The Post-Medieval Period
(1485 – 1901 AD)
The Chapel of the Guild of the Holy Cross in Stratford upon Avon was decorated in the fifteenth century with a series of elaborate wall paintings imbued with great religious significance. These images provide a startling insight into the Christian worldview at the end of the medieval period. Topics addressed in the paintings include the Dance of Death, Saint George and the Dragon, local saints and the murder of Thomas Becket. The overriding theme of the design scheme was the inevitability of death and the pressing need to prepare for Judgement. This iconography embroidered the architecture of the chapel with key concepts of the Christian faith. Yet in 1563 the Corporation of Stratford ordered the images to be covered in whitewash and hidden from sight. The complex imagery of Christian theology was to be replaced literally with a blank canvas. The decision to cover the wall paintings was not taken lightly. Indeed the Corporation had little choice but to conform and demonstrate its allegiance to the Church of England. Yet the task cannot have been lightly accomplished. We can easily imagine that it must have been undertaken with heavy hearts by the men selected by the Corporation to whitewash the walls. This may be reflected in the fact that the images were only lightly covered rather than permanently obliterated, perhaps with the hope that they would soon be uncovered. In overseeing the task, the Corporation appointed their Chamberlain who faithfully recorded payments made for defacing the images in the financial accounts. The Chamberlain was a man of good standing who had made his fortune as a glover and would eventually rise to become High Bailiff of the Corporation. Within a few months of the whitewashing of the Chapel, the Chamberlain’s wife would give birth to a son. His name was William and he became the greatest playwright the world has ever known.1
The story of John Shakespeare and the whitewashing of the chapel provides a tantalising glimpse of the realities of life during the early modern period. It was a time of great change in religion, politics, industry and society. These titanic shifts are reflected in the diversity of the archaeological record. Yet the parameters of the post-medieval period are notoriously difficult to clearly identify, as indeed they are for any artificially delineated ‘age’. Perhaps controversially, I have chosen to extend the period until the close of the Victorian era in 1901. Whilst many scholars separate the Industrial Revolution from the early modern period, in fact these radical advances in technology and engineering can be viewed within a broader period of change which altered life in Britain forever. The challenge which John Shakespeare faced in adjusting to the new religious environment of post Reformation England was similar to those of his descendants in learning to live with a British landscape covered in extensive mills, railways and mines.
THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MONASTERIES
In 1534 Henry VIII became head of the Church of England. His rejection of the authority of the Pope was motivated by personal and political factors, but ultimately was aligned with the wider Reformation sweeping Europe during this period. From an archaeological perspective, the major impact of Henry’s religious choices lies in his decision to dissolve the monastic institutions under his control. This heralded a profound shift in the religious landscape of Britain. Much that has been lost can never be reconstructed, particularly the icons, statues and other artworks removed under the king’s orders. Whilst the visible impact of the Dissolution can be easily traced in ruined monastic buildings, it is also startlingly clear in the missing stained glass windows and empty statue bases of religious houses which survived. The damage inflicted by the Dissolution permeated every level of religious life in Britain.
The Dissolution of the monasteries was carefully orchestrated by commissioners acting on behalf of the king. The initial targets were the smaller monastic houses. In 1536, 243 monastic houses worth less than £200 per annum were closed. Over the following four years the remaining monasteries were dissolved. It is important to note that this purge did not merely entail the closure of buildings, but also the disintegration of monastic estates. A wide range of communities were adversely affected by the closures, including the tenant farmers on monastic lands. The loss of monastic institutions also deprived local communities of the pastoral support provided by their inhabitants, including hospitality to travellers and charitable hand outs for the poor. The closure of monasteries could be a swift process, often accomplished at night. Aside from the removal of precious artefacts, a key priority was the removal of building roofs to prevent their rehabilitation at a later date. Monastic estates were sold off to wealthy individuals poised to profit from the closures. Many sites became wealthy residences of the elite classes. Longleat, now home to a famous safari park, owes its origins to the closure of an Augustinian priory and the construction of a mansion after 1572. The lands around former monasteries were ideal for the laying out of formal gardens, which were in great demand by the nouveau riche of Tudor England. Agricultural land owned by former monasteries was often divided into new farm estates, some of which were purchased or managed by former monastic officials.
Yet the Dissolution also provided new opportunities for religious institutions. Eight cathedral priories became secular cathedrals. A few large monasteries were preserved through conversion into new cathedrals in the decade after the start of the Dissolution, including Chester and Gloucester. At a number of monastic institutions, chapels which had formally been used for worship by lay people were retained. Examples of such survivals can be found at Furness and Rievaulx. The Dissolution could not completely recast traditional forms of belief. Saintly shrines proved a particular target for destruction. When royal officials opened the Shrine of St Cuthbert at Durham, they discovered that the body of the saint was miraculously complete. The body was reburied and remains a place of pilgrimage and worship to this day.2
THE MARY ROSE
Henry VIII is commonly regarded as the founding father of the Royal Navy. Whilst this description is not completely factually accurate, it does reflect Henry’s use of naval force to repel the threat of invasion from France. In the summer of 1545 a French fleet of up to 300 vessels carried an invasion force of some 30,000 men across the English Channel. On 19 July 1545, the royal fleet sought to engage the French armada in the Solent, a narrow channel which runs between the Isle of Wight and the mainland. One of the most heavily armed ships in the English fleet was the Mary Rose, which had been in service for thirty-five years. As the two opposing fleets drew towards each other, the Mary Rose swung around. A freak blast of wind caught the ship which heeled over and rapidly sank. Anti-boarding netting strewn over the top deck prevented the majority of those on board from escaping to safety. From a nominal crew of 415, only thirty men survived the wreck. Among the dead were the captain Roger Grenville and Vice Admiral Sir George Carew.
