Wasted London: Rubbish and recycling from the Romans to the Present
Lead Research Organisation:
Birkbeck, University of London
Department Name: History Classics and Archaeology
Abstract
The project has a wide-ranging scope and I propose to retain a broad research framework through the depth of time in order to understand the impact of the changing physical and social landscape of the city. However, this will be intersected with specific case studies and deeper analysis of specific classes of finds. My proposal considers four main areas of research to provide both the depth of study, appropriateness for public engagement /advocacy and what I consider to be the most worthwhile areas for archaeological archive management going forwards.
1.How was waste treated and where was it deposited through time?
-Collation/ GIS mapping of the sites within the study area giving locality and find information of deposits categorised as waste by archaeologists. This will provide a detailed record through time of the presence of waste deposits in the archaeological stratigraphy of London.
-This work may enable identification of miscategorised/missed deposits within the sites. These could then be considered for desk based research and re-analysis at the LAARC. Can/have we accurately distinguished waste?
-This data would then be compared with social historical data to enable confirmation or questioning of 'known' historical information, such as the use of the river and the advent of waste removal e.g. Victorian Dustmen.
-Comparative analysis of deposits considered as waste by archaeologists, could be very useful in understanding our contemporary construction of the archaeological record and its interpretation.
-Analysis of this data considering the potential impact of taphonomic factors to the archaeological record of waste. What is and what isn't represented. Why? This would be desk based but also involve random sampling of parts of the archaeological archive
2.Building on the biographies of London Life Project (2004) and the methodologies used in historic landscape/ seascape characterisation (Steyne, 2013) I'd like to explore ethnicities, class, and occupation within individual case study sites and in each of the study zones in order to broadly see whether this influences what is considered waste across time. Inspired by the approach taken in Owens et al (2010) taking a similarly broad social historical and landscape perspective may help to clarify why things were deposited and elucidate changing attitudes to waste.
These case study sites will be determined from the broad overview of the sites and depositions in the study area. The case study site deposits will be re-examined at the LAARC with reference to field notes.
3.Building on studies of waste (garbology) and influenced by the work of Hill (2016) I would like to look in detail at 3 categories of waste in detail. This material will be sampled and re-examined dependent on the results of part one and their specific relevance to the study. Selection of case study sites would be based on the quantities and qualities of this material represented within different deposits and would determine the number of deposits sampled. Looking at specific classes of finds such as this will also enable me to begin to create case studies for advocacy and public engagement with the archive and to encourage thinking around the value of recycling and throwaway culture. I have found this 'find specific' approach to be the strongest way of engaging and inspiring public engagement. Categories: Ceramic Waste, Animal Bone and Horn, Unusual/Unique Finds
4.With ever increasing pressure on storage of archaeological material I would like to begin to use this research to build towards a better more radical approach to the rationalisation of archaeological deposits both pre and post deposition. This would include consideration of the appropriateness of current MoLA sampling strategies and interpretation practice. I would like to sharpen existing frameworks/guidance for sampling and retention of archaeological bone (Baker & Worley 2019).
1.How was waste treated and where was it deposited through time?
-Collation/ GIS mapping of the sites within the study area giving locality and find information of deposits categorised as waste by archaeologists. This will provide a detailed record through time of the presence of waste deposits in the archaeological stratigraphy of London.
-This work may enable identification of miscategorised/missed deposits within the sites. These could then be considered for desk based research and re-analysis at the LAARC. Can/have we accurately distinguished waste?
-This data would then be compared with social historical data to enable confirmation or questioning of 'known' historical information, such as the use of the river and the advent of waste removal e.g. Victorian Dustmen.
-Comparative analysis of deposits considered as waste by archaeologists, could be very useful in understanding our contemporary construction of the archaeological record and its interpretation.
-Analysis of this data considering the potential impact of taphonomic factors to the archaeological record of waste. What is and what isn't represented. Why? This would be desk based but also involve random sampling of parts of the archaeological archive
2.Building on the biographies of London Life Project (2004) and the methodologies used in historic landscape/ seascape characterisation (Steyne, 2013) I'd like to explore ethnicities, class, and occupation within individual case study sites and in each of the study zones in order to broadly see whether this influences what is considered waste across time. Inspired by the approach taken in Owens et al (2010) taking a similarly broad social historical and landscape perspective may help to clarify why things were deposited and elucidate changing attitudes to waste.
These case study sites will be determined from the broad overview of the sites and depositions in the study area. The case study site deposits will be re-examined at the LAARC with reference to field notes.
3.Building on studies of waste (garbology) and influenced by the work of Hill (2016) I would like to look in detail at 3 categories of waste in detail. This material will be sampled and re-examined dependent on the results of part one and their specific relevance to the study. Selection of case study sites would be based on the quantities and qualities of this material represented within different deposits and would determine the number of deposits sampled. Looking at specific classes of finds such as this will also enable me to begin to create case studies for advocacy and public engagement with the archive and to encourage thinking around the value of recycling and throwaway culture. I have found this 'find specific' approach to be the strongest way of engaging and inspiring public engagement. Categories: Ceramic Waste, Animal Bone and Horn, Unusual/Unique Finds
4.With ever increasing pressure on storage of archaeological material I would like to begin to use this research to build towards a better more radical approach to the rationalisation of archaeological deposits both pre and post deposition. This would include consideration of the appropriateness of current MoLA sampling strategies and interpretation practice. I would like to sharpen existing frameworks/guidance for sampling and retention of archaeological bone (Baker & Worley 2019).
