Pub Date : 2019-09-02DOI: 10.1080/00794236.2019.1659582
A. Bliss
The use of stamped verification marks on post-medieval weights is a well-known phenomenon, one discussed in some detail by various writers, most notably by Norman Biggs. Manufactured most frequently in the late medieval and early post-medieval periods (c. 15th to early 17th centuries), weights made in lead with stamped verification marks enjoyed a lengthy period of use until their decline in the 18th century, following the intensified production of copper-alloy pieces under the official auspices of the London-based Founders’ Company. In 1834, lead weights were banned completely in favour of the latter. While the majority of known lead weights consist of plain homemade examples, there is a proportion bearing official (or unofficial, as it may be) marks that variously allude to their origin, the cipher of the monarch under which they were issued, the measuring system to which they corresponded and their own weight. Of the ‘official’ lead weights, most are of London manufacture, bearing the arms of the City of London, the Plumbers’ Company (who maintained a monopoly on the checking of weights) and/or the sword of St Paul. They appear to have been manufactured mostly in the reigns of Charles I (1625–49) and Charles II (1660–85), though earlier examples from the reign of Elizabeth I (1558–1603) are known, as well as 17th-century pieces issued under James I (1603–25) or James II (1685–88). Weights bearing the conjoined arms of England and Ireland demonstrate that, despite regime change, issue continued under the Commonwealth (1649–60). Given that the City was both the home of centralized government and the Plumbers’ Company, it follows that the mainstay of surviving lead weights originated there — presumably making their way into the surrounding countryside before being lost in various circumstances. Though London was the main centre of production, provincial examples are also known — dominated, in at least the reigns of Charles I and II, by pieces produced and verified in Norwich. Other regional centres must also have undertaken similar duties, but it is far more difficult to attribute lead weights to them. A weight stamped with the mark of a crenellated tower found at Market-with-Rame, Cornwall (CORN-CD5EC3, Fig. 1), has been attributed to Exeter or Truro by the recorder. In Somerset, a sub-circular piece from Wedmore bearing the imprint of a Bristol Corporation trade token (SOMFEF663, Fig. 2) could be interpreted as an attempt to produce a semi-official weight for that town and the surrounding area. From Trudoxhill in the same county, a circular weight (SOM-C3ACB9, Fig. 3) stamped with the inscription ‘DANIEL . PLVMER . I .’ around a Tudor rose may possibly represent local manufacture by a provincial member of the Plumbers’ Company. In addition, there are a number of pieces that bear coats of arms and various other designs that may refer to both private individuals or to hitherto unidentified town corporations.
{"title":"Notes and News Three Post-Medieval weights from Suffolk verified at the town of Colchester, bearing a previously unknown officiating stamp","authors":"A. Bliss","doi":"10.1080/00794236.2019.1659582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659582","url":null,"abstract":"The use of stamped verification marks on post-medieval weights is a well-known phenomenon, one discussed in some detail by various writers, most notably by Norman Biggs. Manufactured most frequently in the late medieval and early post-medieval periods (c. 15th to early 17th centuries), weights made in lead with stamped verification marks enjoyed a lengthy period of use until their decline in the 18th century, following the intensified production of copper-alloy pieces under the official auspices of the London-based Founders’ Company. In 1834, lead weights were banned completely in favour of the latter. While the majority of known lead weights consist of plain homemade examples, there is a proportion bearing official (or unofficial, as it may be) marks that variously allude to their origin, the cipher of the monarch under which they were issued, the measuring system to which they corresponded and their own weight. Of the ‘official’ lead weights, most are of London manufacture, bearing the arms of the City of London, the Plumbers’ Company (who maintained a monopoly on the checking of weights) and/or the sword of St Paul. They appear to have been manufactured mostly in the reigns of Charles I (1625–49) and Charles II (1660–85), though earlier examples from the reign of Elizabeth I (1558–1603) are known, as well as 17th-century pieces issued under James I (1603–25) or James II (1685–88). Weights bearing the conjoined arms of England and Ireland demonstrate that, despite regime change, issue continued under the Commonwealth (1649–60). Given that the City was both the home of centralized government and the Plumbers’ Company, it follows that the mainstay of surviving lead weights