Despite early salvage attempts, the Mary Rose lay on the seabed until the twentieth century. Preservation was aided by anaerobic conditions and the angle at which the wreck lay on the seabed. The raising of the wreck in 1982 attracted an international television audience and popularized British marine archaeology. The causes of the sinking of Mary Rose have been subject to debate since July 1545. Contemporary French sources predictably claimed responsibility for sinking the pride of the royal fleet. Yet the wreck shows no sign of hostile assault. Other possible explanations have included gross indiscipline amongst the crew. One historical source notes that the lower gun ports had not been closed prior to the sinking. There is also evidence that the Mary Rose was dangerously overloaded with equipment and crew. In 1540, the Mary Rose carried 81 heavy guns. This number may have increased over the following five years. Some authorities claim that the Mary Rose was carrying as many as 700 individuals at the time it sank, although this number may be an overestimate. It can therefore be theorised that the overloading of the ship, failure to close the lower gun ports and a freak gust of wind combined to cause the ship to sink as it sailed to engage the French.
Excavation of the Mary Rose has illuminated the lives of the crew: 179 separate individuals have been associated with the wreck. All are male and represent a cross section of ages. Close analysis of the skeletal remains have allowed the occupations of some individuals to be tentatively identified. The Mary Rose sank at a time of change in the armaments of naval vessels. The crew contained both archers and gun crew and 137 longbows and 3500 arrows were discovered on the ship. Arm guards worn by archers on the Mary Rose were decorated with Tudor roses and pomegranates.3 The latter was a symbol associated with Catherine of Aragon and may betray the presence of an elite archer unit on board. Some of the skeletons display traces of prolonged involvement with archery through changes to the arm bones and spine. A number of individuals had probably served at sea for a considerable portion of lives. This is indicated by evidence of back strain and heavily muscled ankles and feet suggesting long periods spent in unstable environments. A chest discovered on the Mary Rose contained a quantity of gold and silver coins. A skeleton found close by belonged to an individual who suffered from Perthes disease which would have caused profound physical impairment. The presence of such an individual on a fighting ship during wartime is anomalous, but could be explained by his role as purser or treasurer of the vessel.4 Recent research has concentrated on the origins of Mary Rose crew members. The findings have been surprising. Analysis of oxygen isotopes in the dental enamel of crew members indicates that between 33% and 60% of those sampled originated on the European mainland south of Britain. It has been suggested that these foreign individuals may have been mercenaries or even Spanish prisoners pressed into military service aboard Henry’s fleet. Language problems arising from a multinational crew may have contributed to the disastrous sinking of the ship.5
Popular perceptions of the Tudor period often concentrate on the intrigues of court, whether Henry VIII’s romantic dalliances or the political manoeuvres of Elizabeth I’s courtiers. The importance of the royal court during the Tudor period is reflected in the number of royal palaces retained by the dynasty. Throughout the medieval period, kingship was itinerant in nature meaning that the monarch was often mobile throughout his kingdom. This allowed the king to interact with his nobles and increase his visibility to his subjects. During the Tudor period, monarchs still enjoyed a degree of mobility through formal royal progresses, which involved travelling around houses belonging to the Crown and important nobles. Monarchs also moved between their own palaces around the Thames outside of formal progresses. These moves were often dictated by the need to avoid inclement weather conditions or outbreaks of disease in the capital. In the early part of his reign, Henry VIII displayed a particular passion for hunting and his travels often reflected his sporting pursuits.
Hampton Court Palace is perhaps the most well-known Tudor royal residence. The site was first in use during the thirteenth century, when the area was an agricultural estate owned by the Knights Hospitaller of St John Jerusalem. Hampton lay in close proximity to two royal estates and, as a result, over time it came increasingly to serve as overflow accommodation for parties visiting the royal properties. This association with the royal court intensified in 1494 when the estate was rented by an influential courtier, Giles Daubeney, who became Chamberlain to Henry VII. The king is known to have stayed at the estate. The following tenant, Cardinal Wolsey, invested heavily in Hampton in order to make it fit for purpose as a temporary residence of the royal court, when required. Under Wolsey’s stewardship, the site became an ostentatious palace capable of hosting international delegations. Guest suites were provided for Henry VIII, his queen and offspring. An additional forty guest quarters were also constructed, each of which was provided with its own lavatory. A grand chapel served to emphasize Wolsey’s religious status. It is clear that Wolsey’s manipulation of the architecture and layout of Hampton Court was designed to endear him to the king. Unfortunately, this was insufficient to prevent Wolsey from falling disastrously from grace. It has even been argued that the ostentatious nature of Hampton Court may have incurred the jealousy of the king, and certainly contributed to hostility from Wolsey’s political rivals. In 1528 Hampton Court Palace was seized by Henry VIII to serve as one of his official residences. Under Henry VIII, the palace arguably reached its high point as a royal residence. The king invested in renovating Hampton Court to cater to his needs, particularly in terms of entertainment and recreational facilities. A large hunting park was established in which the king and his retainers could pursue game. This was particularly valued by Henry after a series of near misses had put paid to his jousting career. Tennis courts and bowling alleys provided additional diversions from the taxing demands of royal business. A Great Hall served as a venue for elaborate feasts. Even a grand lavatory served to demonstrate the power and wealth of the king, through hosting twenty-eight individuals in a single sitting. Hampton Court Palace was not solely dedicated to pleasure. It continued to serve as a prestigious venue in hosting international parties. In 1546, for example, the site catered for an important French ambassadorial delegation visiting the king on matters of state. Including both French and English parties, a total of over 1500 individuals feasted in the palace on six consecutive days. In this way, the architecture of Hampton Court Palace was used to conspicuously display the wealth, influence and power of the monarch, and therefore represented the physical embodiment of royal status.6
THE CHANGING RURAL LANDSCAPE
The agricultural landscape of modern Britain is characterized by fields of regular shape (though varying in size) surrounded by some form of enclosure under the ownership of a single individual or family. This stands in stark contrast to the great open fields held under communal ownership during the medieval period. The change in layout of much of the British agricultural landscape was a result of the Enclosure Acts which became particularly common during the eighteenth century. In essence, enclosure meant the concentration of land into fields under single ownership through the breaking up of open fields. Rising prices of agricultural products prompted the search for greater farming efficiency. Open fields always left some land unused in the form of boundaries between different strips of land. Single fields increased the area of land available for exploitation. Enclosure began during the sixteenth century through the mutual consent of landowners. The process became more formalized through Parliamentary regulation during the eighteenth century and was increasingly common during the second half of the century. It has been calculated that around 20% of the surface area of England was subject to Enclosure Acts between 1750 and 1830.7
The process of enclosure was facilitated by the political influence of large landowners who often sought to profit from the redistribution of land. During the eighteenth century, owners of 75% of village land had to consent for enclosure to be considered. This consent took the form of a petition presented to Parliament. A commission would scutinise the application and, if agreeable, appointed three commissioners to oversee the formal enclosure process. These commissioners examined the ownership of land within the village and drew a map illustrating the new distribution of fields. Enclosure maps, often held by public record offices and local archives, remain a detailed source for land ownership during village enclosures. The designation of land ownership resulted in the eviction of farmers who could not prove their entitlement and the poor families who relied on the common pastures. This led to migration from rural areas to urban centres. As an Act of Enclosure was required for each village, this was a lengthy and time consuming process. As a result, a General Enclosure Act passed in 1801 allowed any village to enclose its fields as long as consent had been obtained from owners of 75% of the associated land.
