L1.01: Instigating corroborative research with other historic disciplines to elucidate a framework for future research <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d3755<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nSomething went wrong. Nothing recieved from the server\n\n\nDevelopment<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nLondon\u2019s inexorable growth over the last 500 years is well known. The population of Greater London rose from an estimated 120,000 in 1550 (after Finlay and Shearer 1986, 49) to just over a million in 1801 (Beier and Finlay 1986). Much of this growth remains to be understood, particularly the changing relationships between the expanding City, the countryside and the towns. The effects of this expansion on the surrounding towns, villages and rural areas, and even beyond, can be traced in the archaeological record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/29\/2021\/12\/fig-31-1-1024x1024.jpg\")
Fig 31 An elaborate<\/em> 17th-century jug imported from the Rhineland, decorated with \u2018peacock eyes\u2019 and \u2018lion masks\u2019<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nDuring the 17th century the central conurbation was divided into three distinctive areas: Westminster \u2013 a political and social area; the City and Fleet Street \u2013 a commercial, financial and legal district and the East End \u2013 associated particularly with trade and industrial activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The effects of the expansion of London into the surrounding region can be traced in the surviving domestic architecture, with what remains of original internal fittings, and in the archaeological evidence for different classes of buildings, methods of construction and building materials across the social spectrum (Schofield 1995). The daily life of Londoners from the wealthiest landholder to the poorest city dweller can be elucidated by the study of artefact assemblages in conjunction with documentary records. Much work on vernacular architecture has been carried out in the last 40 years, but our knowledge of the structure of timber-framed and early brick buildings in the London region would benefit greatly from archaeological analysis. Away from the growing urban centre, a survey of farm buildings is needed to highlight developments in agricultural practice. Within the densely occupied City, the effect of the Great Fire of 1666 on house types and their internal arrangements is in need of reassessment. More standing building recording of domestic buildings, including those of the 19th century, is required: lower status building types have tended to be neglected and are under-recorded. For all parts of the period up to 1900, large closed assemblages (eg from cesspits and wells) have considerable potential to demonstrate the range and variety of household goods discarded across the London region, with a particular emphasis on pottery, glass and clay tobacco pipes as the most common types of artefacts recovered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The surroundings of a great house or a royal palace, its gardens, park and use of water, were of importance in displaying the wealth and status of its inhabitants while maintaining the physical separation between the house and the outside world. The study of soil profiles may identify garden areas in urban environments, while chemical analysis of soils may establish the use of different areas of gardens; for example, high phosphate concentrations may imply heavily manured soils, suggesting horticultural and arboricultural practices. In association with documentary evidence, surviving garden plans and archaeological techniques such as resistivity or ground- penetrating radar and environmental evidence can be used to define the layout and features of gardens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Royal palaces have been excavated across the London region, from Greenwich to Nonsuch. These served not only as residences but also as centres of court life, with the palace at Whitehall effectively functioning as the focus of national government from 1530 until its destruction in 1698 (Thurley 1999). At the same time, separate functions of government and administration were increasingly being housed in purpose-made buildings. The development of specialist local and central government buildings throughout this period is a topic of interest for the history of government, the civil service and the rise of London as an imperial capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The daily life of the capital and its environs was maintained by an elaborate infrastructure which can be seen in the systems and services which developed to meet its ever-growing demands. Both survey and excavation can complement the documentary sources concerning public and civic buildings (including town halls, hospitals, almshouses, prisons, schools and workhouses), markets, transport, water supply, waste disposal, communications, and other services such as gas and electricity. The archaeological record has the potential to reveal the implications of civic works at a local and even at an individual level. Similarly, the impact of canals and railways on supply and production in the region is a fertile topic for research, while a comparative study of coaching inns, an integral part of the nation\u2019s transport network, is much needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L2 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL2.01: Identifying the changes in house design and construction during the period, and considering what social and economic origins and effects these changes had on urban life <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d457f<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d3755<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nSomething went wrong. Nothing recieved from the server\n\n\nDevelopment<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nLondon\u2019s inexorable growth over the last 500 years is well known. The population of Greater London rose from an estimated 120,000 in 1550 (after Finlay and Shearer 1986, 49) to just over a million in 1801 (Beier and Finlay 1986). Much of this growth remains to be understood, particularly the changing relationships between the expanding City, the countryside and the towns. The effects of this expansion on the surrounding towns, villages and rural areas, and even beyond, can be traced in the archaeological record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fig 31 An elaborate<\/em> 17th-century jug imported from the Rhineland, decorated with \u2018peacock eyes\u2019 and \u2018lion masks\u2019<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nDuring the 17th century the central conurbation was divided into three distinctive areas: Westminster \u2013 a political and social area; the City and Fleet Street \u2013 a commercial, financial and legal district and the East End \u2013 associated particularly with trade and industrial activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The effects of the expansion of London into the surrounding region can be traced in the surviving domestic architecture, with what remains of original internal fittings, and in the archaeological evidence for different classes of buildings, methods of construction and building materials across the social spectrum (Schofield 1995). The daily life of Londoners from the wealthiest landholder to the poorest city dweller can be elucidated by the study of artefact assemblages in conjunction with documentary records. Much work on vernacular architecture has been carried out in the last 40 years, but our knowledge of the structure of timber-framed and early brick buildings in the London region would benefit greatly from archaeological analysis. Away from the growing urban centre, a survey of farm buildings is needed to highlight developments in agricultural practice. Within the densely occupied City, the effect of the Great Fire of 1666 on house types and their internal arrangements is in need of reassessment. More standing building recording of domestic buildings, including those of the 19th century, is required: lower status building types have tended to be neglected and are under-recorded. For all parts of the period up to 1900, large closed assemblages (eg from cesspits and wells) have considerable potential to demonstrate the range and variety of household goods discarded across the London region, with a particular emphasis on pottery, glass and clay tobacco pipes as the most common types of artefacts recovered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The surroundings of a great house or a royal palace, its gardens, park and use of water, were of importance in displaying the wealth and status of its inhabitants while maintaining the physical separation between the house and the outside world. The study of soil profiles may identify garden areas in urban environments, while chemical analysis of soils may establish the use of different areas of gardens; for example, high phosphate concentrations may imply heavily manured soils, suggesting horticultural and arboricultural practices. In association with documentary evidence, surviving garden plans and archaeological techniques such as resistivity or ground- penetrating radar and environmental evidence can be used to define the layout and features of gardens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Royal palaces have been excavated across the London region, from Greenwich to Nonsuch. These served not only as residences but also as centres of court life, with the palace at Whitehall effectively functioning as the focus of national government from 1530 until its destruction in 1698 (Thurley 1999). At the same time, separate functions of government and administration were increasingly being housed in purpose-made buildings. The development of specialist local and central government buildings throughout this period is a topic of interest for the history of government, the civil service and the rise of London as an imperial capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The daily life of the capital and its environs was maintained by an elaborate infrastructure which can be seen in the systems and services which developed to meet its ever-growing demands. Both survey and excavation can complement the documentary sources concerning public and civic buildings (including town halls, hospitals, almshouses, prisons, schools and workhouses), markets, transport, water supply, waste disposal, communications, and other services such as gas and electricity. The archaeological record has the potential to reveal the implications of civic works at a local and even at an individual level. Similarly, the impact of canals and railways on supply and production in the region is a fertile topic for research, while a comparative study of coaching inns, an integral part of the nation\u2019s transport network, is much needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L2 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL2.01: Identifying the changes in house design and construction during the period, and considering what social and economic origins and effects these changes had on urban life <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d457f<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d3755<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nSomething went wrong. Nothing recieved from the server\n\n\nDevelopment<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nLondon\u2019s inexorable growth over the last 500 years is well known. The population of Greater London rose from an estimated 120,000 in 1550 (after Finlay and Shearer 1986, 49) to just over a million in 1801 (Beier and Finlay 1986). Much of this growth remains to be understood, particularly the changing relationships between the expanding City, the countryside and the towns. The effects of this expansion on the surrounding towns, villages and rural areas, and even beyond, can be traced in the archaeological record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fig 31 An elaborate<\/em> 17th-century jug imported from the Rhineland, decorated with \u2018peacock eyes\u2019 and \u2018lion masks\u2019<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nDuring the 17th century the central conurbation was divided into three distinctive areas: Westminster \u2013 a political and social area; the City and Fleet Street \u2013 a commercial, financial and legal district and the East End \u2013 associated particularly with trade and industrial activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The effects of the expansion of London into the surrounding region can be traced in the surviving domestic architecture, with what remains of original internal fittings, and in the archaeological evidence for different