originated there — presumably making their way into the surrounding countryside before being lost in various circumstances. Though London was the main centre of production, provincial examples are also known — dominated, in at least the reigns of Charles I and II, by pieces produced and verified in Norwich. Other regional centres must also have undertaken similar duties, but it is far more difficult to attribute lead weights to them. A weight stamped with the mark of a crenellated tower found at Market-with-Rame, Cornwall (CORN-CD5EC3, Fig. 1), has been attributed to Exeter or Truro by the recorder. In Somerset, a sub-circular piece from Wedmore bearing the imprint of a Bristol Corporation trade token (SOMFEF663, Fig. 2) could be interpreted as an attempt to produce a semi-official weight for that town and the surrounding area. From Trudoxhill in the same county, a circular weight (SOM-C3ACB9, Fig. 3) stamped with the inscription ‘DANIEL . PLVMER . I .’ around a Tudor rose may possibly represent local manufacture by a provincial member of the Plumbers’ Company. In addition, there are a number of pieces that bear coats of arms and various other designs that may refer to both private individuals or to hitherto unidentified town corporations.","PeriodicalId":43560,"journal":{"name":"Post-Medieval Archaeology","volume":"53 1","pages":"293 - 297"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659582","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42049560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-02DOI: 10.1080/00794236.2019.1659646
H. Mytum
Anniversaries of both World Wars occur at frequent intervals, of the start, the finish, key points in between. These may be valuable ‘hooks’ on which to hang media interest in conflict heritage, but these two books show the result of long-term dedicated research, each of significance in their own ways. World War I archaeology in its many manifestations — including the Home Front — has attracted considerable attention over the last half-decade, assisted by Heritage Lottery Fund community projects and professional review of many categories of standing heritage, landscape and below-ground archaeological assets. This volume provides a complement to that already available from the 2015 Council for British Archaeology volume (The Home Front in Britain 1914–18, edited by W.D. Cocroft, J. Schofield and C. Appleby). The new volume covers much the same ground, but with greater emphasis on army structure and organization, and tends to select more elaborate architecture and monuments as examples. The maritime dimension is greater, but most chapters rarely stray beyond England, although in terms of strategy and operations this was not a factor and is a result of this being a Historic England volume. It is notable, however, how many of the authors are now ex-employees of Historic England, and one cannot help but see this volume as indicative of the kind of expertise that has been to some extent lost through reorganization. It is a well-produced volume with excellent illustrations, including colour plans and elevations to enable the reader to understand site organization and function easily. This book will have significant value to those not yet expert in this field, especially as it has detailed referencing which will allow readers to track back to more specialist studies and original sources. The World War II study provides a distinctive perspective, both methodological and geographical, on the defence of Britain. By taking an interdisciplinary landscape approach to one particular stretch of coastline — between Lowestoft and Harwich — the high chronological as well as geographical resolution of the data creates a particularly rich, contextualised case study. The volume, amply illustrated with colour maps and photographs, reveals an initial phase of rapid defence in the face of what was viewed as imminent invasion. The layout of defences and the diversity of strategies employed reveal local reactions within a common defensive vocabulary. However, once invasion did not come, the middle levels of command could assess the quality and likely effectiveness of the defences and, in the many aspects found wanting, arranged for different arrangements and strategies. Thus, even within the few years of the conflict where invasion was contemplated — from 1939 until 1942 — the authors have identified several phases of defensive works, as well as the subsequent training camps and sites of manoeuvres for forces then to be sent overseas. Preparations of offense took over from
