Medieval (c1066 – c1500)

Introduction

Students of London’s archaeology have access to an ever-increasing documentary, pictorial and surviving architectural record dating to after c 1000, in addition to the exceptional and world-class archaeological archive. This inevitably means that research into the changing character of the City and its region between c 1100 and 1500 must take into account these parallel sources of data. The boundaries between the ‘medieval’ and the ‘Saxon’ and ‘post-medieval’ periods are highly porous, and in some cultural aspects, entirely absent. However, the archaeological flavour of London’s culture between the Norman Conquest and the upheavals of the 16th century is distinctive enough for the divisions still to be useful in identifying research priorities.

The development of London’s urban core needs to be appreciated in order to understand how people throughout the region lived, worked, thought and died. However, if anything has changed in the last 25–30 years it is a growth in a holistic approach to the medieval archaeology of both core and periphery, City and countryside. Increasing understanding of how and when the components making up the City and its surroundings developed and expanded will permit comparison of evidence for concomitant changes in settlement patterns, land management, ecology, and other broad issues across the wider region. By combining knowledge of the lifestyles, religious beliefs and practices, and demography of medieval Londoners across the region with this broader analysis of the way London grew into its environment, a more coherent sense of the backdrop to London as a world city will be formed, a city whose influence extended far beyond the City walls.

M1 Framework objectives

M1.1: Understanding the nature and extent of urban development the social and economic relationshiip of the core to its region

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a000fe
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Greater london authority, Social organisation

M1.2: Comparing medieval London with other towns in Britain and on the Continent, charting the reasons for changes in perception and influence

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a019e4
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Greater london authority

M1.3: Targeting archaeological research which has potential to complement documentary knowledge

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a01fd0
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Documentary research, Greater london authority, Documentary evidence

Topography and landscapes

Much archaeological work waits to be done on the medieval landscape of the London region. The relationship between the drift geology, topography and hydrology of the region and the emerging pattern of rural settlement requires considerable synthetic work, not least to determine whether the apparent pattern of dense nucleated settlements in the north and west compared to more sparse scatters in the south and east are significant in this regard (AGL 2000, Map 11).

The medieval period included changing climatic conditions that have left traces in the archaeological record. From certainly the late 11th century through to the middle of the 13th century, documentary evidence, for example of viticulture in Fulham and enormous tidal floods in Lambeth, suggests relative warmth and rising water levels. Dated evidence in Southwark of extensive flooding and erosion in the 12th and 13th centuries, and settlement desertion in Wallington, Surrey in the early 14th century, may be related to climatic change during this period. A comprehensive synthesis of climatic change is needed before human responses in the region can be observed, and in due course the effect of those responses on the system.

The potential for synthesis of valuable environmental and ecological data from preserved soils such as marshland, ditches and riverine deposits is untapped. Indirect data from the ever-growing assemblage of excavated timbers, and direct data from very old woods such as at Lesnes, Kent, can be harnessed to shed light on changing landscape and woodland management practices.

Such changes will quite clearly have affected profoundly agriculture and food production, or river defence strategies, and therefore had effects upon living standards, health and demography, and on trading systems. Issues such as rates of deforestation, loss of navigability and/or pollution of waterways, ecological changes wrought through introduction of new species and increasing domination of farming for London’s needs can be addressed through the archaeological record. Tackling them requires primary data collection on a series of fronts through dendrochronology, sedimentology, survey, excavation and historical research.

M2 Framework objectives

M2.1: Understanding the influence of the environment on human habitation, and the impact of man on the environment

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a025b1
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Climate change, Greater london authority, Environmental change

M2.2: Understanding what London and its region looked like to its medieval inhabitants and visitors

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a02c04
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Greater london authority

M2.3: Developing baseline chronologies using multiple source materials

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a031fe
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Greater london authority

People

Demography and society

Employing archaeological evidence to reveal Londoners’ sense of personal identity is an aim that has certainly developed over the last quarter of a century. Such avenues of research were only very indirectly touched upon in archaeological assessments of London in the 1970s. Yet quite clearly, study of the private lives of Londoners leads back into the study of the city as a community.