classes of buildings, methods of construction and building materials across the social spectrum (Schofield 1995). The daily life of Londoners from the wealthiest landholder to the poorest city dweller can be elucidated by the study of artefact assemblages in conjunction with documentary records. Much work on vernacular architecture has been carried out in the last 40 years, but our knowledge of the structure of timber-framed and early brick buildings in the London region would benefit greatly from archaeological analysis. Away from the growing urban centre, a survey of farm buildings is needed to highlight developments in agricultural practice. Within the densely occupied City, the effect of the Great Fire of 1666 on house types and their internal arrangements is in need of reassessment. More standing building recording of domestic buildings, including those of the 19th century, is required: lower status building types have tended to be neglected and are under-recorded. For all parts of the period up to 1900, large closed assemblages (eg from cesspits and wells) have considerable potential to demonstrate the range and variety of household goods discarded across the London region, with a particular emphasis on pottery, glass and clay tobacco pipes as the most common types of artefacts recovered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The surroundings of a great house or a royal palace, its gardens, park and use of water, were of importance in displaying the wealth and status of its inhabitants while maintaining the physical separation between the house and the outside world. The study of soil profiles may identify garden areas in urban environments, while chemical analysis of soils may establish the use of different areas of gardens; for example, high phosphate concentrations may imply heavily manured soils, suggesting horticultural and arboricultural practices. In association with documentary evidence, surviving garden plans and archaeological techniques such as resistivity or ground- penetrating radar and environmental evidence can be used to define the layout and features of gardens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Royal palaces have been excavated across the London region, from Greenwich to Nonsuch. These served not only as residences but also as centres of court life, with the palace at Whitehall effectively functioning as the focus of national government from 1530 until its destruction in 1698 (Thurley 1999). At the same time, separate functions of government and administration were increasingly being housed in purpose-made buildings. The development of specialist local and central government buildings throughout this period is a topic of interest for the history of government, the civil service and the rise of London as an imperial capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The daily life of the capital and its environs was maintained by an elaborate infrastructure which can be seen in the systems and services which developed to meet its ever-growing demands. Both survey and excavation can complement the documentary sources concerning public and civic buildings (including town halls, hospitals, almshouses, prisons, schools and workhouses), markets, transport, water supply, waste disposal, communications, and other services such as gas and electricity. The archaeological record has the potential to reveal the implications of civic works at a local and even at an individual level. Similarly, the impact of canals and railways on supply and production in the region is a fertile topic for research, while a comparative study of coaching inns, an integral part of the nation\u2019s transport network, is much needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L2 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL2.01: Identifying the changes in house design and construction during the period, and considering what social and economic origins and effects these changes had on urban life <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d457f<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nSomething went wrong. Nothing recieved from the server\n\n\nDevelopment<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nLondon\u2019s inexorable growth over the last 500 years is well known. The population of Greater London rose from an estimated 120,000 in 1550 (after Finlay and Shearer 1986, 49) to just over a million in 1801 (Beier and Finlay 1986). Much of this growth remains to be understood, particularly the changing relationships between the expanding City, the countryside and the towns. The effects of this expansion on the surrounding towns, villages and rural areas, and even beyond, can be traced in the archaeological record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fig 31 An elaborate<\/em> 17th-century jug imported from the Rhineland, decorated with \u2018peacock eyes\u2019 and \u2018lion masks\u2019<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nDuring the 17th century the central conurbation was divided into three distinctive areas: Westminster \u2013 a political and social area; the City and Fleet Street \u2013 a commercial, financial and legal district and the East End \u2013 associated particularly with trade and industrial activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The effects of the expansion of London into the surrounding region can be traced in the surviving domestic architecture, with what remains of original internal fittings, and in the archaeological evidence for different classes of buildings, methods of construction and building materials across the social spectrum (Schofield 1995). The daily life of Londoners from the wealthiest landholder to the poorest city dweller can be elucidated by the study of artefact assemblages in conjunction with documentary records. Much work on vernacular architecture has been carried out in the last 40 years, but our knowledge of the structure of timber-framed and early brick buildings in the London region would benefit greatly from archaeological analysis. Away from the growing urban centre, a survey of farm buildings is needed to highlight developments in agricultural practice. Within the densely occupied City, the effect of the Great Fire of 1666 on house types and their internal arrangements is in need of reassessment. More standing building recording of domestic buildings, including those of the 19th century, is required: lower status building