The enclosures resulted in profound changes to the rural landscape. To maintain the integrity of new fields, they were surrounded by hedges of hawthorn or, in upland areas, dry stone walls. Hedges required careful maintenance through the practice of ‘laying’ which gradually thickened the composition of the barrier. In some instances a shallow ditch was dug alongside the hedge. Trees were occasionally planted with the hedgerows, though these proved controversial in areas where foxhunting was a popular pastime as they proved dangerous obstacles when the hunt was in pursuit of its quarry. The clearance of previously neglected areas of vegetation due to enclosure prompted the creation of artificial fox dens. The layout of a new village landscape by the enclosure commissioners offered an opportunity for the creation of new roads to allow access to far fields and neighbouring settlements. These can often be identified on maps due to their straight and purposeful routes unlike earlier roads which often deviated around large open fields. Over time, the clustering of fields belonging to individual farmers in distinct locations led to the construction of new farms away from village centres. It is therefore arguable that the process of enclosure had a profound impact on the social fabric of rural villages.
The early modern period also witnessed dramatic changes in land use in wetland areas, particularly in the Fens. Small schemes of wetland drainage can be traced back to the Roman occupation. During the thirteenth century, a great earthwork was constructed along the wash to protect the land from the encroachment of the sea. Running for almost a hundred kilometres, it was believed to be a reconstruction of an earlier Roman bank. From the sixteenth century, the attractive profits arising from agricultural produce encouraged landowners to maximize the amount of fertile land under their ownership. An Act of Parliament passed in 1600 allowed large landowners to overrule other interested parties in draining fenland areas. As a result, a complex system of dykes, drains and changes to existing watercourses was employed to drain the Fens of East Anglia.8
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF SHAKESPEARE
The life of William Shakespeare has intrigued biographers and historians for centuries. The documentary record pertaining to Shakespeare has been exhausted and, in the absence of new source discoveries, it is likely that archaeology has the best chance of providing new evidence of the life and times of the enigmatic playwright. Visitors to Stratford upon Avon can visit some of the residences associated with Shakespeare, including his birthplace. Recent archaeological investigations have focussed on New Place, the home owned by Shakespeare from 1597 until the time of his death in 1616. New Place was a substantial residence which was the second largest home in Stratford at the time of its construction. Contemporary sources suggest that New Place had at least ten rooms. It was also unusual for its time in using a substantial amount of brick within the fabric of the house. New Place also contained a large garden up to 55 m in length which was used by Shakespeare to cultivate two orchards. Clearly New Place was of significance to Shakespeare as he chose to retire there from London in 1610.9
Aside from his domestic life in Stratford, Shakespeare’s world revolved around the theatres of London where his great plays were staged, and in which Shakespeare himself performed as an actor. The first theatres frequented by Shakespeare were the Theatre and Curtain in Shoreditch which opened in the 1570s. Recent excavations at the Curtain have uncovered evidence of theatre life during the age of Shakespeare. Elizabethan theatres tended to have a uniform design being polygonal in shape with a central yard containing the stage. The central yard allowed space for audience members to stand close to the action. Wooden seating was available in the galleries overlooking the stage. Seating cost extra and pottery boxes discovered during the excavation were probably used to collect the admission fee. They would have been smashed open at the end of performances to gather the money, rather like modern piggy banks. Interestingly, one of the floor sections in the Curtain was surfaced with sheep knucklebones instead of brick. Clearly the entrepreneurial owners of the theatre were using cheap waste materials from the butchery trade in the fabric of the building.10
In the winter of 1598, Shakespeare and his close associates the Burbages became estranged with the landlord of the area on which the Theatre was constructed. As a response, the Burbages moved the Theatre south of the River Thames to Southwark. Their new venue was named the Globe.11 Southwark offered numerous benefits for the theatrical trade including favourable taxes. The area was filled with entertainment venues from brothels to bear baiting establishments. This was a perfect environment for a profession which always sailed close to being disreputable. A number of theatres were constructed in close proximity to each other on the south bank of the Thames, including the Swan, the Rose and the Globe. In 1591, Shakespeare’s play Henry VI Part 1 was performed at the Rose and brought the audience to tears at a time of growing tension with France. Excavations have revealed that the Rose was a fourteen sided structure prior to its closure in 1605. The Globe burnt down during a performance of Shakespeare’s Henry VIII in 1613. The blaze was attributed to the thatched roofing catching light when a cannon was fired on stage. The theatre was reconstructed as a twenty-sided structure with a tiled roof to prevent further fires. Artefacts discovered at the Globe include some which may have been used by the players themselves, such as mock weapons for staged fights. There is also significant evidence for snacks served during performances such as grapes, figs and plums. In this sense, archaeology reveals the social context of Shakespeare’s performances.12
CIVIL WAR ARCHAEOLOGY
The post-medieval period is rich in the archaeology of conflict. Although this field has only been widely exploited within the last few decades, it is clear that the archaeological investigation of sites associated with warfare and defence allows scholars to compare both the terrain and remains with the historical record. The English Civil War forms part of a series of related conflicts widely united as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms which lasted roughly from 1641 through to 1652. This decade witnessed prolonged periods of violence across Britain which left an enduring landmark on the landscape and archaeological record. Conservative estimates suggest that around 84,000 individuals died violently during this period. An additional 127,000 people may have died indirectly as a result of conflict, for example through disease and deprivation.13 Aside from the human cost of the war, substantial damage was inflicted on cities, towns and rural landscapes. The English Civil War was essentially a clash of ideologies between Royalists and Parliamentarians which played out on a highly localized level. Much of the violence was articulated through the seizure of particular localities in order to control particular territories. This strategy ensures that the archaeology of the English Civil War and associated conflicts is highly diverse and widespread across Britain.