{"title":"Legacies of the First World War. Building for Total War 1914-18; A Very Dangerous Locality. The Landscape of the Suffolk Sandlings in the Second World War","authors":"H. Mytum","doi":"10.1080/00794236.2019.1659646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659646","url":null,"abstract":"Anniversaries of both World Wars occur at frequent intervals, of the start, the finish, key points in between. These may be valuable ‘hooks’ on which to hang media interest in conflict heritage, but these two books show the result of long-term dedicated research, each of significance in their own ways. World War I archaeology in its many manifestations — including the Home Front — has attracted considerable attention over the last half-decade, assisted by Heritage Lottery Fund community projects and professional review of many categories of standing heritage, landscape and below-ground archaeological assets. This volume provides a complement to that already available from the 2015 Council for British Archaeology volume (The Home Front in Britain 1914–18, edited by W.D. Cocroft, J. Schofield and C. Appleby). The new volume covers much the same ground, but with greater emphasis on army structure and organization, and tends to select more elaborate architecture and monuments as examples. The maritime dimension is greater, but most chapters rarely stray beyond England, although in terms of strategy and operations this was not a factor and is a result of this being a Historic England volume. It is notable, however, how many of the authors are now ex-employees of Historic England, and one cannot help but see this volume as indicative of the kind of expertise that has been to some extent lost through reorganization. It is a well-produced volume with excellent illustrations, including colour plans and elevations to enable the reader to understand site organization and function easily. This book will have significant value to those not yet expert in this field, especially as it has detailed referencing which will allow readers to track back to more specialist studies and original sources. The World War II study provides a distinctive perspective, both methodological and geographical, on the defence of Britain. By taking an interdisciplinary landscape approach to one particular stretch of coastline — between Lowestoft and Harwich — the high chronological as well as geographical resolution of the data creates a particularly rich, contextualised case study. The volume, amply illustrated with colour maps and photographs, reveals an initial phase of rapid defence in the face of what was viewed as imminent invasion. The layout of defences and the diversity of strategies employed reveal local reactions within a common defensive vocabulary. However, once invasion did not come, the middle levels of command could assess the quality and likely effectiveness of the defences and, in the many aspects found wanting, arranged for different arrangements and strategies. Thus, even within the few years of the conflict where invasion was contemplated — from 1939 until 1942 — the authors have identified several phases of defensive works, as well as the subsequent training camps and sites of manoeuvres for forces then to be sent overseas. Preparations of offense took over from","PeriodicalId":43560,"journal":{"name":"Post-Medieval Archaeology","volume":"53 1","pages":"433 - 433"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659646","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48106914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-02DOI: 10.1080/00794236.2019.1659653
U. Baram
{"title":"Historical Archaeology and Heritage in the Middle East.","authors":"U. Baram","doi":"10.1080/00794236.2019.1659653","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659653","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43560,"journal":{"name":"Post-Medieval Archaeology","volume":"53 1","pages":"443 - 443"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659653","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48834896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-02DOI: 10.1080/00794236.2019.1659652
M. Poulain
odological approaches and the range of sources used makes this an appealing volume for those developing an interest in the archaeological and historical study of buildings, as well as for those with more than a passing interest. If your definition of archaeology, when it comes to buildings, only includes the fabric of those still standing (Trow 2018), this volume will highlight the need to study buildings holistically to approach their multiple and conflicting meanings. If, however, your definition also takes into account excavated material, relationship to landscape and documentary research to investigate and reconstruct how buildings were built, developed and experienced over time (see Green & Dixon 2016), you may be left wondering, like this reviewer, whether building history is a necessary term or whether it will further muddy the water as to what is and is not considered buildings archaeology. While appreciating that this volume was the result of an interdisciplinary conference, intent on creating a joined-up approach to the study of buildings across disciplines, the lack of reference to the archaeology of buildings/buildings archaeology, particularly in the editors’ introduction or Gardiner’s introductory chapter, does seem rather an omission.