One rich vein of research should be the characterisation of social status through the archaeological record. In some cases this can be seen directly in the patronage and investment of the wealthy and powerful in large-scale building projects. However, the character of discarded material in different areas of a settlement may also demonstrate significant variation which may shed light on the status of the occupants. Many of these questions have already been dealt with by historians, but archaeological evidence has the potential to add complementary detail to documentary sources. Such an approach might be applied to the study of resident immigrant and ethnic groups established within the City.

Estimates of the City population between 1100 and 1300 indicate a rise from c 25,000 to perhaps 60,000–80,000 (Keene 2000, 190–6). The population for the modern Greater London region at the time has not been similarly estimated. To date, some 15,000 human skeletons have been excavated from the region, spanning the whole period from 1100 to 1500. They form an assemblage with excellent potential to consider the population’s changing demography, health, and levels of personal hygiene. Analysis is ongoing for several samples from mainly urban religious houses (eg St Mary Spital and Merton Priory), but evidence from the wider region is very slender indeed.

Death was a central element of medieval life. Cemeteries were places for the living as much as the dead. There is still a very substantial amount of research to be done in the London region on burial grounds. To what degree were the sizes of the cemeteries possessed by monastic houses dictated by the growing urban population and overfilling of parish cemeteries? What archaeological evidence survives of ethnically distinct cemeteries such as the Jewish burial ground at Aldersgate or the Flemish burial ground in Southwark, or the functionally distinct cemetery around the Pardon Chapel in Clerkenwell where the Hospitallers buried felons (Barber and Thomas 2002, 12–13)? Interest in burial practice has grown over the last decade and the large sample sizes recovered from cemeteries in the City make population-based research possible (Thomas et al 1997). Similar assemblages from cemeteries outside the City, and from parish, nunnery and college cemeteries, are needed. Were different kinds of people buried in monastic cemeteries from those in parish cemeteries, or in different parts of the cemetery? What are the differences, if any, between burial practice in City cemeteries and in the surrounding region?

Assessing the response to chronic and acute diseases is also an important research priority. For example, we need to establish the prevalence of leprosy in London through examination of the specialist hospitals that ringed the City. The region’s response to plague can also be examined through the archaeology of the two Black Death cemeteries outside the City walls; the numbers of dead indicated by the excavations at St Mary Graces, East Smithfield, suggest that far fewer people were buried than has been supposed in the literature (Grainger et al in prep; Grainger and Phillpotts in prep). What does this indicate about London’s communal response to plague and about the plague itself?

M3 Framework objectives

M3.1: Using the archaeological record to address issues of social status and, with reference to interpretations based on documentary sources, develop models which underline the areas where archaeological and documentary research can complement each other

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a036fc
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Documentary research, Greater london authority, Documentary evidence, Social organisation

M3.2: Addressing regional variations in the health of the population over time, and considering parallels with modern societies in terms of ‘urban regeneration’ issues

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a03c21
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Health, Greater london authority

M3.3: Understanding the differences, if any, between burial practices in City and outlying cemeteries

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a0414c
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Burial, Medieval, Cemetery, Greater london authority

M3.4: Understanding how the archaeological record reflects the changing demography of the London region with respect to different ethnically and functionally distinct groups

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a049e2
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Ethnicity, Demography, Greater london authority

M3.5: Contributing through archaeological analysis to understanding the pathology of major diseases

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a04e72
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Pathology, Disease, Greater london authority
Archaeologists working within a square stone building
Fig 27 The late 11th- century parish church of St Benet Sherehog, Poultry

Religion and ideology

The evolution of religious ideology over the five centuries prior to the Reformation directly had an impact on places of worship, treatment of the dead, art and iconography. The London region contained an enormous collection of religious buildings (some 250 churches, over 30 religious houses, over 30 hospitals, 3 synagogues, and hundreds of private chapels (Knowles and Hancock 1971)). Of these, the larger monasteries are currently the best understood, and it is now possible to begin producing syntheses of their archaeology (Thomas et al 1997). The archaeology of the small and specialised religious establishments includes ‘alien’ cells (eg Ruislip), smaller hospitals (eg Kingsland) or double houses (eg Syon). The archaeology of the friaries of London (eg Austin friars (Watson 1994), Blackfriars and Greyfriars (AGL 2000, 214)) has not yet been considered in detail: it is the urban expression of monasticism and thus helps to describe the identity of Londoners. We need to know more about female monasticism in London in comparison with that in the predominantly male houses, and with the experiences of religious women in other British cities. We also need to examine the archaeology of medieval colleges in their context as corporate religious and charitable foundations.

