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