Making Archives work: who owns the process? Quinton Carroll Historic Environment Team Manager...
-
Upload
carmella-walters -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Making Archives work: who owns the process? Quinton Carroll Historic Environment Team Manager...
Making Archives work: who owns the process?
Quinton Carroll
Historic Environment Team Manager
Cambridgeshire County Council
Chair – Archaeological Archives Forum
1 July 2011
What is an archive?
“All parts of the archaeological record, including the finds and digital records as well as the
written, drawn and photographic documentation.”(Brown 2007)
“A bloody nuisance”(the heritage sector 2010)
A Sample ArchiveEly, West Fen Road (WET99 - CAU)
Animal Bone 59 boxes Pottery 57 boxes Stone (worked) 14 boxes Fired Clay 6 boxes CBM 6 boxes ‘Mixed’ 3 boxes HSR 3 boxes Slag 2 boxes Lithics 2 boxes
Plus small finds, paper records, plans, site notes, context sheets, photos, negatives, reports, correspondence etc
IT’S NOT JUST THE PRETTY THINGS
Cambridgeshire Archaeological Stores Solely archaeological store opened in 1993 so
little legacy material Acts as a repository for the county as part of
the Historic Environment Record Supports local museums by storing material
from developer funded excavations: main focus is collection
Whole archives are taken in and ‘choice’ material is loaned out for display FOC
Example: Use of HSR
Two HE Teaching CollectionsPhD students (6 in past two years)Studies on C14 dating anomaliesStudies on leprosy & tuberculosisForensic Pathology StudySupported Anglo-Saxon radio-carbon dating
initiative by EHSeveral assemblages are of national
significance
Archiving vs. Collecting
Archives can be massive and a drain on resources: storage is expensive!
Archiving is different from museum collecting Assumption that museums will take it No control over creation Driver is record of site NOT enhancing collections
Need to bridge the gap between the two and get sensible archiving working together with museums
Need policies and research guidance
Challenge 1: Policy
Government Growth Agendas: huge future need for space
Standards Size of archives increasing? HSR: reburial and repatriation issues Retention: why do we keep all this stuff?
Can retention policies be suitable and acceptable? Commercial vs. specialist perspective Retrospective application?
Retention & Discard
Should be based on sound research frameworks be guided by relevant expertise and guidance be agreed by all concerned parties be consistent across regions
Should not be based on cost be undertaken on site be based on a ‘set %’ – can retain most or little
Supporting Retention:The CCC View Statements of retention priorities as part of the Written Scheme of
Investigation, including on site and off site policies for recording and discard
The identification of national guidance or policy that justifies the retention of material
Specialist reports confirming the local, regional or national importance of material recovered, resulting in recommendations for retention and future use
The use of appropriate research frameworks to support the retention of material
Assessments of local ‘gaps in knowledge’ A statement of archive potential as part of the Post Excavation
Assessment and Updated Project Design Evidence of discussions with local schools, museums and other
community groups that identifies any requests for archaeological material from such organisations
Challenge 2: Use
Creation almost entirely planning initiated: visibility?
Use: needs to be wider/more common especially by academics: why is this resource not being widely used?
Recognition of value of archiving by some sectors of archaeology
Challenge 3: Funding
Entirely funded by development Problems with PPGs now addressed with PPS5? Dependent on expertise of unit in assessing future
costs and does not fund exhibition costs Has to be sustainable and justifiable,
especially now Need for greater awareness of funding within
process and of long term costs of storage Possible further funding streams?
Who manages the process?
Awareness of archiving at the heart of the process
“It’s cheaper to box and give to someone to store than to sort it out”
Relationship between Development Control, receiving museums, specialists and
contractors is centralHow are archives created?
Lines of Communication:Pre Fieldwork
Brief(DC/Contractor)
Written Scheme of Investigation(Contractor/DC)
PROJECT(Contractor/DC/Developer/Specialist)
Advice(DC/Developer)
Lines of Communication:Post Fieldwork
Post Excavation Assessment
(Contractor/Specialist/DC)
Report
(Contractor/Specialist/DC)
Archive
(Contractor/Developer/Store)
Bottlenecks
Who owns the process? Relations between archaeological
curators and receiving bodies Perceived importance of archive Repository coverage Museum policies Lack of communication?
Ideal World?
The primacy of the brief: it’s bindingComprehensive WSIsRepository requirements tied into project
developmentSensible ArchivesEnforcement? Earlier the betterLocal OutreachResearch
Way Forwards ALGAO staff are probably at the heart of the process –
create partnerships - this is everybody’s problem! We need to prove the WORTH of archives:
Creation/Use/Retention/Storage and create better environment for and awareness of archives
Promotion and Policy: produce archives that are coherent, researchable and justifiable: are we keeping too much?
Store what we keep in as cost-effective a manner as possible: ARCs?
Support the AAF
The ArchaeologicalArchives ForumAAF FORWARD AGENDA 2007–101. Archaeological resource centres – guidance and
policy statement.2. Maritime archaeological archives3. Framework for archaeological selection strategies4. Training5. Museum deposition policy6. The AAF relationship with the wider historic environment sectorWhat Next? Work with your representative organisations