The Prehistory of the City of London

Myths and Methodologies

Datos Bibliográficos

ID11613144
AutoresNick Holder (0000-0001-7519-3220, autor de correspondencia), David W Jamieson (0000-0002-1823-8792), David Jamieson (0000-0002-3064-6713)
Año2003
Volumen160
Número1
Páginas23-43
Fecha de publicación2003-01-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaArchaeological Journal (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0066-5983 • E-ISSN: 2373-2288
EditorialTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/00665983.2003.11078168
OpenAlexW2332504189
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas6
Referencias citadas4

The evidence for prehistoric occupation in the area of the modern City of London is re-assessed. Two myths surrounding the city's prehistory are examined: a literary myth of a glorious Trojan past and a modern archaeological myth of the absence of prehistory. Having drawn a ‘traditional’ distribution map of prehistoric artefacts, the authors attempted to improve its reliability by quantifying the impact of Roman groundworks on the surviving prehistoric deposits. Topographic models of the area in prehistory and in the Roman period were drawn, and the methodology of the interpolation is discussed. The relative value of in situ, residual and stray finds are considered in the light of this new information. While there is good evidence for Late Bronze Age occupation in the City, the evidence for Neolithic activity is considered to be heavily skewed by Roman activity. The data are used to suggest areas of the City where there is particularly good potential for the survival of prehistoric deposits. The City provides a case study for analysing prehistoric material in a ‘difficult’, deeply stratified, urban context more associated with Roman and medieval archaeology

Archaeology · Geography · Mythology · Prehistory · Archaeology and ancient environmental studies · Classics · Historical and Cultural Archaeology Studies · History · Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology