CA 412 Letters – June

This article is from Current Archaeology issue 412

Subscribe now for full access and no adverts

Workhouses and welfare

I have read with interest your recent article on the excavations of a workhouse near St Pancras in London (see CA 406), and the subsequent letters [in CA 407, 410, and 411]. My first comment would be that there is no such thing as ‘the workhouse’. They were all different, and just like our modern care homes or hospitals, some were better than others. A lot depended on those in charge.

Volunteers at Gressenhall Farm and Workhouse have spent some years now researching life in this one institution, which served an area of some 60 parishes in central Norfolk. To do this, we have been looking at the minutes of the Guardians’ meetings and their correspondence with the Poor Law Commission [later Board] in London. This information shows that children were educated [when it would have cost parents outside], there was maternity care for unmarried mothers, and there was medical care for the elderly or infirm. The homeless [tramps/vagrants] could get food and shelter for the night, which is rather more than many today. We would not like the food, but it was considered adequate, and at least you knew you would get three meals a day where you probably couldn’t guarantee that outside.

Gressenhall had its own medical officer. The area it served had ten other medical officers, who treated those not in the workhouse for ailments or injuries that stopped them working. Have you heard of ‘Out-relief’? Probably not, as it is rarely mentioned in tales of the workhouse. This was payment of money and/or food in your own home. More people here got Out-relief than were ever in the workhouse.

Although not perfect (what is?), the workhouse was an attempt to finance and care for those in society who could not look after themselves. I would ask: have we solved the problem today?

Gressenhall Farm and Workhouse, near East Dereham in Norfolk, is open to the public from March through October; see http://www.museums.norfolk.gov.uk/gressenhall-farm-and-workhouse for more details.

Rose Sheen, Swaffham

Gressenhall Farm and Workhouse, near East Dereham in Norfolk. Image: M Symonds

Facing the past

Of the many aspects of facial recognition, those related to archaeology intrigue me the most.

I would imagine that manual application of modelling clay to skull casts has now been superseded by computer techniques. That being so, tests will have been conducted to verify that computer-generated soft tissue and hair applied to a scanned skull does indeed produce a reasonable likeness. However, I for one am sceptical that that can be done without knowledge of the subject.

Furthermore, even if the technique could be refined to approach photographic images, what value is there in creating a likeness of, say, William the Conqueror, other than to illustrate textbooks?

J P Craddock, Stevenage

A reconstruction of the face of Richard III was unveiled after human remains found beneath a Leicester car park were identified as being his ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (see CA 277). It was created using a high-resolution 3D scan of his skull, to which layers of ‘muscle’ and ‘skin’ were added by Caroline Wilkinson, Professor of Craniofacial Identification at the University of Dundee. The digital image was then used to create a plastic model, which was painted by Janice Aitken. Image:
Image: Glen Bowman, CC BY 2.0 DEED

Looming errors

While I am delighted to see your report on the early medieval excavations in the Coquet Valley at Felton (CA 410), as an ancient ceramic technology specialist, I am somewhat perplexed by the terminology used in describing what appears to be a kiln at the site.

Clay loom weights are not ‘baked’, they are either unfired or fired – that is, either raw clay or heated above 550°C, permanently convert- ing the clay into a ceramic state. If the latter is the case, it is not done in an oven, but in a kiln. If it is a kiln – and, having seen other images of it, I believe it is – it is a rare find indeed and I am very disappointed not to have seen the structure during excavation.

Graham Taylor, Potted History, https://potted-history.co.uk

Embroidered Archaeology

I have come a long way since starting Episode 1 of my #DrawingDiggingForBritain embroidery project in January [as featured in CA 408]. With each new panel, I began experimenting with different stitches and techniques. All the finds from Episode 5 were interesting, but the sea of little flags at the medieval shipyard at Smallhythe [see CA 410] took the spot for this episode, and of course I had to include an actual archaeologist.

Catherine Hutchings, Wiltshire

CA ONLINE: What you shared with us this month

Lauren @lenofi

I always wanted my work to be featured in @CurrentArchaeo but so far it’s just a flyer I designed for our post-ex programme @brparchaeology! I AM GONNA BOAST ABOUT IT ANYWAY!!! Get your grubby hands on the newest issue right now. And then sign up for one of our sessions.

Dr Tom Horne @HorneSupremacy

Our early medieval Near Felton site, with its early Anglo-Saxon Northumbrian and later Great Army presence, makes it into @CurrentArchaeo! [CA 410]

Dr Joe Flatman @joeflatman

Wonderful to see @southeastNT @NatTrustArch #Archaeology feature on the front cover of @CurrentArchaeo magazine [CA 410], sharing the news of fieldwork from @SmallhytheNT #Kent – a great site, project and team alike. https://the-past.com/feature/romans-royal-ships-and-a-rural-retreat exploring-the-archaeology-of-smallhythe-place/

Write to us at: CA Letters, Current Publishing, Office 120, 295 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 4HH, or by email to: letters@archaeology.co.uk. For publication: 300 words max; letters may be edited.