
London’s Big Dig Reveals Layers of History - edward
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/02/artifacts-found-under-london-archaeology/
======
peteretep
My father was a civil engineer in the UK. In the 70s, during a bridge
construction project, they uncovered a skeleton. He kept the skull on his desk
for about 10 years, until someone mentioned to him that that probably wasn't
OK, so he put it in the trash.

He blamed shifting sensibilities over time, and had he known the phrase at the
time, he'd have probably described it as political correctness gone mad.

~~~
jzwinck
500 years from now, someone will dig it up again and sell the British museum a
1000 year old skull for a trillion pounds.

~~~
tobyc
Inflation adjusted value of a trillion 2517 GBP in current day GPB: £20.18

------
adrianratnapala
_In the trove were nearly 400 rare wooden writing tablets, some of which still
displayed legible letters, legal agreements, and financial documents. (Another
site yielded shopping lists, party invitations, and a contract for the sale of
a slave girl.)_

What strikes me is the way the essential purpose of London, and especially
central London, hasn't changed. Since the Romans, it has been a financial or
commercial centre. And therefore a centre of wealth and partying.

Slave girls might no longer be sold there (at least not with paperwork), but
London is the capital of contracts.

~~~
vidarh
> What strikes me is the way the essential purpose of London, and especially
> central London, hasn't changed. Since the Romans, it has been a financial or
> commercial centre. And therefore a centre of wealth and partying.

Nitpick: The City of London is not particularly central, and City is what
contains the remnants of old Roman Londinium. The article misleads there by
leading with a picture from Piccadilly Circus which is pretty much in the
middle of the heart of London, while most of the digs the article talks of are
happening in City, which is east of the centre.

City borders on the centre, and has a few tourist attractions, but you can
live in London for years and never have a reason to go there unless you work
for a bank etc.

It is specifically City of London that was the undisputed financial centre
(now that role is shared with Docklands, even further East). It's like world
to itself compared to the rest of London (especially as City even has a unique
governing model where corporations are assigned votes).

~~~
easytiger
> Nitpick: The City of London is not particularly central

It is if that's where you go most of the time. I only rarely go west. Mayfair
was once described as a nice village on the outskirts of London

~~~
vidarh
That's fine for you, but it doesn't change the point at all, which is that for
most people, City is far from what they'd consider the centre. That Mayfair
was on the outskirts a couple of hundred years ago is not particularly
relevant. Startig in the late 18th century, Charing Cross[1] has increasingly
been considered the centre, even occasionally being used as an official
marker.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charing_Cross](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charing_Cross)

------
mafribe
The article mentions a roman cathedral bigger than St Paul's. Where can I find
more information about this?

~~~
Nomentatus
In the article itself, it later tells you just where to go to see the remains.
That should be a start. Or,
[https://www.google.ca/search?q=london+roman+basilica](https://www.google.ca/search?q=london+roman+basilica)