Extremely rare discoveries include two 13th-century mikvaot, small sunken baths used by Jews to achieve purity before worship, both located within private houses in the London Jewry south of the Guildhall and the only ones known from England (Blair et al 2002). These finds should serve to remind us that there may be some potential for the identification of London’s medieval Jewish community, and other religious or ethnic minorities, through the study of their material culture.

St Paul’s cathedral and Westminster Abbey (the latter a World Heritage Site) form expressions of civic pride and royal power and patronage, and represent important steps in the study of European architecture. While both churches are the subject of much research, they are yet to be considered in the context of their environs (associated courts and closes). The parish churches of the London region are in contrast a vastly understudied archaeological resource. Only around 40% of the City’s churches (surviving and demolished) have been the subject of any archaeological investigation (Cohen 1994), and much of this has taken the form of partial recording and observation. We know very little about structural development and trends in church building.

Although some detailed church sequences are being published, such as that of St Benet Sherehog, excavated at 1 Poultry (Burch and Treveil in prep), more synthetic work is required. Assessing the order and rate of appearance of the churches will provide information about religious administration and the relationship between the City and the surrounding region. The sources of building stone, techniques and styles of stonemasonry and the chronology and range of forms of timber churches also merit more detailed investigation.

M4 Framework objectives

M4.1: Examining the London mendicant houses in light of the many (relatively recent) archaeological excavations that have taken place in their precincts. Were the houses that occupied the City of London vastly different from those of the much smaller cities and towns around the kingdom?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a05428
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Dwelling, Greater london authority

M4.2: Using archaeological data, standing building records and historical research to consider the female monastic experience in London, as part of the religious experience of half the City’s population

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a058a1
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Religious community, Religion, Greater london authority

M4.3: Attempting to identify religious and ethnic groups, such as the medieval Jewish community, through the study of their buildings and material culture, and comparing the archaeological and documentary evidence

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a064a5
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Documentary research, Religious community, Religion, Greater london authority, Documentary evidence

M4.4: Understanding the relative socio-economic roles of London’s cathedrals, and the parish churches of the region, as well as its smaller religious houses

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a06a22
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Religious community, Religion, Greater london authority

Development

Archaeological reconstruction of the form and development of the settlements of the region is a necessary base from which to consider the development and effect of urbanism in the wider region. We may start at the core where undoubtedly the archaeological evidence rivals that of any European city.

In the City in particular, knowledge of urban medieval housing and its development has advanced considerably, despite some concerns over the lack of potential (eg Biddle and Hudson 1973). A wealth of data remains to be tapped to inform on the range of house types, on the divisions of space in different types of housing, and on the nature and development of associated garden and yard spaces. An area worthy of study would be the function of the houses of the nobility and bishops as innovators and influences on lesser buildings. The range of large mansions along the Strand between the City and Westminster is a little-investigated group whose proximity to the river may have enhanced survival. Study of the structures and development of Westminster and Southwark are far less evolved. Two historical surveys (Rosser 1989; Carlin 1996) have done much to lay a framework for archaeological study, but the late Saxon origins of both settlements are very poorly understood. The development of Southwark in particular should be compared with that of similar riverine ‘suburbs’ at Bristol (Redcliffe) and York, considering how they became integrated with their larger neighbours.

Private housing should be examined in close connection with infrastructural elements of urbanism, such as administrative structures (civic halls, courts, prisons), communications (streets, bridges), water supply – both public and private, and waste management. Civic and administrative functions, for instance, include infrastructure and public works, and the capacity of each community to think and act corporately. There was also a military component to life, at least in the urban centre. This corporate capacity took a measurable material form which should be discernable in the archaeological record.