{"title":"Stuff. Catalogue of Archaeological Finds from Amsterdam’s North/South Metro Line","authors":"M. Poulain","doi":"10.1080/00794236.2019.1659652","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659652","url":null,"abstract":"odological approaches and the range of sources used makes this an appealing volume for those developing an interest in the archaeological and historical study of buildings, as well as for those with more than a passing interest. If your definition of archaeology, when it comes to buildings, only includes the fabric of those still standing (Trow 2018), this volume will highlight the need to study buildings holistically to approach their multiple and conflicting meanings. If, however, your definition also takes into account excavated material, relationship to landscape and documentary research to investigate and reconstruct how buildings were built, developed and experienced over time (see Green & Dixon 2016), you may be left wondering, like this reviewer, whether building history is a necessary term or whether it will further muddy the water as to what is and is not considered buildings archaeology. While appreciating that this volume was the result of an interdisciplinary conference, intent on creating a joined-up approach to the study of buildings across disciplines, the lack of reference to the archaeology of buildings/buildings archaeology, particularly in the editors’ introduction or Gardiner’s introductory chapter, does seem rather an omission.","PeriodicalId":43560,"journal":{"name":"Post-Medieval Archaeology","volume":"53 1","pages":"441 - 442"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659652","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41455217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-02DOI: 10.1080/00794236.2019.1659649
Jessica MacLean
{"title":"Simplicity, Equality, and Slavery: an Archaeology of Quakerism in the British Virgin Islands, 1740–1780","authors":"Jessica MacLean","doi":"10.1080/00794236.2019.1659649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659649","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43560,"journal":{"name":"Post-Medieval Archaeology","volume":"53 1","pages":"437 - 438"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659649","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43079765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-02DOI: 10.1080/00794236.2019.1659650
K. Fennelly
{"title":"Atlantic Crossings in the Wake of Frederick Douglass: Archaeology, Literature, and Spatial Culture. Cross/Cultures 197.","authors":"K. Fennelly","doi":"10.1080/00794236.2019.1659650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659650","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43560,"journal":{"name":"Post-Medieval Archaeology","volume":"53 1","pages":"438 - 440"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659650","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41840060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-02DOI: 10.1080/00794236.2019.1659585
R. Cubitt
A recent pilot project has begun to establish a dated classification for post-medieval toothbrushes, using as a starting point examples from MOLA excavations in London. These objects have received very little archaeological study, despite being a potential source of dating information, as well as indicators of certain health and hygiene practices in an era when personal grooming became increasingly important. Barbara Mattick’s valuable toothbrush study based on North American finds has established a terminology for different features. On discovering that several of the London examples did not fit easily within the groups she defined, the decision was made to develop an independent London toothbrush classification, with comparison to Mattick’s typology remaining as a future aim. This note introduces a group of five morphologically distinct brushes that were recorded as part of this project. Context spot dates for these items are in the range 1730–80, pre-dating the style of toothbrush invented by William Addis in 1780, a brush which seems to have established a standardized form which is still used for toothbrushes today (Fig. 1: 1). References to the early, pre-Addis, use of toothbrushes in Europe, and Britain specifically, do exist. The concept of brushing teeth to clean them appears first to have been introduced to Europe from China around the mid 1600s, and a French documentary source of 1728 makes reference to the use of toothbrushes. In Britain, a newspaper advert of 1752 offers for sale ‘brush and powder to continue them [the teeth] in perfect order’, after the teeth had been ‘professionally’ cleaned by the advertiser. There is no indication, however, what form these brushes took. Definitively identifying the early London brushes as toothbrushes is complicated by the fact that nail brushes of the 18th century are also held to have shared the same shape. The means by which the two can be told apart are not entirely clear. Using the relative proportions of tooth and nail brushes as a method to distinguish them has been proposed by Deagan, following Mattick. The metric