types have tended to be neglected and are under-recorded. For all parts of the period up to 1900, large closed assemblages (eg from cesspits and wells) have considerable potential to demonstrate the range and variety of household goods discarded across the London region, with a particular emphasis on pottery, glass and clay tobacco pipes as the most common types of artefacts recovered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The surroundings of a great house or a royal palace, its gardens, park and use of water, were of importance in displaying the wealth and status of its inhabitants while maintaining the physical separation between the house and the outside world. The study of soil profiles may identify garden areas in urban environments, while chemical analysis of soils may establish the use of different areas of gardens; for example, high phosphate concentrations may imply heavily manured soils, suggesting horticultural and arboricultural practices. In association with documentary evidence, surviving garden plans and archaeological techniques such as resistivity or ground- penetrating radar and environmental evidence can be used to define the layout and features of gardens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Royal palaces have been excavated across the London region, from Greenwich to Nonsuch. These served not only as residences but also as centres of court life, with the palace at Whitehall effectively functioning as the focus of national government from 1530 until its destruction in 1698 (Thurley 1999). At the same time, separate functions of government and administration were increasingly being housed in purpose-made buildings. The development of specialist local and central government buildings throughout this period is a topic of interest for the history of government, the civil service and the rise of London as an imperial capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The daily life of the capital and its environs was maintained by an elaborate infrastructure which can be seen in the systems and services which developed to meet its ever-growing demands. Both survey and excavation can complement the documentary sources concerning public and civic buildings (including town halls, hospitals, almshouses, prisons, schools and workhouses), markets, transport, water supply, waste disposal, communications, and other services such as gas and electricity. The archaeological record has the potential to reveal the implications of civic works at a local and even at an individual level. Similarly, the impact of canals and railways on supply and production in the region is a fertile topic for research, while a comparative study of coaching inns, an integral part of the nation\u2019s transport network, is much needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L2 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL2.01: Identifying the changes in house design and construction during the period, and considering what social and economic origins and effects these changes had on urban life <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d457f<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nSomething went wrong. Nothing recieved from the server\n\n\nDevelopment<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nLondon\u2019s inexorable growth over the last 500 years is well known. The population of Greater London rose from an estimated 120,000 in 1550 (after Finlay and Shearer 1986, 49) to just over a million in 1801 (Beier and Finlay 1986). Much of this growth remains to be understood, particularly the changing relationships between the expanding City, the countryside and the towns. The effects of this expansion on the surrounding towns, villages and rural areas, and even beyond, can be traced in the archaeological record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fig 31 An elaborate<\/em> 17th-century jug imported from the Rhineland, decorated with \u2018peacock eyes\u2019 and \u2018lion masks\u2019<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nDuring the 17th century the central conurbation was divided into three distinctive areas: Westminster \u2013 a political and social area; the City and Fleet Street \u2013 a commercial, financial and legal district and the East End \u2013 associated particularly with trade and industrial activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The effects of the expansion of London into the surrounding region can be traced in the surviving domestic architecture, with what remains of original internal fittings, and in the archaeological evidence for different classes of buildings, methods of construction and building materials across the social spectrum (Schofield 1995). The daily life of Londoners from the wealthiest landholder to the poorest city dweller can be elucidated by the study of artefact assemblages in conjunction with documentary records. Much work on vernacular architecture has been carried out in the last 40 years, but our knowledge of the structure of timber-framed and early brick buildings in the London region would benefit greatly from archaeological analysis. Away from the growing urban centre, a survey of farm buildings is needed to highlight developments in agricultural practice. Within the densely occupied City, the effect of the Great Fire of 1666 on house types and their internal arrangements is in need of reassessment. More standing building recording of domestic buildings, including those of the 19th century, is required: lower status building types have tended to be neglected and are under-recorded. For all parts of the period up to 1900, large closed assemblages (eg from cesspits and wells) have considerable potential to demonstrate the range and variety of household goods discarded across the London region, with a particular emphasis on pottery, glass and clay tobacco pipes as the most common types of artefacts recovered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The surroundings of a great house or a royal palace, its gardens, park and use of water, were of importance in displaying the wealth and status of its inhabitants while maintaining the physical separation between the house and the outside world. The study of soil profiles may identify garden areas in urban environments, while chemical analysis of soils may establish the use of different areas of gardens; for example, high phosphate concentrations may imply heavily manured