured current areas of interest in medieval urban archaeology:\ndefinitions of \u2018what is a town?\u2019; broad chronologies in urbanisation with a\nre-emergence of town life in the 12th<\/sup>\/13th<\/sup> centuries, crisis in the 14th<\/sup> and 15th<\/sup> centuries,\nand impacts of reformation; sources and interdisciplinary study; town plan and\nstructure; towns and their hinterlands; urban houses; urban infrastructure; the\ntopography of craft and trade; urban sacred topography and public health\n(Andersson 2011, Scholkmann 2011). Further opportunity to reflect on research\nframeworks will come with the publication of the forthcoming \u2018Oxford\nHandbook of Later Medieval Archaeology in Britain\u2019<\/em> edited by Christopher\nGerrard and Alejandra Gutierrez, which will cover such topics as living in\ntowns, urban housing, shops, town and countryside and urban infrastructure,\nwith the brief for authors of individual chapters to present a national topic\noverview, and highlight research gaps and directions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The\npublication of the UAD for St Albans in 2005 (Niblett and Thompson 2005) has\nbeen followed by publication of the archaeological assessment for Colchester\n(Gascoyne and Radford 2013). The UAD for Cambridge is also complete and has\nbeen updated. Consideration is being given by Norfolk Historic Environment\nService to a thorough review of the unpublished Norwich UAD utilising in-house\nfunding but to date it has not been possible to initiate this proposal. More\npositively, a major re-cataloguing and summary of excavations undertaken\nbetween 1974 and 1990 in Ipswich has been undertaken and an archive and summary\ninformation is available online at the Archaeology Data Service\n(http:\/\/archaeologydataservice.ac.uk\/archives\/view\/ipswich_parent_2015\/),\nallied to a UAD programme for the borough. Funded by Historic England, this is\ndue for completion in Autumn 2017, with intentions to pursue options for\npublication, although the traditional form of research assessment and research\nagenda is unlikely. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Colchester aside, Niblett and Thompson\u2019s synthetic topographical account of the development\nof the medieval town and abbey of St Albans has not been replicated for any\nother major town in the region although an updated edition of \u2018Norwich:\nArchaeology of a Fine City\u2019<\/em> by Brian Ayers has been issued (2009). Two\npapers on the archaeological contribution to the understanding of the growth of\nmedieval Norwich have also been published (Ayers 2011 and Ayers 2015) and a\nsurvey of the churches of the medieval city is currently in train. This\ninterdisciplinary project, funded by the Leverhulme Trust, is exploring the\ninterdependent relationship between the city, its community, and church\narchitecture (Ayers et al 2017). Elsewhere, Abby Antrobus undertook a major\nstudy of Bury St Edmunds for a doctoral thesis (Antrobus 2009) and \u2018Late\nMedieval Ipswich: Trade and Industry\u2019<\/em> (Amor 2011) and \u2018Medieval Lowestoft<\/em>\u2019<\/em> have also\nbeen published (Butcher 2016). Both of these latter volumes, however, were\nprimarily reliant upon historical information rather than archaeological data. <\/p>\n\n\n\n No further EUS\nhas been compiled since the last revision of the Regional Research Framework in\n2008. However, monograph publications on Wisbech (Hinman and Popescu 2012) and\nKing\u2019s Lynn (Brown and Hardy 2011) enabled significant aspects of the urban\ntopography of these towns to be explored. The Wisbech evidence for occupation\nand flooding was noted in 2008 as being \u2018almost without parallel in terms of\nits completeness, depth and state of preservation\u2019, a claim borne out by the\npublication (Medlycott 2011, 63). Related to studies of smaller towns, detailed\nsurvey of historic buildings in Little Walsingham, Norfolk has been published\n(NHBG 2016). <\/p>\n\n\n\n In a further\nsuite of characterisation work, Cornwall Archaeology Unit on behalf of Historic\nEngland has undertaken a series of studies of North Sea port towns, in\nrecognition of schemes for renewal and regeneration. These studies present a\nhigh-level review of the built environment of each port, and identify key\nthreats and issues. In the eastern region, the project included Felixstowe,\nGreat Yarmouth, Harwich, Ipswich, King\u2019s Lynn, Lowestoft, and Wells-next-the-Sea.