The pace of the conflict and frequent uncertainty over the political loyalties of particular individuals and factions ensured that haste was often required in the consolidation of defensive positions. Urban centres were a particular focus for campaigns. A number of larger cities retained perimeter walls which dated from the Roman or medieval periods. Although often in need of repair, these ancient walls often formed the basis for new defences. Examples of major settlements whose walls were utilized during the war include Exeter, Bristol and Chester. Old walls required patching up and adapting for new military technologies, particularly the rise of artillery power as a dominant force on the battlefield. Gloucester is a prime example of the utilisation of an existing defensive perimeter. The medieval walls were substantially strengthened and reinforced in preparation for hostile assault. A large defensive ditch was dug to hinder approaches to the settlement. In places, the ditch measured up to 20 m in width and almost 4 m in depth.14 Earthworks were frequently constructed to support the walls and increase the strength of the defensive perimeter. They were particularly useful for strengthening gateways, which were highly vulnerable to artillery barrage. As a rule, earth was more widely used as a material for defensive works during this period than stone. The reason for this is obvious. Earth is cheap, easy to manoeuvre and can be used in haste. It requires little skill to construct a defensive barrier of earth, in contrast to one of stone. Earthworks were used widely in areas which lacked pre-existing stone walls. Their existence can frequently be traced in the landscape today, including a notable example at Hyde Park in London.15 While new defensive perimeters inevitably caused disruption in the daily life of major settlements, other consequences may not leave visible traces in the archaeological record. This includes the demolition of housing for building materials, social changes due to the arrival of military garrisons and the spread of disease during sieges. In these instances, historical sources may illuminate the archaeological record.
It is unsurprising that, in the race to achieve a tactical advantage over the enemy, existing sites of strategic importance were revitalized during the war. This was particularly the case with castles, many of which were refortified and garrisoned. It is important to note, however, that this continuity in use of certain sites also encompassed a significant change in how they were used. Castles were no longer used predominantly as a means of displaying status and wealth. On the contrary, they now served an immediate military purpose. This is reinforced by the deliberate destruction of a number of castles to prevent them from being used by the enemy. In 1649, for example, Parliament ordered that Montgomery Castle be destroyed for this purpose. Beeston Castle in Cheshire occupies a striking hilltop position overlooking the surrounding countryside. It conforms to the romantic view of a medieval castle. From a strategic position, Beeston dominates the local area and oversees the movement of troops and materials through the surrounding countryside. During the Civil War, the castle was reoccupied and a substantial programme of repairs was undertaken in improving the fabric of the structures on the site. Gun ports were added to the walls of the castle. Floor levels were lowered in some areas to increase the space available for storage in preparation for a siege. Further additions included a large timber gate and earthworks outside the perimeter. In 1646, Beeston Castle was put beyond use by order of Parliament.16
Castles were not the only historic sites to have received a new lease of life as a result of the conflict. Existing earthworks tempted local commanders into using them as fortified positions. The Neolithic henge at Maumbury Rings near Dorchester was one ancient site which served a military function. The Iron Age hillfort at Caynham outside Ludlow may have served as a siege camp in preparation for an attack on the town (Fig 18). Manor houses and country homes were also a focus for garrisons in order to control the surrounding countryside. In the absence of existing defences, earthworks were hastily thrown up to defend isolated residences.
The archaeology of the English Civil War has by no means been exhausted. A number of areas would repay further intensive investigation. Analysis of the topography and remains of battlefields encourages evaluation of associated historical accounts. The heavy use of musket and pistol balls during this conflict has prompted the use of metal detectors in surveying battlefields. Mapping of recovered artefacts allows the dispositions of opposing forces to be identified. Such a study can be complex. The site of the battle of Naseby, which took place in June 1645, has yielded 1000 musket balls within an area measuring only 5 km2. The use of mines during sieges also deserves to be examined in more detail. This could provide a wealth of information about the understanding of seventeenth century military engineers in the calculated use of explosives for undermining defences.
THE JACOBITE THREAT
Between 1688 and 1746, adherents to the Jacobite cause posed a particular threat to the security of Britain. Although nowadays associated with romantic images of the Highlands of Scotland, Jacobites could be found across the lowlands of Scotland and in England. The Jacobite threat can be traced to the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688, when Prince William of Orange and his wife Mary ousted the reigning monarch King James VII. The old king fled into exile in France and thus began the enthralling image of a king over the water. Jacobites were adherents of the old king who were committed to restoring the Stuart dynasty in place of the incoming Hanoverians. Attempts to suppress the Jacobite cause focussed on controlling the landscape of Scotland through the use of innovative military engineering. This trend began in 1650 with the invasion of Scotland by Oliver Cromwell. Accompanied by a force of 35,000 troops, Cromwell attempted to control the population through force of arms. Yet he did not rely on traditional seats of power in the form of castles. Instead, Cromwell constructed a new style of artillery fort or citadel with project bastions which facilitated the use of artillery guns. Citadels were constructed at Ayr, Perth, Leith, Inverness and Inverlochy. The appearance of these artillery forts demonstrated a strategic attempt to dominate the Scottish landscape.