criteria given are that toothbrushes had handles of about twice the length of the head, whereas the head and handle of a nailbrush are approximately equal. It is interesting to note that the measurements taken for the 19th-century toothbrushes assessed as part of the rest of the project suggest that those brushes follow a similar formula. Of the complete 19th-century toothbrushes measured, most have heads of approximately one-third or less of the total length. Elsewhere, 18th-century toothbrushes are also described as generally having two or three columns of drill holes, with their bristles being packed more loosely than in later toothbrushes. However, the lack of surviving bristle material means it is not possible to comment on the latter observation. With one exception, published examples of nail brushes to provide comparison have not been found by this author. The example exca
{"title":"An early type of post-medieval toothbrush?","authors":"R. Cubitt","doi":"10.1080/00794236.2019.1659585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659585","url":null,"abstract":"A recent pilot project has begun to establish a dated classification for post-medieval toothbrushes, using as a starting point examples from MOLA excavations in London. These objects have received very little archaeological study, despite being a potential source of dating information, as well as indicators of certain health and hygiene practices in an era when personal grooming became increasingly important. Barbara Mattick’s valuable toothbrush study based on North American finds has established a terminology for different features. On discovering that several of the London examples did not fit easily within the groups she defined, the decision was made to develop an independent London toothbrush classification, with comparison to Mattick’s typology remaining as a future aim. This note introduces a group of five morphologically distinct brushes that were recorded as part of this project. Context spot dates for these items are in the range 1730–80, pre-dating the style of toothbrush invented by William Addis in 1780, a brush which seems to have established a standardized form which is still used for toothbrushes today (Fig. 1: 1). References to the early, pre-Addis, use of toothbrushes in Europe, and Britain specifically, do exist. The concept of brushing teeth to clean them appears first to have been introduced to Europe from China around the mid 1600s, and a French documentary source of 1728 makes reference to the use of toothbrushes. In Britain, a newspaper advert of 1752 offers for sale ‘brush and powder to continue them [the teeth] in perfect order’, after the teeth had been ‘professionally’ cleaned by the advertiser. There is no indication, however, what form these brushes took. Definitively identifying the early London brushes as toothbrushes is complicated by the fact that nail brushes of the 18th century are also held to have shared the same shape. The means by which the two can be told apart are not entirely clear. Using the relative proportions of tooth and nail brushes as a method to distinguish them has been proposed by Deagan, following Mattick. The metric criteria given are that toothbrushes had handles of about twice the length of the head, whereas the head and handle of a nailbrush are approximately equal. It is interesting to note that the measurements taken for the 19th-century toothbrushes assessed as part of the rest of the project suggest that those brushes follow a similar formula. Of the complete 19th-century toothbrushes measured, most have heads of approximately one-third or less of the total length. Elsewhere, 18th-century toothbrushes are also described as generally having two or three columns of drill holes, with their bristles being packed more loosely than in later toothbrushes. However, the lack of surviving bristle material means it is not possible to comment on the latter observation. With one exception, published examples of nail brushes to provide comparison have not been found by this author. The example exca","PeriodicalId":43560,"journal":{"name":"Post-Medieval Archaeology","volume":"53 1","pages":"298 - 301"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659585","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46981485","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-02DOI: 10.1080/00794236.2019.1659588
Stephanie Ostrich