\nThe reports are available through the Archaeology Data Service\nhttp:\/\/archaeologydataservice.ac.uk\/archives\/view\/northsea_eh_2016\/index.cfm<\/p>\n\n\n\n The excavation\nin 2010-2012 of four hundred complete and partial in\nsitu<\/em> burials from\nthe Hospital of St. John the Evangelist, Cambridge, represents one of the\nlargest medieval hospital osteo-archaeological assemblages from the British\nIsles. The significance of the group is enhanced by the detailed investigation\nof a carefully maintained network of pathways associated with the cemetery, the\narchaeological sequence that pre- and post-dated its use, and a number of\ncontemporary properties that were situated immediately outside its bounds. This\nevidence allows the cemetery to be placed within its urban context in a way\nthat is rarely possible. The overwhelming majority of the burials were extended\nwest-east aligned supine inhumations without grave-goods. Atypical burials\nincluded examples aligned east-west and south-north, a double burial, a prone\nburial and individuals buried with a jet crucifix and a brooch. Other\nsignificant finds included a nearby pit with four bodies in it, an\nanthropomorphic bone handle and a reused cruciform horse harness pendant. The\nproportion of males and females in the burial population is similar, whilst\nindividuals who died under the age of sixteen are relatively uncommon and\nindividuals aged under five are completely absent (publication ref needed).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to\ndemographic studies, urban cemetery populations contribute to ongoing\npalaeo-health research \u2013 in 2009, publication of the graveyard of St Margaret\nFybriggate, Norwich, a church which was redundant in 1468, included six\nskeletons recorded with trepanomal disease (Stirland 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n In Ipswich,\nmajor excavation of the site of St Augustine\u2019s church and associated cemetery\nat Stoke Quay revealed over 1100 burials. \nThe church, lost for some 500 years, was located within one of the\npoorer areas of medieval Ipswich and \u2018the population must surely have included\na high proportion of \u2018men of the sea\u2019 as is suggested by the presence of reused\nboat timbers in many of the graves\u2019 (Brown et al forthcoming). The church was\nseen to develop in form from an apsidal to square ended chancel and was\nassociated with a possible priest\u2019s house. Analysis of the burials indicates\nthat the individuals represented a \u2018mobile and mixed population\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Further\nburials were recovered from an evaluation at Fore Street, Ipswich where the\ncemetery may represent that of a lost chapel at East Gate. Medieval dumping was\nseen in the intertidal zone ahead of construction of a building with flint and\nseptaria foundations, and a sequence of buildings was also identified (Suffolk\nHER IPS 639, excavated 2011). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Work in the\nreview period has contributed to understanding of Bury St Edmunds. Within the\nAbbey, the compilation of a Management Plan included topographic, geophysical\nand paleo-environmental surveys, followed by test-pitting (Suffolk HER BSE\n010). These works resulted in evidence for the former course of the River\nLinnet, with environmental history suggesting the existence of an open sedge\nfen prior to extension of part of the eastern side of the abbey precinct\ntowards the river. Elsewhere in Bury, evaluation within the pre-Conquest core\nof the town adjacent to the Records Office on Raingate Street revealed a\nsequence of deposits dating back to the 10th century, further demonstrating\nthat the best-preserved material survived in areas that had become gardens in\nthe 17th century (Suffolk HER BSE 375 and 6). Test pits in the vicinity of the\nearly 13th<\/sup> century Guildhall suggested that it had been built on a\nvirgin site in the 12th or 13th century (Suffolk HER BSE 446). Work at Eastgate\nStreet\/Minden Row added to understanding of suburban activity and development,\nwith evidence for the activities of tanners immediately downstream of the abbey\nprecinct (Suffolk HER BSE 329). At College Street, the excavation of a\n12th-century stone cellar suggested that it was possibly associated with\nCollege of Jesus (Martin and Plouviez 2013, 97). A further detached building,\npossibly a kitchen and potentially associated with religious artefacts, was\nuncovered recently during works at Guildhall Feoffment Primary School (Suffolk\nHER BSE 493). Another probable kitchen of 14th- to 16th-century date was\nrevealed on land to the rear of Thinghoe House, Northgate Street together with\nmasonry-lined cesspits and a stone-lined well. Excavations here also recorded\nmedieval quarrying of gravel on a massive scale in the 12th<\/sup>-14th<\/sup> centuries, likely illustrating the practicalities of monumental\nconstruction of the abbey (Suffolk HER BSE 378). At Peckham Street, a busy\nintramural site between the 12th and 16th centuries contained changing\nsequences of industry, with baking and drying ovens, steeping pits, querns,\nsunken tubs and troughs (these possibly for the storage of lime putty) and\nevidence of horn working (Brown, Martin and Plouviez 2012, 512). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Work has also\ntaken place in some of the smaller towns of Suffolk. At Clare, 12th-century\nsuburban occupation was uncovered (ref needed\nto PSIAH 43 pt 2, 271); in Lavenham at the Swan Hotel, furnaces probably\nassociated with the textile industry were found, together with a workshop at\nthe rear of the property dating to the 14th and 15th centuries (ref needed to PSIAH 43 pt 2, 282); in\nLowestoft, at both Compass Street and White Horse Street, late medieval buildings\nand assemblages were identified (ref needed to\nPSIAH 43 pt 2, 284); and in Stowmarket, monitoring revealed both tile\nand pottery kiln wasters as well as horn cores and metal-working (ref needed to PSIAH 43 pt 3, 468). At Dunwich\na community project demonstrated survival of medieval settlement in woods and\nroads adjacent to the lost medieval port (Suffolk HER DUN 137-140). Offshore,\ndiver surveys complemented cartographic and geophysical research to assist\nplotting of the extent of the medieval town and major buildings within it (Sear\net al 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Norfolk,\nthe most extensive work in Norwich in recent years took place in 2015 on the\nsite of the Augustinian Friary on King Street. Here it was observed that the\nfriars had cut back a steep slope to improve access and to extract spoil for\nlevelling of a riverine marshy area. A small tributary (or cockey) to the river\nwas culverted and vaulted over, safeguarding also a well which was lined with\nflint for the drawing of clean water (Ayers 2016, 56 and fig. 2.10). The\nfootings of the large choir of the friary church were exposed as well as\nelements of other claustral buildings. The work here complements that\nundertaken at the Franciscan and Carmelites friaries of Norwich (Emery 2007;\nClarke forthcoming). The publication of excavations at St Faith\u2019s Lane reveals\na cemetery with an unusual demographic profile which may relate to a known\nFranciscan School of international renown (Soden 2010). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Elsewhere\nwithin Norwich small-scale excavation at the cathedral uncovered evidence for\nearly medieval structures within the cloister, possibly associated with the\nlavatorium (Cattermole 2013, 574); survey recording was undertaken of the a\nD-shaped tower in the city wall, newly-exposed following demolition of an adjacent\nbuilding at Magpie Road (Cattermole 2014, 128); medieval structural remains\nwere located on King Street (Cattermole 2014, 127); and a 13th- to 14th-century\ncellar was excavated at St Giles Street (Gurney et al 2011, 271). <\/p>\n\n\n\n In King\u2019s Lynn only minor archaeological works have been\nundertaken. Elements of previously substantial structures were nevertheless\nobserved. Evidence for the line of the medieval defences was uncovered at\nLittleport Street (Cattermole 2013, 571) and masonry fragments associated with\nthe Carmelite friary as well as a putative medieval watercourse were located\nahead of road construction (Gurney et al 2011, 270). Part of the town wall of\nGreat Yarmouth, an arched embrasure and its associated arrow loop, has also\nbeen recorded (Cattermole 2014, 124 and plate 3). Structures, described as \u2018relatively\ninsubstantial\u2019 and dating to the 13th and 14th centuries, were seen in\nexcavation at Bridge Street, Thetford and probably functioned as workshops.\nThey were erected above riverside land reclamation that may have been\nassociated with revetments or wharves (Cattermole 2014, 129). <\/p>\n\n\n\n In Great\nYarmouth, excavation at Howard Street South uncovered deposits which suggested\nthat the laying out of the Rows in this part of the town post-dated the\nDissolution (the site was probably occupied before that by the Franciscan\nFriary) (Cattermole 2013, 571).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A major\npublication from Hertfordshire concerns the medieval pottery industry of the\nsmall town of Harlow. This assesses production sites and pottery types from an\nindustry that was centred around Potter Street from the 13th century onward\n(Davey and Walker 2009). Industrial activity has also been explored elsewhere\nin the county; at Bank Mill in Berkhamsted a forge linked with a medieval\nhospital was located (Herts HER 15578 and 30543); and at Brookers Yard, Hitchin\npits associated with kilns were recorded (Herts HER 18275). As at Clare in\nSuffolk, aforementioned, large pits uncovered in Berkhamstead seem to have been\nassociated with construction of the Norman castle (Herts HER 30110) while\nrubbish deposits in the borough aided medieval reclamation of the riverbank\n(Herts HER 31211). Excavation of a large water filled ditch also in\nBerkhamstead possibly demarcated the Norman town with an industrial area beyond\nit, with evidence for a later medieval plot boundary (Hertfordshire HER 16203).