soils, suggesting horticultural and arboricultural practices. In association with documentary evidence, surviving garden plans and archaeological techniques such as resistivity or ground- penetrating radar and environmental evidence can be used to define the layout and features of gardens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Royal palaces have been excavated across the London region, from Greenwich to Nonsuch. These served not only as residences but also as centres of court life, with the palace at Whitehall effectively functioning as the focus of national government from 1530 until its destruction in 1698 (Thurley 1999). At the same time, separate functions of government and administration were increasingly being housed in purpose-made buildings. The development of specialist local and central government buildings throughout this period is a topic of interest for the history of government, the civil service and the rise of London as an imperial capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The daily life of the capital and its environs was maintained by an elaborate infrastructure which can be seen in the systems and services which developed to meet its ever-growing demands. Both survey and excavation can complement the documentary sources concerning public and civic buildings (including town halls, hospitals, almshouses, prisons, schools and workhouses), markets, transport, water supply, waste disposal, communications, and other services such as gas and electricity. The archaeological record has the potential to reveal the implications of civic works at a local and even at an individual level. Similarly, the impact of canals and railways on supply and production in the region is a fertile topic for research, while a comparative study of coaching inns, an integral part of the nation\u2019s transport network, is much needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L2 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL2.01: Identifying the changes in house design and construction during the period, and considering what social and economic origins and effects these changes had on urban life <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d457f<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nSomething went wrong. Nothing recieved from the server\n\n\nDevelopment<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nLondon\u2019s inexorable growth over the last 500 years is well known. The population of Greater London rose from an estimated 120,000 in 1550 (after Finlay and Shearer 1986, 49) to just over a million in 1801 (Beier and Finlay 1986). Much of this growth remains to be understood, particularly the changing relationships between the expanding City, the countryside and the towns. The effects of this expansion on the surrounding towns, villages and rural areas, and even beyond, can be traced in the archaeological record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fig 31 An elaborate<\/em> 17th-century jug imported from the Rhineland, decorated with \u2018peacock eyes\u2019 and \u2018lion masks\u2019<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nDuring the 17th century the central conurbation was divided into three distinctive areas: Westminster \u2013 a political and social area; the City and Fleet Street \u2013 a commercial, financial and legal district and the East End \u2013 associated particularly with trade and industrial activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The effects of the expansion of London into the surrounding region can be traced in the surviving domestic architecture, with what remains of original internal fittings, and in the archaeological evidence for different classes of buildings, methods of construction and building materials across the social spectrum (Schofield 1995). The daily life of Londoners from the wealthiest landholder to the poorest city dweller can be elucidated by the study of artefact assemblages in conjunction with documentary records. Much work on vernacular architecture has been carried out in the last 40 years, but our knowledge of the structure of timber-framed and early brick buildings in the London region would benefit greatly from archaeological analysis. Away from the growing urban centre, a survey of farm buildings is needed to highlight developments in agricultural practice. Within the densely occupied City, the effect of the Great Fire of 1666 on house types and their internal arrangements is in need of reassessment. More standing building recording of domestic buildings, including those of the 19th century, is required: lower status building types have tended to be neglected and are under-recorded. For all parts of the period up to 1900, large closed assemblages (eg from cesspits and wells) have considerable potential to demonstrate the range and variety of household goods discarded across the London region, with a particular emphasis on pottery, glass and clay tobacco pipes as the most common types of artefacts recovered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The surroundings of a great house or a royal palace, its gardens, park and use of water, were of importance in displaying the wealth and status of its inhabitants while maintaining the physical separation between the house and the outside world. The study of soil profiles may identify garden areas in urban environments, while chemical analysis of soils may establish the use of different areas of gardens; for example, high phosphate concentrations may imply heavily manured soils, suggesting horticultural and arboricultural practices. In association with documentary evidence, surviving garden plans and archaeological techniques such as resistivity or ground- penetrating radar and environmental evidence can be used to define the layout and features of gardens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Royal palaces have been excavated across the London region, from Greenwich to Nonsuch. These served not only as residences but also as centres of court life, with the palace at Whitehall effectively functioning as the focus of national government from 1530 until its destruction in 1698 (Thurley 1999). At the same time, separate functions of government and administration were increasingly being housed in purpose-made buildings. The development of specialist local and central government buildings throughout this period is a topic of interest for the history of government, the civil