The first Jacobite action occurred immediately after the Glorious Revolution when forces loyal to the new regime besieged Edinburgh Castle in 1689. Despite only being garrisoned by around 120 men, the castle withstood siege for three months before surrendering. Inevitably the garrison was weakened by disease and deprivation. A mass grave discovered within the castle contained the remains of fifteen males who probably died during the siege. In an attempt to discourage further Jacobite trouble a new citadel was constructed at Fort William in the western Highlands. This fort was laid out in a pentagon design using the construction of earthworks to form a defensive perimeter. Loch Linnhe provided protection through limiting the number of approaches to the fort. An abortive uprising in 1708, aided by the French, prompted the replacement of the earth ramparts with stone and the addition of new barracks. Further defensive works were undertaken at Edinburgh and Stirling castles, demonstrating that medieval sites still had a role to play in securing Scotland.
Despite the creation of Fort William the Jacobite threat persisted. A major rising in 1715 was crushed by Crown forces. Yet the following year, economic pressures required a reduction in the number of large guns serving the military in the north. Renewed emphasis was placed on facilitating the movement of troops through Scotland in order to respond to emerging trouble spots. The first free standing barracks in Britain was constructed at Berwick to provide an entry point into Scotland. The Berwick barracks housed 600 soldiers and thirty-six officers. Accommodation was cramped with eight men living in each room and inadequate toilet facilities. Barracks were also constructed at four sites in the Highlands, namely Bernera, Inversnaid, Kiliwhimen and Ruthven. Each location was of strategic importance, usually in guarding an important transport route. The barracks adhered to a standard design of two blocks facing each other across an open square surrounded by a perimeter wall. Musket loops provided an opportunity to repel an infantry attack, although the barracks were vulnerable to sustained artillery fire. The barracks housed between 120 and 360 men. Constructed in hostile areas, the construction teams feared kidnap or assassination. Despite their impressive size and innovative design, contemporary military officers doubted their effectiveness.
In 1724 Major General Wade was appointed to conduct a survey of the state of the Highlands with particular regard to their security. Wade produced a report which was overwhelmingly negative and indicated a clear danger of further rebellions. In response, Wade was appointed as Commander in Chief of all military forces in the north of Britain with a broad remit to secure the Highlands. Wade realized that the rapid movement of troops was essential in combating future outbreaks of violence. To this end, he developed a new road network up to 400 km in length. Wade’s strategy consciously mimicked that of the Roman army. Indeed, on an inscription on the Tay Bridge at Aberfeldy, he boasted over extending the military occupation of Scotland over 250 miles beyond the Roman frontier. Furthermore, a Board of Ordnance map drawn up in 1731 recording the disposition of clans during the 1715 revolt highlight the Roman fort at Ardoch as though drawing a conscious comparison with contemporary security measures.17 Wade concentrated his road building programme on four key routes: Fort William to Inverness, Dunkeld to Inverness, Crieff to Dalnacardoch and Dalwhinnie to Fort Augustus. Roads were constructed to a set design with a width of between 3 and 5 m. A foundation for the road was formed by large boulders, topped with smaller stones and gravel. This robust design ensured that they could carry artillery pieces and wagons, as well as army units. Wade also oversaw the creation of two new military bases at Fort George near Inverness and Fort Augustus near Kiliwhimen. Fort George occupied the site of a medieval castle which had been reused as a citadel by Cromwell. The new design incorporated a late medieval tower house and provided accommodation for 400 soldiers. Fort Augustus was intended to serve as the headquarters of the northern Hanoverian army and included four imposing bastions linked by curtain walls. The defences of the royal castles at Dumbarton and Edinburgh were also reviewed.
The last great Jacobite rebellion broke out in 1745 under the leadership of Prince Charles Edward Stuart (popularly known as Bonnie Prince Charlie). Despite early successes which saw the Jacobites reach as far south as Derby, the rebels were forced back to Scotland and were ultimately defeated at the battle of Culloden in 1746. Wade’s defensive measures proved less than successful during the rebellion. Most of the Highland forts and barracks were severely undermanned and could play no part in suppressing the revolt. The road network may have facilitated the movement of Jacobite forces. Fort George surrendered to the Jacobites in 1746 and Fort Augustus was badly damaged by an explosion in its gunpowder magazine. After Culloden, significant rebuilding took place at Fort Augustus and Fort William. Fort George was relocated to a site overlooking the Moray Firth. The new site was designed to intimidate potential foes. It held 1600 soldiers and covered seventeen hectares. Requiring a labour force of over 1000 men to build, the fort was a physical statement of the Crown’s intent to subdue Scotland. The power magazine held 2500 barrels of gunpowder. Between 1740 and 1767 the road network was expanded by almost 1500 km. A new approach was taken to garrisoning the Highlands. Large numbers of outposts were established which housed small numbers of troops. The purpose of these bases was to support wide ranging patrols to police the Highlands. Arguably, the end of the Jacobite threat can be attributed to substantial investment in military forts, outposts and roads.18
CAUSES OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
The social, cultural and economic environment which fostered the Industrial Revolution defies easy analysis. There was no single overriding factor which ensured that great technological advances were made in Britain in the late eighteenth century. Certainly, these innovations are of global historical significance. Many of the inventors, entrepreneurs and businessmen who shaped the period are now household names, such as George Stephenson, Richard Trevithick and Richard Arkwright. Yet the Industrial Revolution owes its origins neither to a single individual nor invention. Instead, it was a result of a thriving innovation ecosystem which supported and rewarded new ideas and technologies. For this reason, a series of complex factors contributed to an era of rapid technological change, including the patent system, networking opportunities offered by influential literary and philosophical societies in major towns and cities, and the growth of an experienced artisan class.19 It is important to note that the Industrial Revolution did not provoke a complete break with the past. Traditional agricultural practices continued in use. Indeed, early factories show great similarities with contemporary farms through their typical layout of sheds arranged around an open yard.20 The impact of the Industrial Revolution extended far beyond the economic spheres into how ordinary people dressed, worked and played.
