14th February 2009, 02:33 PM
I would agree with what both tmsarch and ex-archaeologist are saying. Look at everything you can during research (and I concur with ex-archaeologist's order of doing things), but be selective with what you present in your report.
Beware indeed of proposed roads etc. which were never built... but one useful source from the 1840s through to the late 19th century are railway proposal maps which have quite detailed mapping along railway routes for parliamentary purposes. Another useful but little-used source are Coad's fire insurance plans for towns.
I have to say that I disagree fundamentally with Peter Wardle on this specific issue:
Quote:quote:Maps ... are telling us about post medieval and modern land use rather then archaeology proper ie the medieval, roman and prehistory.
This is a shocking statement which deserves round condemnation. To argue that post-medieval archaeology is not "proper" archaeology is totally unacceptable.
You are dismissing about 90% of the English landscape! Moreover such maps can actually reveal a great deal about medieval and earlier land-use and landscapes through field boundaries, watercourses and all manner of interesting things.