It may also be that London and its area reflected the interests, cultural and economic, of successive monarchs. The archaeology of Westminster, with the combination of private royal living and public governmental complex, demands far closer attention than it has generally received, since there is nothing like it anywhere else. Civic authority and identity were expressed in architecture and works of infrastructure in London and the other centres. To what extent did the civic works in the City indicate ambitions on a national as opposed to regional scale, and can this be detected in its material culture?

Tied closely to questions of the regional and national influence of London are considerations of the defences of the region and military matters. London’s three Norman castles (the Tower of London, Baynard’s Castle and Montfichet’s Tower) make it uniquely fortified. In what way were these castles designed to impact upon the local populace, and how did they relate to each other? There is a need to integrate the archaeology of the Tower and the walls in the medieval period with that of the City, especially its trading functions. What is the material evidence for successive defensive strategies for the City, or of the Thames, a major route leading into the heart of England? Why did Southwark not merit any defences?

Rural settlement types also need to be brought into this examination. Progress has been made on studying some of the manor houses (eg Carew Manor, Low Hall, Essex (Blair in prep)), but not enough evidence on form and development has been gathered to attempt comparisons and approach a regional synthesis. The moated manors, of which the region has dozens, were clearly expressions of status, but exactly how did this expression work, and on whom? How does the expression of status through the development of moats in the London region compare with other regions? The smaller scattered farmsteads are almost completely unknown, and exploration of their sites would be of great interest to act as a counterbalance to the wealthier established manor complexes.

Our understanding of the relationships between the towns in the London region is hampered by the paucity of published data. Archaeological interventions in the smaller town centres have been patchy at best, but examples which have produced good results are Uxbridge, Kingston, Croydon and Barking (AGL 2000, 213); none of these have yet been published in detail. These rank among the larger settlements within the London region at this date, and so perhaps might be expected to show clear archaeological indicators of relationships between core and periphery.

Evidence at Uxbridge of a planned town and the presence of a major river crossing at Kingston (Potter 1992) both suggest independent patronage and ambition. For the many small hamlets and villages in the region, extremely limited information has been gathered as yet and these cannot be integrated into an overview of medieval settlement development. This lack of synthesis stands in contrast with areas with less urban masking, which have attracted far greater field study.

The origins and spread of ribbon developments, particularly between the medieval urban centre and nearby nucleated settlements (eg Islington, Shoreditch, Newington and others) indicate the beginnings of a metropolis, but we have not yet been able to scrutinise this archaeologically. Once a synthesis of some basic regional data has been produced, the apparent dearth of large or middle-sized settlements in the London region can be explored with more confidence, and the pattern of nucleated versus dispersed settlements can be examined within the context of the emerging domination of the urban core. It will be important, though, to take account of the potential impact of major social catastrophes, such as the Black Death, in dictating changes in housing patterns.

M5 Framework objectives

M5.1: Investigating whether the Conquest can be identified in the archaeological record

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a06f70
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Greater london authority

M5.2: Working towards an understanding of the origins and development of government

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a073e8
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Greater london authority

M5.3: Analysing, both in terms of function and socio-economics, different types of housing, and the influence of the houses of nobility and bishops

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a07855
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
02/01/2002
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Greater london authority, Social organisation

M5.4: Understanding the relative and evolving character of development in Westminster, along the Strand between Westminster and the City, and Southwark, and comparison with other riverine settlements beyond London

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a07d2b
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Linear urban development, Greater london authority

M5.5: Considering the tension between private and civic enterprise, and the use and influence of power – by monarchs, governments and military authority – in urbanism and infrastructure

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a0830a
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Military, Greater london authority, Urban

M5.6: Addressing a regional understanding of rural development through synthesis and comparison with other regions

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a087e2
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Rural

M5.7: Studying the evidence for rural housing before 1400 and the impact of the Black Death

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a08cd1
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Disease, Greater london authority, Rural

M5.8: Creating baseline surveys of the form and development of settlements to enable the analysis of the emerging metropolis

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a09241
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Settlement, Medieval, Greater london authority

Economy – production, distribution and consumption

In recent years historians have made great strides in assembling an overview of what was happening to the countryside around the urban core of London (the City, Westminster and Southwark), in terms of agricultural production, woodland management and provision of grain and fuel (Campbell et al 1992; Campbell et al 1993). That overview should now be complemented by archaeological research.