COAL
In essence, the Industrial Revolution transformed the potential sources of fuel available to the population of Britain. In doing so, it nurtured the growth of industry beyond its traditional heartlands. Traditional sources of power imposed severe restrictions on industrial growth. Wood was widely used as a fuel. However, its exploitation could lead to disastrous ecological consequences and it could only be transported short distances. Hence industrial premises had to be located close to forests. Likewise, industrial buildings relying on water power required ready access to suitable watercourses. Contrary to popular opinion, watermills did not decline immediately as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed they increased in number from 70,000 to 120,000 between 1760 and 1820.21 Wind power also served as an important resource during this period, particularly for grinding grain. The location of windmills was dictated by the occurrence of regular winds close to suitable agricultural land, such as the Fylde coast in Lancashire.22
The exploitation of coal offered an alternative fuel source with the potential to unlock industrial potential in areas without the benefits of forests or watermills. By 1870 over 93% of British industry was powered by steam.23 The desire to improve the efficiency of coal mining was central to many of the innovations produced during this period. Early steam engines were used to resolve the issue of flooded mining works by powering drainage programmes, not only for mining coal but also tin and copper in Cornwall. The first Newcomen steam engine was in use in 1712. Three years later, mines near Whitehaven were the deepest in the world thanks to the ability of Newcomen steam engines to drain water down to almost 250 m below ground level.24 Whilst coal mining was inevitably a dangerous profession, technical innovations did improve the safety of miners, not least the safety lamps devised by Humphrey Davy and George Stephenson in 1815.
The increase in coal production during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was prodigious. In 1700 the output of British coal mines was around three million tons. By 1830 output had reached 75 million tons and increased to 115 million tons by 1871.25 This astonishing growth was supported by the entrepreneurial activities of inventors and businessmen. Many wealthy landowners exploited coal seams on their estates. Intensive industrial exploitation of the coalfields had a substantial and long lasting impact on the British landscape. Typical mines consisted of shafts sunk into the ground with buildings clustered around the pit head, including engine houses. Coal was transported from the mine to railways, canals or ports via dedicated wagonways. The considerable logistical systems around the transport of coal also left a noticeable trace in the archaeological record. On the major rivers of north eastern England, coal was transferred from wagons onto ships through the use of wooden staithes. Some of these staithes are still visible and provide a poignant reminder of the importance of sea transport for the coal industry. Giant slag heaps formed from the detritus of the coal industry proved to be a dangerous addition to the landscape due to their unsettled disposition. In 1966, a spoil tip at Aberfan in Wales collapsed and killed 144 local people. Other noticeable archaeological remnants of the coal industry include the houses provided for miners and their families. Many communities came into existence due to the discovery of new coal seams. Accommodation for mining families was therefore essential for the sustainability of the industry. Distinctive miners’ houses, often arrange in neat terraces, remain prominent in a large number of towns and villages in Britain, including Cramlington in Northumberland.
RAILWAYS
The development of the railway network evolved through a symbiotic relationship with the coal industry. Efficient transportation systems boosted the productivity of individual mines. As early as 1701, the creation of wagonways transporting coal from Gibside colliery near Gateshead to the River Tyne led to an increase in production from 20,000 to 70,000 tons over a two year period.26 Early coal transports were drawn by horses. The invention of steam engines promised a more efficient logistical system, if they could be transferred from a static environment to provide locomotion. In 1801 Richard Trevithick demonstrated that steam engines could be placed within a vehicle by driving ‘Puffing Billy’ for a kilometre up Camborne Hill. Trevithick’s success encouraged other railway pioneers in their own efforts, resulting in George Stephenson’s locomotives. Parliament approved the construction of the first railway, running between Stockton and Darlington, in 1821. The first intercity railway running between Liverpool and Manchester opened in 1830. The railway network expanded through the entrepreneurial activities of railway innovators and the willingness of Parliament to support new ventures. The explosion in railway growth during this period is staggering. In 1838 500 miles of railway were in use. Within a decade this had grown to 5000 miles and double further by 1860. By 1880, the railway had supplanted sea travel as the main conduit for the transportation of coal.27 Aside from moving coal from mines to market, locomotives also consumed a large volume of coal.
The creation of railways had a profound impact on the landscape. They required the use of complex surveying techniques to identify the best routes across the terrain. Aside from the laying of tracks, labourers or navvies dug cuttings and tunnels. Bridges and viaducts were used to surmount otherwise unnavigable obstacles. The viaduct approaching London Bridge station contained no less than 878 arches.28 Some lines had sufficient impact to completely change panoramas across the landscape. The Great Western Railway, for instance, changed contemporary views of the fashionable resort of Bath.29 The line from Exeter to Taunton created by Isambard Kingdom Brunel passed perilously close to the seashore and ensured that some of the picturesque beaches along its route were no longer accessible to the general public. A substantial logistical infrastructure was required to facilitate the movement of goods by rail. The colossal Great Northern Railway warehouse opened in Manchester at the end of the nineteenth century. Five storeys high, the structure allowed the exchange of goods between the rail, road and canal networks through a series of hydraulic lifts which moved wagons between different levels.30 The teams of labourers who constructed the railways required temporary accommodation as they worked along the routes of new lines. Excavations on the site of the Risehill camp on the Settle to Carlisle railway, occupied during the 1870s, have uncovered traces of prefabricated huts raised above ground level. Cinders and coal were mixed to provide a secure surface for paths in an area prone to heavy rainfall. Whilst the lives of railway labourers were clearly hard, they seem to have made conscious attempts to construct decent temporary residences for themselves. Contrary to popular perceptions of drunken navvies drowning their sorrows in copious amounts of ale, there was relatively little evidence for alcohol consumption on the site. Investigation of local census returns indicates that the opening of the line had a positive impact on local agriculture, through facilitating the movement of livestock to distant markets.31
COTTON
Logistical efficiency was also important for the cotton trade, in which north western England played a pivotal role. Almost 300 settlements in Lancashire, Yorkshire and Cheshire were economically reliant on cotton by the end of the eighteenth century.32 A series of technological innovations during the later eighteenth century revolutionized the textile industry, including Crompton’s mule, Cartwright’s power loom and Arkwright’s spinning frame. This encouraged rapid growth in raw cotton imports for processing. In the 1750s, 2.8 million pounds of cotton were imported annually. By 1820 this volume had risen to 173 million pounds. Prior to 1914, cotton import levels reached 1.8 billion pounds.33 For much of its existence, British involvement in the cotton trade was synonymous with human slavery. European ships transported African slaves to plantations in America and the West Indies. In exchange, goods such as cotton, sugar and coffee were shipped to British ports. For this reason, the archaeology of the cotton trade in Britain can be viewed as an extension of the global archaeology of slavery. Supporting the increase in the cotton trade was a vast industrial infrastructure including warehouses and mills. By 1861 452,000 individuals worked in some capacity in the cotton industry.34 Although many mills were located next to watercourses, steam engines allowed them to be situated in more urban locations. This was advantageous in recruiting a suitable workforce. Although mills varied considerably in size and layout during this period, they often shared a series of common features. Several stories high, mills contained large open rooms to hold the associated machinery. Surrounding walls prevented intrusions from thieves or vandals. The latter were a particular threat during periods of political turbulence. Lavatories for the workers were usually clustered round the staircases. A tower bell or clock oversaw the delineation of shifts. Artificial lights increased the productivity of mills by allowing them to operate during the hours of darkness if required.35 Early observers often expressed surprise that the mills were active at night. Conditions in the mills were notoriously dangerous. Cramped conditions in working some of the machines encouraged the recruitment of children who could work within narrow spaces.