service and the rise of London as an imperial capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The daily life of the capital and its environs was maintained by an elaborate infrastructure which can be seen in the systems and services which developed to meet its ever-growing demands. Both survey and excavation can complement the documentary sources concerning public and civic buildings (including town halls, hospitals, almshouses, prisons, schools and workhouses), markets, transport, water supply, waste disposal, communications, and other services such as gas and electricity. The archaeological record has the potential to reveal the implications of civic works at a local and even at an individual level. Similarly, the impact of canals and railways on supply and production in the region is a fertile topic for research, while a comparative study of coaching inns, an integral part of the nation\u2019s transport network, is much needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L2 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL2.01: Identifying the changes in house design and construction during the period, and considering what social and economic origins and effects these changes had on urban life <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d457f<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Development<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nLondon\u2019s inexorable growth over the last 500 years is well known. The population of Greater London rose from an estimated 120,000 in 1550 (after Finlay and Shearer 1986, 49) to just over a million in 1801 (Beier and Finlay 1986). Much of this growth remains to be understood, particularly the changing relationships between the expanding City, the countryside and the towns. The effects of this expansion on the surrounding towns, villages and rural areas, and even beyond, can be traced in the archaeological record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fig 31 An elaborate<\/em> 17th-century jug imported from the Rhineland, decorated with \u2018peacock eyes\u2019 and \u2018lion masks\u2019<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nDuring the 17th century the central conurbation was divided into three distinctive areas: Westminster \u2013 a political and social area; the City and Fleet Street \u2013 a commercial, financial and legal district and the East End \u2013 associated particularly with trade and industrial activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The effects of the expansion of London into the surrounding region can be traced in the surviving domestic architecture, with what remains of original internal fittings, and in the archaeological evidence for different classes of buildings, methods of construction and building materials across the social spectrum (Schofield 1995). The daily life of Londoners from the wealthiest landholder to the poorest city dweller can be elucidated by the study of artefact assemblages in conjunction with documentary records. Much work on vernacular architecture has been carried out in the last 40 years, but our knowledge of the structure of timber-framed and early brick buildings in the London region would benefit greatly from archaeological analysis. Away from the growing urban centre, a survey of farm buildings is needed to highlight developments in agricultural practice. Within the densely occupied City, the effect of the Great Fire of 1666 on house types and their internal arrangements is in need of reassessment. More standing building recording of domestic buildings, including those of the 19th century, is required: lower status building types have tended to be neglected and are under-recorded. For all parts of the period up to 1900, large closed assemblages (eg from cesspits and wells) have considerable potential to demonstrate the range and variety of household goods discarded across the London region, with a particular emphasis on pottery, glass and clay tobacco pipes as the most common types of artefacts recovered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The surroundings of a great house or a royal palace, its gardens, park and use of water, were of importance in displaying the wealth and status of its inhabitants while maintaining the physical separation between the house and the outside world. The study of soil profiles may identify garden areas in urban environments, while chemical analysis of soils may establish the use of different areas of gardens; for example, high phosphate concentrations may imply heavily manured soils, suggesting horticultural and arboricultural practices. In association with documentary evidence, surviving garden plans and archaeological techniques such as resistivity or ground- penetrating radar and environmental evidence can be used to define the layout and features of gardens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Royal palaces have been excavated across the London region, from Greenwich to Nonsuch. These served not only as residences but also as centres of court life, with the palace at Whitehall effectively functioning as the focus of national government from 1530 until its destruction in 1698 (Thurley 1999). At the same time, separate functions of government and administration were increasingly being housed in purpose-made buildings. The development of specialist local and central government buildings throughout this period is a topic of interest for the history of government, the civil service and the rise of London as an imperial capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The daily life of the capital and its environs was maintained by an elaborate infrastructure which can be seen in the systems and services which developed to meet its ever-growing demands. Both survey and excavation can complement the documentary sources concerning public and civic buildings (including town halls, hospitals, almshouses, prisons, schools and workhouses), markets, transport, water supply, waste disposal, communications, and other services such as gas and electricity. The archaeological record has the potential to reveal the implications of civic works at a local and even at an individual level. Similarly, the impact of canals and railways on supply and production in the region is a fertile topic for research, while a comparative study of coaching inns, an integral part of the nation\u2019s transport network, is much needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L2 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL2.01: Identifying the changes in house design and construction during the period, and considering what social and economic origins and effects these changes had on urban life <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d457f<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
During the 17th century the central conurbation was divided into three distinctive areas: Westminster \u2013 a political and social area; the City and Fleet Street \u2013 a commercial, financial and legal district and the East End \u2013 associated particularly with trade and industrial activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The effects of the expansion of London into the surrounding region can be traced in the surviving domestic architecture, with what remains of original internal fittings, and in the archaeological evidence for different classes of buildings, methods of construction and building materials across the social spectrum (Schofield 1995). The daily life of Londoners from the wealthiest landholder to the poorest city dweller can be elucidated by the study of artefact assemblages in conjunction with documentary records. Much work on vernacular architecture has been carried out in the last 40 years, but our knowledge of the structure of timber-framed and early brick buildings in the London region would benefit greatly from archaeological analysis. Away from the growing urban centre, a survey of farm buildings is needed to highlight developments in agricultural practice. Within the densely occupied City, the effect of the Great Fire of 1666 on house types and their internal arrangements is in need of reassessment. More standing building recording of domestic buildings, including those of the 19th century, is required: lower status building types have tended to be neglected and are under-recorded. For all parts of the period up to 1900, large closed assemblages (eg from cesspits and wells) have considerable potential to demonstrate the range and variety of household goods discarded across the London region, with a particular emphasis on pottery, glass and clay tobacco pipes as the most common types of artefacts recovered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The surroundings of a great house or a royal palace, its gardens, park and use of water, were of importance in displaying the wealth and status of its inhabitants while maintaining the physical separation between the house and the outside world. The study of soil profiles may identify garden areas in urban environments, while chemical analysis of soils may establish the use of different areas of gardens; for example, high phosphate concentrations may imply heavily manured soils, suggesting horticultural and arboricultural practices. In association with documentary evidence, surviving garden plans and archaeological techniques such as resistivity or ground- penetrating radar and environmental evidence can be used to define the layout and features of gardens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Royal palaces have been excavated across the London region, from Greenwich to Nonsuch. These served not only as residences but also as centres of court life, with the palace at Whitehall effectively functioning as the focus of national government from 1530 until its destruction in 1698 (Thurley 1999). At the same time, separate functions of government and administration were increasingly being housed in purpose-made buildings. The development of specialist local and central government buildings throughout this period is a topic of interest for the history of government, the civil service and the rise of London as an imperial capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The daily life of the capital and its environs was maintained by an elaborate infrastructure which can be seen in the systems and services which developed to meet its ever-growing demands. Both survey and excavation can complement the documentary sources concerning public and civic buildings (including town halls, hospitals, almshouses, prisons, schools and workhouses), markets, transport, water supply, waste disposal, communications, and other services such as gas and electricity. The archaeological record has the potential to reveal the implications of civic works at a local and even at an individual level. Similarly, the impact of canals and railways on supply and production in the region is a fertile topic for research, while a comparative study of coaching inns, an integral part of the nation\u2019s transport network, is much needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L2 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL2.01: Identifying the changes in house design and construction during the period, and considering what social and economic origins and effects these changes had on urban life <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d457f<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
L2.01: Identifying the changes in house design and construction during the period, and considering what social and economic origins and effects these changes had on urban life <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d457f<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d457f<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d457f<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
L2.02: Understanding how the proximity of the metropolis, the largest urban conurbation in Britain, affected the lives of people living and working in the immediate surrounding area <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4a89<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Rural community<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a>, <\/span>Rural<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\nL2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
L2.03: Considering the impact of royal palaces in the London region in comparison with other cities in the British Isles and in Europe during the period. Tracing the influence of palatial design and architecture on domestic structures <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d4ff0<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Architecture<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
L2.04: Developing archaeological models for studying the material culture of government buildings <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d54bd<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
