CRISIS FACING OUR NATIONAL TREASURES

A response to the FAME press release 27th October 2010 by

RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust

15A Bull Plain

Hertford
SG14 1DX

www.rescue-archaeology.org.uk
8th November 2010

Summary
RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust welcomes the contribution of
the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers (FAME) to the debate
over the future of archaeological archives in the UK. RESCUE has long
advocated improvements to the system of archive deposition in local and
regional museums and the creation of regional depositories to hold archives
from developer-funded and amateur/voluntary excavations in perpetuity and
hopes that FAME will support this goal. RESCUE remains highly sceptical of the
proposal to destroy archives in order to alleviate the present problem of a lack
of space.

Text
RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust welcomes the statement by the
Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers (FAME) pertaining to the
ongoing crisis in the storage of archaeological archives from archaeological
excavations in the UK. RESCUE has drawn attention to this problem previously1
and is pleased to see the matter being acknowledged more widely.
RESCUE is, however, concerned to note the suggestion pertaining to the
possibility of not retaining complete archives from excavations. RESCUE does
not agree that the inevitable response to the logistical problem of archive
storage should be the destruction of archaeological archives and argues instead
for innovative and constructive responses to the potential offered by this
abundance of data. The notion that the creation of an archive is the final act in
the investigation of an archaeological site or landscape is one that is
demonstrably false and much important work over the years has been
undertaken using archives from earlier excavations. New approaches to
archaeological data and the application of new investigative techniques to
material held in archives has been of great importance and seems likely to
remain a mainstay of the investigation of our heritage in the future. The recent
analysis of DNA extracted from human skeletal material and the technique of
hydration dating which can be applied to a variety of ceramic material are just
two examples of methods which would have been unthinkable a decade ago but
now offer new and exciting insights into the past.
Even in the absence of new methods and techniques, many archives hold
information that can be extracted using established methods but which have
yet to be fully investigated. Examples exist of archives which would benefit
from re-examination but which are no longer available to researchers as
decisions were taken in the past which has put them beyond use and
reinterrogation with detrimental effects on the analysis of new assemblages.
The pottery assemblage from excavations on the medieval pottery manufactory
at Lyveden in Northamptonshire is one such case; while the existing report was
adequate by the standards of the time, it no longer conforms to modern
standards. The destruction of the archive by on-site reburial precludes its re-
examination and thus the extraction of new data and the presentation of new
interpretations. Even more recent excavations may not result in full and
complete finds report due to time and/or financial constraints in place at the
time of the preparation of the client report. Excavations in Upper Allen Street,
Sheffield in 2007 produced an exceptional and unique assemblage of over
41,000 sherds of late 19th century pottery but time and budget constraints
precluded all but the compilation of a basic catalogue of the material. To lose
such an assemblage before it can be adequately studied would be a major loss
to the archaeology of one of the Britain’s foremost industrial cities. These
examples are but two of many that could be cited to illustrate the importance of
archaeological archives.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 (PPG16), which structured developer
funded archaeology between 1990 and 2010 was based upon the principle of
‘preservation by record’ with the artefactual archive forming an integral and
essential component of the archaeological record. The destruction of archives
arising from work undertaken under PPG16 would thus violate one of the central
principles of the guidance note. The replacement of PPG16 in 2010 with
Planning Policy Statement 5 has focussed investigation on the establishment of
significance during archaeological work but has not removed the fundamental
importance of the archive as the outcome of an archaeological investigation,
and does not in any way legitimise the destruction of excavated archaeological
material.
 RESCUE would argue that the solution to the current logistical problem lies
in the creation of regional archive depositories, funded by the Heritage Lottery
Fund and other sources (charitable and governmental) which would exist to hold
archives in a state in which they would form a resource to be drawn on by
researchers from universities, colleges and the independent sector and should
be managed by English Heritage or a similar central body. Such centres might
be established on sites made vacant by the contraction in the armed forces and
could well benefit from advances made by Britain’s well developed logistics
industry in terms of providing cost and space-efficient storage which meets the
requirements of the modern heritage sector. The establishment of such
depositories might reasonably be expected to revitalise many areas of research,
particularly if combined with a new commitment by universities to their use in
post-graduate and post-doctoral research programmes.

Notes
1
See http://www.rescue-archaeology.org.uk/beta/2005/06/28/understanding-the-
future-museums-and-21-st-century-life/ for an earlier (2005) discussion of the
role and potential of archives in archaeology.