14 Waterfront archaeology in British towns Gustav Milne
Records of the discovery of timber or stone wharves were York (Richardson 1959; Addyman 1981, 1983; Medieval
published over 160 years ago (eg Laing 1818, 5-6), but the Archaeol, 27, 1983, 209-10)
wide-ranging concept and the actual term  waterfront In addition, waterfront excavation has been argued as a
archaeology are recent additions to urban studies. The priority in towns such as Boston (Harden 1978, 36), Great
subject was effectively launched in London in 1979 at an Yarmouth (Rogerson 1976, 43) and Newcastle (McCombie
international conference in which it was shown that water- & O Brien 1983), and for various towns in the south-west
front archaeology was not myopically concerned with the including Axbridge, Bridgwater, Minehead, Watchet,
form of ancient quays. Since almost any definition of towns Ilchester and Langport (Aston & Leech 1977, 169).
must refer to the importance of trade (Heighway 1972, 8-9;
Waterfront reclamation
Hodges 1982, 20-5) it was suggested that a study of the
development of the harbour area as a whole could provide The first result of the recent work is the realization that the
graphic evidence of, and suggest reasons for a town s waterfront of many riparian or coastal towns has been arti-
origins, growth or decline. The first review of waterfront ficially extended. This phenomenon is both widespread and
archaeology was published by the CBA as recently as 1981 of major topographical significance. Although a pioneering
(Milne & Hobley 1981) and covered work in nineteen paper on the extension of the King s Lynn waterfront was
British towns. This paper will therefore summarize, analyse published in 1973 (Clarke 1973) the possibility that other
and augment the information presented in that volume English towns may have had a similar development was
rather than simply duplicating it. initially overlooked by students of urban topography (cf
Waterfront excavations of varying size have recently been Barley 1976). Medieval waterfront reclamation has now
conducted in many towns, including: been demonstrated by excavation in many British towns
Bristol (Ponsford 1981; Williams 1981; Medieval Archaeol, including Bristol, Dublin, Exeter, Harwich, Hull, Ipswich,
26, 1982, 168-70, Figs 1 & 2) King s Lynn, Lincoln, London, Middlesborough,
Caerleon (Boon 1978; Boon 1980) Plymouth, Poole, Portsmouth and York. Roman waterfront
Cambridge (Medieval Archaeol, 18, 1974, 199) reclamation has been less extensively studied. However, the
Cardiff (Webster 1977) evidence from Dover (Philp 1981) and London (Bateman &
Dover (Rahtz 1958; Rigold 1969; Philp 1980 & 1981) Milne 1983) (Fig 89) seems to suggest that it too could have
Dublin (Wallace 1981) been widespread.
Durham (Carver 1974) Documentary, cartographic or topographical evidence has
Exeter (Henderson 1981) been used to suggest areas of reclamation in several towns
Gloucester (Hurst 1974; Rowbotham 1978; Heighway & such as Dartmouth (Martin 1980), Gloucester (Heighway &
Garrod 1981) Garrod 1981) and Newcastle (McCombie & O Brien 1983).
Hartlepool (Young 1983) Reclaimed land can often be readily identified on the
Harwich (Basset 1981) ground. If a town is built on a hill with a steep slope down
Hull (Ayers 1979, 1981) to the river, then a level terrace extending from the foot of
Ipswich (Wade 1981; Medieval Archaeol, 26, 1982, 208) the hill to the present day river bank may well represent an
Kirkwall (McGavin 1982) area of artificial encroachment. Examples of this may be
King s Lynn (Clarke & Carter 1977; Clarke 1981) seen at Newcastle, where a number of narrow lanes or chares
Leith (CBA 1981, 103) descend the steep cliff edge to the level quayside terrace
Lincoln (Jones & Jones 1981; Medieval Archaeol, 27, 1983, running 60-100m to the River Tyne; or at Rye where the
188) Strand terrace now occupied by magnificent 18th and 19th
London (Bateman & Milne 1983; Hobley 1981; Miller century timber-clad warehouses extends from the foot of
1977, 1982; Milne & Milne 1979, 1981 & 1982; Schofield The Mint/Mermaid Street to the present-day quay on the
1981; Tatton-Brown 1974) River Tillingham. Where towns have been built on more
Norwich (Carter 1981; Ayers 1983; Ayers & Murphy 1983) level sites, then the reclamation zone is often found between
Oxford (Durham 1977; Durham 1981; Medieval Archaeol, a sinuous street laid out over the original river bank, and the
26, 1982, 204-5) present-day channel of the river. The area between the High
Perth (CBA 1982, 89) (or Hithe) Street and the River Hull in Kingston-upon-Hull,
Plymouth (Medieval Archaeol, 13, 1969, 264, Fig 80; and the area between the line of King, Queen and Nelson
Barber & Gaskell-Brown 1981) Streets and the River Ouse in King s Lynn are two well
Poole (Horsey 1981) known examples.
