# Improving our understanding of $extit{Londinium}$

Improving our understanding of $extit{Londinium}$ - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

Publication Date: 2016-11-21

Journal Title: Antiquity

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Volume: 90

Issue: 354

Pages: 1692-1699

Language: English

Type: Article

This Version: AM

Citation: Millett, M. (2016). Improving our understanding of $\textit{Londinium}$. Antiquity, 90 (354), 1692-1699. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.214

Description: This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Cambridge University Press via https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.214

Abstract: Our extensive knowledge of Roman London is the result of over four decades of large-scale excavation. In the UK, the establishment and growth of professional archaeology since the 1970s, coupled with the funding provided by property developers since 1990 (Fulford & Holbrook 2015), has transformed our understanding of both urban and rural sites—and nowhere more so than London. A combination of intensive building development in the City of London and the world-leading technical quality of many of the excavations means that Londinium is now probably both the most extensively and best-excavated major town of the Roman world. Knowledge generated by these excavations, however, has not always been made available through publications as it should have been. Although there is an important archive in which the records of past projects are curated, how and where to publish results has been a long-running problem, especially for the excavations of the 1970s and 1980s where post-excavation work was often not properly funded or supported. One major project to publish a synthesis of work on such sites in Southwark, south of the Thames, did result in a series of important volumes (Sidell et al. 2002; Cowan 2003; Hammer 2003; Yule 2005; Cowan et al. 2009), but a programme designed to provide systematic coverage of such projects in the City of London, to the north of the river (Maloney 1990; Perring & Roskams 1991; Williams 1993; Davis et al. 1994), failed to produce one of the five volumes promised—that concerning the archaeology of the key eastern hill. We also lack any up-to-date synthesis, a problem only partly compensated for by Dominic Perring's (1991) popular overview and Wallace's (2014) in-depth analysis of the evidence for the period down to the Boudiccan revolt in AD 60/61.

Identifiers:

External DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.214

This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/260911

﻿

Author: Millett, Martin

Source: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/260911