MANCHESTER: URBAN GROWTH DURING THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
The Industrial Revolution had a profound and long lasting impact on the urban landscape of Britain. The growth of commercial and industrial centres encouraged migration from the countryside into emerging towns and cities. This population movement was facilitated by the growth of efficient transport networks and the economic boom prompted by technological innovations. The city of Manchester in northern England is a prime example of a settlement which witnessed rapid population and economic growth during this period. Many authorities claim Manchester to be the first industrial city in the world. On close examination, it is clear that Manchester was well placed to take advantage of the benefits offered by the Industrial Revolution. The city sits close to three important rivers, namely the Irk, Irwell and Medlock allowing access to river traffic. North-western England had an established reputation for the textile industry dating back several centuries. In part, this was due to the geographic and climatic conditions of Lancashire and Cheshire. Proximity to the Lancashire and Yorkshire coalfields was also important in supporting the industrial growth of Manchester. The port of Liverpool was of international significance for the cotton trade, particularly through its links with America and the West Indies. Transport links with the thriving port, strengthened through the creation of railways and canals, allowed Manchester to become a commercial hub for the cotton trade in northern England.
The rapid growth of Manchester is startling. In 1650, it was a relatively small market town indistinguishable from others across Britain. Within a century the town had significantly grown in size and housed a population of 23,000 individuals. Manchester’s growth was directly linked to its ascension as a commercial centre for the cotton trade. Whilst much of the manual labour at this stage was undertaken by workers in their own homes in the surrounding countryside, Manchester housed commercial properties and warehouses supporting the trade. Gradually, textile manufacturing moved into Manchester itself. In 1782 Richard Arkwright built his mill within the town, powered by water and steam. Over thirty mills were constructed in Manchester over the following two decades. In 1801 the population of Manchester reached 70,000 and doubled again by 1830.36 By the middle of the nineteenth century, the town contained a large number of industrial buildings including mills, print works and dye works. The Bridgewater Canal connected Manchester to Liverpool in 1776. Further canals connected industrial complexes across the town facilitating the movement of goods. Aside from the mills and works, numerous warehouses, offices and commercial premises were constructed during the nineteenth century. A single street in 1815 contained a total of fifty-seven warehouses, many of which were private houses rented out for commercial purposes whilst their inhabitants moved to the suburbs, containing over 100 companies linked to the cotton trade.37 The establishment of mills and warehouses prompted the growth of support industries, particularly metalworking to maintain industrial machinery. It is noteworthy that in 1841 only 18% of the population were directly employed in the cotton industry. The commercial growth of Manchester was reflected in the growing fortunes of the local business elite. Houses for wealthy residents were built in the suburbs of the city, some of which were based on residences in London. The award of city status in the mid-nineteenth century encouraged the construction of elegant public buildings to emphasize the civic pride of Manchester.
Inevitably the rapid population growth within the city had unpleasant consequence for its poorest and most vulnerable residents whose living conditions were seriously undermined. Migration into the city created a demand for cheap accommodation which was answered by the spread of cheap, poor quality housing and insanitary living conditions. Our understanding of social history in Manchester during this period owes much to the pioneering work of Frederich Engels who lived in Manchester during the mid-nineteenth century. Driven by a passionate social conscience and horror at what he discovered, Engels documented his explorations of the most deprived areas. He noted the squalid housing, cramped space and squalid conditions of an area known as ‘Little Ireland’, a group of terraced streets close to the River Medlock. Migrant families from Ireland, drawn by the temptations of employment in local industrial complexes, lived up to twenty per house in back-to-back terraces.38 Archaeological excavations across the city have supported Engel’s observations about living conditions during this period of rapid industrial growth. A house excavated on Loom Street measured less than 16 m2 in area.39 It is frightening to consider that this structure may have housed up to twenty individuals. Nevertheless modern views of harsh landlords imposing squalid housing upon the poor during the nineteenth century are not completely accurate. Indeed, conditions began to improve for the working class in Manchester through the century, motivated in part by accounts by individuals like Engels and a growing social conscience concerning the plight of the less fortunate in society. It is probably no coincidence that the city also played a leading role in the creation of radical political movements. In 1897, the council opened its first housing block catering for needs of the working class. Victoria Buildings contained 283 separate flats with shared facilities and demonstrated a genuine civic concern to improve housing within the city.
Although the growth and development of Manchester during the Industrial Revolution is exceptional for its scale and success, it mirrors the rise of a number of settlements during this period. Technological innovation allowed manual labour in the cotton trade to be relocated from workers’ cottages to urban mills. The growth of canals and railways promoted the movement of goods at an unprecedented rate. The location of Manchester within the landscape allowed the settlement to capitalize on these factors and channel them into an explosion in growth. A similar, though less spectacular, trend in urban growth can be traced at Huddersfield in Yorkshire where the traditional occupation of textile working in individual homes shifted to larger mills in the Colne Valley and prompted the growth of the town.