The consequences for the breeding of domesticated animals appear to have been considerable, but no broad-based analysis of medieval consumption of meat-bearing animals has yet been undertaken, so the strategies employed for animal husbandry and their effects on the different species are not yet understood. The management of wild fauna (including fowl and fish) through deer parks, chases, warrens and fisheries, and the exploitation of the Thames estuary and seaboard for marine and migratory fish have all left their indirect (sometimes direct) marks in the archaeological record, but no syntheses of the data for the region have yet been attempted.

Medieval London was probably the single largest concentration of industrial production in England, with over 100 craft groups operating within the walls, and it should be expected that many will demonstrate a special archaeological trace. Several of these have been encountered, and include metalworking, bell-making, textile manufacture and horn preparation (Howe 2002; Burch and Treveil in prep), but many more (such as pewter making or embroidery) have not. Having identified the archaeological ‘signature’ of these crafts, craft quarters or neighbourhoods may be distinguishable, relating back to questions about settlement patterns and landscape. The roles of Southwark and Westminster are much less clearly understood than that of the City and need to be established. At a more general level, the importance of London’s industries to its growing pre- eminence needs to be established. Many products from London were considered on the Continent to be highly desirable and innovative. To what extent did this excellence result from the craftsmen’s location in the capital? Outside the core, we need to locate more sites of medieval industry.

Archaeomagnetic dating of pottery kilns and thus their products should increase our refinement of the typologies. Identifying the source of ‘Westminster’ type decorated floor tiles (Betts 2002) would be extremely helpful in examining the London tile manufacturing industry.

The essence of medieval London, as in the periods before and since, was its role in importing and exporting, and a substantial part of its professional and mercantile life was geared to that role. The dominance that London exerted over the region means that the patterns of distribution across and into the region have to be considered in this context. The archaeological resource comprises the structures and spaces where trade took place (aspects of this also fall within research about settlement forms), the methods of distribution (transportation, containers) and, of course, the items distributed.

There is a large body of documentary studies on London’s trade (particularly of the wool and wine trades), although quantitative documentary evidence for overseas trade only begins to appear in force during the 13th century (Miller and Hatcher 1995, 182–225). Historians suggest that by 1450 (and probably earlier) the North Sea was a coherent cultural and economic region. The contribution archaeology can make to our understanding of such a region is relatively new and undeveloped, although initial surveys of the data, principally covering the City, have recently been published (eg Cowie 1999). Important aspects of London’s trading patterns at a national and international level clearly had a marked effect on the manner and character of goods and materials traded. For example, the transfer in the 13th century of trade to London from the big regional fairs (such as Boston and Winchester), and the shifts in trading patterns attached to the fortunes of the German merchants from the 12th century, might both be expected to have marked effects on the quantity and range of materials passing through the London region. Fairs remained important in the London region, as evidenced by the 13th-century rise of the October fair at Westminster, which only declined in the later 14th century (C Thomas, pers comm).

Archaeologist wearing a hard hat and drawing on a clipboard, sat in front of a timber wall
Fig 28 Recording the timbers of a 13th century rowing galley reused as the lining for a fish pond at More London Bridge in Southwark

The rich evidence from the waterfront structures in the City continues to provide extensive and very tightly dated chronologies for the development of the City waterfront (Steedman et al 1992). To date very few waterfront sites from Southwark and Westminster have been published, although both will be at least partly addressed by existing projects (Seeley in prep; Thomas et al in prep). Clearly, if we are to understand the port as a whole we need to examine both banks together (Ayre and Wroe-Brown 2002). Archaeological evidence for other distributive structures such as shops and markets almost certainly exists both in the ground and in unpublished archaeological archives, but no serious treatment of the subject has yet been undertaken.

The unparalleled quality of dumps of material behind waterfront revetments from the City and Southwark (notwithstanding good data from York and Bristol) have bequeathed us the largest data set of medieval finds and waterfront structures anywhere in the country. From such data, we should be able to make detailed studies of London’s place in the national development of units of weight and measurement, quality control of products (eg cloth seals), technological development, patterns of consumption and the increased commercialisation of the economy, such as the appearance of tokens instead of coinage.

In terms of transport of goods archaeological evidence has not contributed a great deal to the documentary evidence for the mechanisms by which goods were carried into and through London – the development of riverine and sea-going vessels, the use of road transport and containers. Some evidence may be sought, however, in the reuse of ships’ timbers in waterfronts and in the reuse of barrels and other containers in cesspits, wells and storage pits in urban properties.

Computer generated image
Fig 29 The Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey superimposed on Thorney Island, which may have been a focus for development in the Roman and Saxon periods

There was a great diversity and quantity of goods flowing into the London region, especially into the City. Distribution networks ranged from local to international sources. While distribution patterns of particular forms of traded goods, such as pottery (eg south Hertfordshire grey wares, Surrey white wares, and others) are becoming well understood, there is a huge amount of work to do on other classes of material. How does the material culture of rural and smaller urban centres in the London region compare with and relate to that of the urban core? Trade in raw materials such as stone can be analysed through the architectural fragments retrieved in abundance from religious and palatial sites throughout the London region. Transport and trade in livestock and perishables should be examined, through the indirect evidence of consumption assemblages, to add the material evidence to the large body of historical data. Trade in all classes of luxury goods would repay examination, allowing the exploration of spatial distribution and change over time in sources, and complementing the historical record. Almost nothing has been done in this sphere as yet.

Archaeology’s greatest potential contribution can probably be made to the better understanding of patterns of consumption. Historical records seldom allow a view of the materials that are ‘consumed’ within individual buildings or establishments. Many good archaeological assemblages have already been excavated and can provide high-quality data on relative wealth, status and class. The potential for identifying patterns of trade and distribution, of changing fashions, and of innovations in design or technology seems high. In London, building particularly on the last twenty years of research into medieval artefacts, but also considering the untapped potential of faunal and botanical remains, we should begin to pose questions that are not approachable in other urban centres where smaller amounts of material have been excavated.

In addition to the wider study of traded goods, there is also an archaeology of the personal. The changing fashions of, for example, dress accessories or scabbards have been charted (Egan and Pritchard 1991; Cowgill et al 1987), but mostly on the basis of the objects themselves, divorced from the context in which they were used, and all the examples are from the City. Evidence of, for example, literacy, gender-related items, children’s toys or adults’ leisure activities can be securely linked to their dated contexts of deposition and placed within our growing awareness of the spaces inhabited by the people who owned them. This will contribute to an overall understanding of the way in which individuals fit into the community.

Two pots and a lid
Fig 30 Fifteenth-century pottery from the Baltic Exchange site: a coarse border ware cooking pot, Cheam white ware pipkin and coarse border ware lid

M6 Framework objectives

M6.1: Creating a regional synthesis of breeding programmes and wildlife management, and marine and riverine exploitation, to understand the strategies used and the consequential effects

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a096cc
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, River, Marine, Greater london authority

M6.2: Charting how and why different areas of London developed as specialist producers, and understanding the implications for London as a world city

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a09bb1
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Production, Greater london authority

M6.3: Using the archaeological record to challenge or augment inferences from documentary research on national and international trade and transport

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a0a0b8
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Transport, Transport, Documentary research, Trade, Greater london authority, Documentary evidence

M6.4: Understanding the social and economic implications of patterns of consumption across the City and region, and using the archaeological record to trace individual lives

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/rfla/researchframework/v1/question/question-620fab6a0a63f
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
Date of next review:
Found in the following Frameworks:
Research Framework for London Archaeology
Categories:
Medieval, Post medieval, Greater london authority

Leave a Reply