Portsmouth (Fox 1981) The motivation for extensive urban waterfront recla-
Reading (Medieval Archaeol, 26, 1982, 173) mation (eg Fig 90) has been discussed in a recent paper
Southwark (Sheldon 1974; Dennis 1981) (Milne 1981) in which it is suggested that it is possible to
Staines (Crouch & Shanks 1980) distinguish between developments designed to win land; to
Westminster (Green 1976; Mills 1980) provide deep-water berths; to overcome the problems of
Woolwich (Courtney 1974, 1975) silting or to maintain a sound frontage. Such distinctions are
192
Link to previous section
Milne: Waterfront archaelolgy in British towns 193
Fig 89 Late 1st century timber-faced quay surviving to its full height with open-fronted warehouse to the north, showing the
remarkable preservation and deep stratification found on a London waterfront site (Pudding Lane, 1980) (Museum of London)
Fig 90 The remains of timber and stone revetments on the foreshore mark successive stages in the advance of London's medieval
waterfront (from left to right) at the Trig Lane sire, 1974-6 (Museum of London)
necessary if the correct implication of the extension for the features associated with the waterfront have also been
growth of the town is to be drawn. studied, including bridges at Beverley (Medieval Archaeol,
Waterfront reclamation is not only of considerable 25 (1981), 216-18, fig 7); Exeter; London (Milne 1982b);
interest topographically but is also significant in a wider and Oxfordshire (Medieval Archaeol, 25 (1981), 225;
archaeological sense, for the reclamation zone provides a Medieval Archaeol, 26 (1982), 205); landing stages and jetties
remarkable archive of deeply stratified, well preserved, at Driffield, Harwich and London (Milne & Milne 1982,
waterlogged deposits. These are often rich in environmental 42-7); fish weirs on the Trent (Salisbury 1980, 88-91); and
evidence, and may contain large artefactual assemblages a royal dockyard at Woolwich (Courtney 1974, 1975). The
including organic material such as leather and wooden remains of mills have been located on urban and rural water-
objects not usually encountered on 'dry' archaeological front sites at Batsford, Sussex (Bedwin 1980); Glasgow
sites. (Medieval Archaeol, 26 (1982), 222); Bordesley Abbey
(Medieval Archaeol, 25 (1981), 188; 26 (1982), 185); and at
Waterfront structures
Waltham, where the wheel-pit and associated features were
British urban waterfront excavations have also produced initially thought to represent part of a wharf (Huggins 1972,
examples of Roman, Saxon, and medieval wharves and 81-9).
revetments. The major Roman sites were at Caerleon, The study of the construction and structural development
Dover and London (Fig 89), but earlier work in other British of waterfront structures is of interest in its own right (Milne
towns has been summarized by Fryer (1973), and Cleere 1979), but an assessment of the woodworking and carpentry
(1978). The early medieval waterfront has been examined in techniques and joinery recorded on waterfront sites also has
Dublin, Ipswich, London, Norwich, Oxford and Poole, a much wider significance (Fig 91). Firstly, it often provides
while later medieval timber or stone wharf or revetment closely dated examples of ancient carpentry. The complex
structures have been recorded in at least seventeen British bridle-butted scarf joint from the revetment erected in c
towns: Bristol, Dublin, Exeter, Harwich, Hull, Ipswich, 1380 at Trig Lane, London is the earliest surviving joint of
King's Lynn, Lincoln, London, Hartlepool, Plymouth, its type, for example (Hewett 1980, 267).
Poole, Reading, Southwark, Staines, Westminster and Secondly, it enables characteristics of the vernacular
York. Timber revetments have also been revealed on rural carpentry of a particular period to be identified and assessed
sites, such as the moated manor at Stretham in Sussex even when few or even no examples of that date are known
(Medieval Archaeol, 22 (1978), 18l-2). A number of other to survive above ground. In Dublin, Wallace has attempted
Link to next section