SHEFFIELD STEEL
The Industrial Revolution can be characterized as a series of interlacing industrial and technological innovations. The rapid growth of emerging transport networks linked to new manufacturing techniques to create economic growth on an unprecedented scale. The Industrial Revolution cannot be represented as linear growth but rather a complex nexus of relationships. The production of steel was vital for the spread of railways as it served as an important material in the construction of locomotives and rails. Steel was also needed for the manufacture of cutlery, tools, machinery and armaments. Sheffield in Yorkshire became the centre of the steel industry in Britain. Its role in steel production was formidable. Producing 200 tons of steel in 1840, this output had risen to 20,000 tons two decades later. Reasonable estimates suggest that the city was responsible for 40% of Europe’s steel and produced up to 80% of cutlery on a global scale.40
The explosion in steel manufacturing in Sheffield is reflected in the archaeology of the city. A series of excavations have examined the premises of John Watts & Company, a major steel firm specialising in the manufacturing of cutlery during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In 1872, the company purchased an industrial unit close to Lambert Street. Their new premises were located in an area associated with squalid living conditions. Indeed the workshop was bordered by an array of cramped housing occupied by unskilled labourers. Within four decades the workshop had grown significantly in size. It had been transformed into a sprawling factory occupying surrounding buildings and the former sites of working class housing. The company also diversified its product range, venturing to sell new lines including pens, pocket knives and razors. The rapid spatial growth of John Watts & Company is a microcosm of the rise of a single industry during this period.41
CANALS
The ability to convey goods to market is a critical factor in the success of any business enterprise. Much industrial growth during this period was driven by the discovery and implementation of new transport networks, initially canals and later railways. Canals allowed goods to be moved far more efficiently than the old road network. Although canals had been dug in Britain during the Roman and medieval periods, the watershed moment for their importance in the Britain landscape came in 1759 when construction of the Bridgewater Canal began to link coal mines at Worsley with Manchester. The transportation of coal was thus fundamental to the spread of the canal network. Of 165 Canal Acts passed between 1758 and 1801, 90 recorded the carriage of coal as their main interest.42 This more efficient process for transporting coal allowed industrial centres to be established in areas at a distance from the coalfields.
The construction of canals required considerable engineering skills to plot suitable routes and deal with topographic obstacles. The development of tunnels and bridges allowed engineers to identify practical solutions which would later be useful for the spread of railways. Canals also had an impact on urban settlement. This is most clear at Stourport-on-Severn, which grew at the confluence of the River Severn with the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal. Prior to the construction of the canal, only an inn and a few houses occupied the site. Yet the coming of the canal led to the construction of the town to serve as a bustling inland port. The canal opened in 1771. Within two decades Stourport-on-Severn had acquired 1300 residents and a number of industrial works, including yards for boat building. It remains a unique example of a settlement founded on the growth of the canal network.43
BLACKPOOL
The Industrial Revolution prompted changes in leisure practices by working class communities. In some ways, these may have been a natural reaction to the stresses and strains of manual employment in industry. The benefits of a steady income may also have been a contributing factor. In northern England, for example, the prevalence of pigeon lofts in some areas can be linked to coal mining, as miners sought outdoor pastimes during time away from the pits. Many northern towns facilitated ‘Wakes Weeks’, where communities went on holiday for a week. The origins of Wakes Weeks are obscure, but factory owners appear to have had difficulty in restricting their occurrence. Communal holidays must have enhanced the social cohesion of industrial workforces. Over time, the enforced closure of mills and factories offered an opportunity for machine maintenance. Often the destinations of such holidays were specific resorts such as Southport and Scarborough. The growth of railways encouraged leisure travel and innovative rail companies took full advantage by providing cheap fairs and tempting advertising for coastal resorts.
Blackpool owes much of its growth to the Industrial Revolution. When Queen Victoria came to the throne in 1837, the population was recorded as being only 710 individuals. By the time of her death in 1901 it had grown to around 48,000. This spectacular growth can be attributed to the economic benefits of living and working in a thriving seaside resort. Close proximity to the mill towns of Lancashire ensured that there was a ready audience for the benefits of bathing in the Irish Sea. Transport links were essential to Blackpool’s success. The Liverpool-Barrow steamship called regularly at the resort from 1838 onwards. In 1846 a branch line connecting Blackpool with the Preston and Wyre railway opened. The growing number of tourists visiting the resort prompted a rapid increase in the provision of accommodation for holidaymakers, much of which was located in streets running from the Promenade. In 1861 there were over 180 hotels and boarding houses catering for visitors, although many operated only on a seasonal basis.44 A series of attractions tempted holidaymakers to part from their hard earned wages. The North Pier opened in 1863 and gradually developed from a walking platform into an entertainment complex, as well as allowing passengers to board visiting steamers. Five years later the Theatre Royal opened. Construction of the Winter Gardens complex commenced in 1875, and provided an attraction which could be enjoyed regardless of the inclement Lancashire weather. The Promenade remained a focus for visitors and the first electric tramline in Britain was opened along it in 1885. The Pleasure Beach, designed to provide a variety of family entertainment, was launched in 1894. Perhaps the most ambitious construction project in Blackpool was the Tower, which opened to paying guests in 1894. Rising to 158 metres, the Tower was modelled on the Eiffel Tower but also served to differentiate Blackpool from its competitors. As well as a striking visual monument, the complex also contained an aquarium and menagerie. The Tower Ballroom remains a popular destination for ballroom dancing fans. These innovative developments ensured that Blackpool’s success as a holiday resort continued. It is striking that many of these attractions continue to operate in the present day. The development of seaside resorts ensured that the economic impact of the Industrial Revolution spread beyond the areas surrounding the mills, factories and mines. Resorts also attracted wealthy businessmen and merchants. The Grand Hotel in Brighton, for example, served as a sophisticated holiday residence for wealthy families. Just as the railways radically changed the working lives of Britons during this period, they also reshaped how they spent their leisure time.