The post-medieval fieldwork entries for 2018 follow the structure introduced into the fieldwork section of PMA in 2008. The searchable database of annual excavation summaries set up by the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology (SPMA) in cooperation with the Society for Medieval Archaeology (SMA) is hosted by the ADS as a ‘Special Collections’ feature of ArchSearch and is also accessible via the SPMA website . We receive more contributions than the limited space of the printed Journal allows us to publish; those entries not included in this section will be accessible in digital format through this resource. SPMA uses the same geographical conventions as those used by SMA. For England, sites will be listed under the post-1974 counties; for Scotland and Wales, the New Local Authority or Unitary Authority Areas will be used; for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the historic counties will be used. Maps illustrating this system can be found in Medieval Archaeology 44 (2000), 236–8 and 45 (2001), 234. Although an effort has been made to create a fair representation of the variety of fieldwork undertaken across Britain and Ireland, this compilation only covers those submissions received; any gaps may represent a lack of submissions rather than an absence of fieldwork carried out in the area. The index to the reports is organized around a set of themes and categories to lend shape to the many sites and finds reported each year. The full index is accessible as a drop-down menu in the database. The printed index in the Journal covers all submitted entries, including those represented in a digital-format only on the database; those entries that appear in the index in bold are also represented here in the printed section. The compiler would like to thank all contributors to the 2018 roundup, especially those who submitted reports on behalf of their respective organizations: H. Brooks (CAT), J. Allan (Exeter Cathedral), C. Fern, D. Elsworth (Greenlane Archaeology), S. Thomson (Headland Archaeology UK Ltd, Midlands & West), M. Jecock (Historic England), E. Matthews, S. Leaver (MOLA), K. Hamilton (OAE), K. Smith (OAS), T. Vitali (PCA Ltd), J. Goodwin (SOTAS), S. Preston (TVAS Ltd), C. Harward (Urban Archaeology), L. Lichtenstein (Wessex Archaeology) and J. Brewer (Worcestershire Archaeology). Summaries of work carried out in Scotland are extracted from the annual journal Discovery and Excavation in Scotland, courtesy of Dr Paula Milburn of Archaeology Scotland and AOC Archaeology Group. Many thanks to Gary Young for preparing the final versions of the illustrations for publication.
{"title":"Post-medieval fieldwork in Britain and the Channel Islands in 2018","authors":"Stephanie Ostrich","doi":"10.1080/00794236.2019.1659588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659588","url":null,"abstract":"The post-medieval fieldwork entries for 2018 follow the structure introduced into the fieldwork section of PMA in 2008. The searchable database of annual excavation summaries set up by the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology (SPMA) in cooperation with the Society for Medieval Archaeology (SMA) is hosted by the ADS as a ‘Special Collections’ feature of ArchSearch <http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/pmbi/> and is also accessible via the SPMA website <www.spma.org.uk>. We receive more contributions than the limited space of the printed Journal allows us to publish; those entries not included in this section will be accessible in digital format through this resource. SPMA uses the same geographical conventions as those used by SMA. For England, sites will be listed under the post-1974 counties; for Scotland and Wales, the New Local Authority or Unitary Authority Areas will be used; for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the historic counties will be used. Maps illustrating this system can be found in Medieval Archaeology 44 (2000), 236–8 and 45 (2001), 234. Although an effort has been made to create a fair representation of the variety of fieldwork undertaken across Britain and Ireland, this compilation only covers those submissions received; any gaps may represent a lack of submissions rather than an absence of fieldwork carried out in the area. The index to the reports is organized around a set of themes and categories to lend shape to the many sites and finds reported each year. The full index is accessible as a drop-down menu in the database. The printed index in the Journal covers all submitted entries, including those represented in a digital-format only on the database; those entries that appear in the index in bold are also represented here in the printed section. The compiler would like to thank all contributors to the 2018 roundup, especially those who submitted reports on behalf of their respective organizations: H. Brooks (CAT), J. Allan (Exeter Cathedral), C. Fern, D. Elsworth (Greenlane Archaeology), S. Thomson (Headland Archaeology UK Ltd, Midlands & West), M. Jecock (Historic England), E. Matthews, S. Leaver (MOLA), K. Hamilton (OAE), K. Smith (OAS), T. Vitali (PCA Ltd), J. Goodwin (SOTAS), S. Preston (TVAS Ltd), C. Harward (Urban Archaeology), L. Lichtenstein (Wessex Archaeology) and J. Brewer (Worcestershire Archaeology). Summaries of work carried out in Scotland are extracted from the annual journal Discovery and Excavation in Scotland, courtesy of Dr Paula Milburn of Archaeology Scotland and AOC Archaeology Group. Many thanks to Gary Young for preparing the final versions of the illustrations for publication.","PeriodicalId":43560,"journal":{"name":"Post-Medieval Archaeology","volume":"53 1","pages":"312 - 418"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00794236.2019.1659588","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42332603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：