L2.05: Establishing through the archaeological record how sustainable and determined (or not) were public and civic efforts to put in place, and then maintain, different aspects of London\u2019s infrastructure <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d5a2c<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
L2.06: Identifying the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d60ac<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
L2.07: Contributing to our understanding of the creation of the London suburbs and the meanings and values of domestic as well as public gardens <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
More information on this question <\/summary>URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
URI: <\/h5>https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/rfla\/researchframework\/v1\/question\/question-620fad48d6584<\/a><\/span>More information: <\/h5><\/span>Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Status: <\/h5>Active <\/span>Authority to change status: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology <\/span>Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Date accepted: <\/h5> 01\/02\/2002 <\/span>Date of next review: <\/h5> <\/span>Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
Found in the following Frameworks: <\/h5>Research Framework for London Archaeology<\/a> <\/span>Categories: <\/h5>Post medieval<\/a>, <\/span>Dwelling<\/a>, <\/span>Garden<\/a>, <\/span>Greater london authority<\/a> <\/span><\/div><\/details><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nPeople<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
People<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSociety<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBy analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L3 Framework objectives<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nL3.01: Characterising assemblages for use in analytic models where the archaeological record helps to define the nature and extent of different neighbourhoods, in social, economic, ethnic, or religious terms <\/h3>More information on this question <\/summary>
By analysing domestic assemblages in the context of their associated buildings archaeology can provide evidence of standards of living and variations between social groups. In some cases it may be possible to identify ethnic groups through their material culture, although the presence of a Huguenot community is not apparent from the pottery assemblage at Spitalfields, but it is in the case of similar groups at Norwich and Canterbury (C Thomas, pers comm). The archaeological record can substantiate \u2013 or may refute \u2013 assumptions about the health and nutrition of individuals and groups of people, sometimes addressing whole neighbourhoods or ethnic groups. Integrated analysis of archaeological data can tell us about diet and the way in which food was prepared, or what personal adornments people wore, or what household furnishings they used and how they arranged their living space. Importantly, coupled with documentary research, the archaeological record has the potential to tell us about the choices people faced, and can take us from understanding the social topography of a city to understanding the consequences, for both individuals and for different areas, of different mechanisms for social control and exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The size and diversity of the population are among the features that have given the City of London its unique character, and research should aim to encompass the entire social spectrum. Whereas high-status establishments such as palaces and manor houses are relatively well known to archaeology, they are a source of information on the lives and social organisation of only a small proportion of the populace. The habitat of ordinary Londoners is an equally important field of study, and one which archaeology is ideally placed to elucidate. The everyday lives of the poor and disadvantaged, and of the growing middle classes, have been described in a wealth of social commentary and literature by writers from Pepys to Dickens, but it can be easy to lose sight of these largely anonymous inhabitants of the capital in the face of the larger issues being addressed by archaeologists and historians alike. The considerable body of material evidence which resides in the archive (and that is still being uncovered) offers unique opportunities for the examination of social organisation, class differentiation, the effects of the increased wealth and economic growth which accompanied the consumer revolution, social emulation, the spread of fashions from the capital, and the differences between the historic urban core and the growing suburban area with its increasingly provincial outlook and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas it was not long ago that \u201819th-century archaeology\u2019 would have referred to the study of the work of 19th century archaeologists, we now acknowledge the important contribution archaeology can make to topographical and socio-economic studies of the 19th century. The Museum of London\u2019s \u2018World City\u2019 Gallery, interpreting the period from 1789 to 1914, displays two groups of archaeologically excavated finds. One, from Jacob\u2019s Island, Southwark compares the material record with Dickens\u2019s celebrated literary description of that site. Excavators in the 1990s routinely collected 19th-century material, in contrast to their colleagues in the preceding decades (Nigel Jeffries, pers comm). Here London\u2019s archaeology is taking a lead from the growth of World Archaeology, wherein scholars in the Americas, Australia and South Africa have shown how valuable archaeology is in not only reconstructing socio-economic history but also \u2018giving back\u2019 a history to people excluded from the writing of it. A good example of the potential of this type of research is the recent excavation and publication of post-medieval wharfside buildings at Narrow Street in Limehouse (Divers 2000). Archaeologists researching the largest city in Britain during the 19th century will need to ensure that they can characterise the material \u2018signatures\u2019 of 19th- century Londoners, allowing comparison with groups elsewhere in the British Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n