\nRemains of the lost priory church of St John in Hertford were excavated (Herts\nHER 18735) with burials enabling plotting of a lost medieval churchyard (Herts\nHER 18283). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although\npublication of medieval urban archaeological research improves, major lacunae\ncontinue to exist, despite notable initiatives such as the current backlog\nproject in Ipswich. The backlog on publication of projects in centres such as\nNorwich needs to be addressed as does the lack of research and synthesis in\nmany towns. The paucity of information concerning major towns such as Great\nYarmouth, for instance, seriously hampers the development of greater\nunderstanding of the medieval economy. In addition synthesis of urban research\nwithin the region remains poorly served. The cessation of work on UAD and EUS\nprojects is particularly unfortunate and has led to a lopsided research\nenvironment whereby certain locations, such as St Albans, are well-served while\nurban areas (e.g. King\u2019s Lynn) lack these 21st-century tools. Existing UAD and\nEUS surveys also now require revision and here the proposed work on the Norwich\nUAD needs to be supported. Integration with HERs is crucial. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Towns clearly\nexist within a wider context and there is growing evidence of an increasing\ncommitment to improving awareness and understanding of the pre-urban\nenvironment and the manner in which this influenced urban development (e.g.\nAyers 2014a). Several projects have sought and\/or recorded examples of\nlandscape adaptation for urban development (e.g. Spoerry et al 2008 noting the\nimprovement of waterways or lodes to assist the trade of Ely). However more\ncould be done on exploration of systemic landscape change, as was effected for\nAmsterdam in the Netherlands (see Abrahams and Kosian 2013). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Developments\nin the understanding of the relationships of towns to their hinterlands have\nalso been made on the continent in recent years at places such as Deventer in\nthe Netherlands. Here linkage of archaeological research to both night-soil\nevidence and to rural resources utilised within the urban area has led to a\nmore broad-based awareness of the medieval economy (as examples – Spitzers\n2004; Bartels 2006). The adoption of such research initiatives within the East\nof England, particularly within the hinterland of smaller towns, many of which\nmay be threatened by increasing development for housing in the next decade,\nwould be beneficial, and could draw in a wealth of data from the Portable\nAntiquities scheme. New research projects also need specifically to consider\nthe potential of surburban sites (as raised in previous research agendas) with\ndividends in doing so demonstrated, for example, in the 15th<\/sup>-century\nbrick kiln site excavated at Clare and an (albeit post-medieval) tenter frame\nat Glemsford (Suffolk HER CLA 061 and GFD 044). In Astill\u2019s 2009 review, a\nnational flag was that small towns are still under-investigated and understood\n(2009, 257). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Resource\nacquisition for urban construction, sustainable food provision and industrial\nactivity has been explored tangentially through excavation specialist reports\nbut synthetic consideration remains rare. The prodigious quantities of timber\nrequired in medieval urban buildings for instance has led to the 13th century\nin the Netherlands being termed ‘de houten eeuw\u2019 or the wooden century (Haneca et al 2009). Importation of Baltic\ntimber is increasingly known from urban buildings in the region but a synthetic\nstudy utilising a combination of dendro-provenancing, dendrochronology and\ndocumentary research would have a positive impact upon understanding of\ncommercial relationships, most of which were controlled through towns.\nFurthermore, the introduction of brick as a medieval building material remains\nproblematic in an English context. The proximity of the region to continental\nEurope where the urban centres of the Low Countries and Germany retain numerous\nvisible examples of early brick construction ensures that this too is a focal\npoint for research, as has been demonstrated by the work of Andrews in Essex\n(2008). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The\ninter-relationship of rural estates with urban institutions, increasingly\nexplored through documentary research (e.g. Slavin 2012 for Norwich), has\nconsiderable potential for increasing understanding of urban\/rural dynamics.\nThe requirement of urban centres for large quantities of protein has been\ndramatically illustrated in recent years by the innovatory work on the\nprovision of fish resources by Barrett and his colleagues, much of their\nresearch utilising urban assemblages (Barrett et al 2008; Barrett and Orton\n2016). Future policies of acquisition (and disposal) of archaeozoological and\narchaeobotanical material from urban sites require close liaison with emerging\nscientific analytical techniques. Comparative analysis of urban faunal\nassemblages across the\nregion has potential; as an example, work in the neighbouring Swedish towns of\nLund and Malm\u00f6 has shown that locally-based resources were exploited from the\n11th century onward in Lund, assisted by an open form of urban settlement,\nwhereas Malmo\u0308 appears primarily to have relied upon imported\nfoodstuffs, often salted and dried (Ayers 2016, 89).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Work on the\ndemographics and health of urban populations continues to make advances\nalthough mostly through analysis of cemetery assemblages from larger towns\n(e.g. Loe forthcoming). Comparative evidence from the smaller towns of the\nregion would be welcome. Material which also assisted investigation of key\ndemographic research areas, such as migration, infant and child mortality,\nlongevity, and pandemics remains important. \nThere is an increasing applicability here of scientific investigative\ntechniques such as isotopic and DNA analysis (Pringle 2007) which should be\nencouraged. Concerning plague and pandemic research, urban cemeteries remain\nthe most likely locations for securely-dated assemblages, as has been\ndemonstrated recently by results from London and Eindhoven (De Witte 2014). <\/p>\n\n\n\n An emphasis\nupon gender and gender roles has the potential for a broader understanding of\nsocietal dynamics, as in the case of the differences in urban male and female\nskeletal development noted recently by Kowaleski (2014, 593-4). Minority groups\nmay also be identifiable within towns; an excavated skeletal assemblage from\nNorwich appears, from preliminary evidence, to suggest that it comprised\nmembers of the medieval Jewish population (Emery 2010). There are still three\nunstudied friary populations from Ipswich, excavated largely prior to 1990,\nwhich, along with other assemblages in the region not studied in recent times,\nform large datasets for exploring these themes. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The formation\nof towns, including identification and chronology of ‘organic’ and ‘planned’\nareas, requires consideration within an awareness of theoretical developments\nas exemplified by Lilley when discussing Pleshey in Essex (Lilley 1999).\nLilley’s work seeks to explore ‘a wider understanding of the intimate dialectic\nbetween urban space and medieval society’, investigating the urban mentalities\nbehind the creation of urban space. Much of his work examines small towns and\nextending his technique to the larger urban entities of the region could prove\ninstructive. Similarly, an approach which explored ‘mentalities’ might well be\nbeneficial when considering the end of the medieval period, the impact of\nProtestantism having been observed as often most clearly evident amongst\nmercantile and urban groups (as an example, Giles has written on the\narchaeology of corporate charity – Giles 2003). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Institutions\nwithin towns, their impact, both positive and negative upon the urban\nlandscape, interaction between such institutions and community resources, and\ntheir economic contribution to the growth of urban society can all be\nconsidered from archaeological evidence. The importance of industries such as\nthose of bell-founding, glass-making and vellum manufacture to the wider region\nfrom ecclesiastical centres such as Norwich and Bury St Edmunds can be assessed\nas can influence from outside, notably the continent, which frequently entered\nthe east of England through urban centres (e.g. King 2013). Insitutions also\ncovers influences of aristocratic households. <\/p>\n\n\n\nReview of period summary from the 2008 Regional Research Framework<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Urban Archaeological Databases (UAD),Extensive Urban Databases (EUS), analysis of urban growth and associated publications <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Recent work in urban centres<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
New research<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n