JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for HERFORUM Archives


HERFORUM Archives

HERFORUM Archives


HERFORUM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HERFORUM Home

HERFORUM Home

HERFORUM  July 1999

HERFORUM July 1999

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

FW: Archiving finds

From:

"Fernie, Kate" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:45:41 +0100

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (116 lines)

Dear all,
 
Any thoughts on this?  Kate Fernie
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Malcolm J. Watkins [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 02 July 1999 09:47
To: Britarch
Subject: Archiving finds


Chris Cumberpatch raised the thorny issue of rules for transfer of
excavated archives. 
I have some experience of such rules.  Often the units do not bother to
ask (there are noticeable exceptions) until the project is complete. 
'Planning' archaeologists rarely have any interest in the finds. (Wait
for the hue and cry).  With the separation of archaeology into discrete
groups of 'specialists' there has also come a form of indifference to
other elements - 'it's not my problem'.  Even IFA (the (UK) Institute of
Field Archaeologists) introduced areas of competence in recognition of
these specialisms.  Sadly the concept of holistic archaeological
services has been largely destroyed, and in the few places where there
are some aspects chinese walls have had to be introduced to avoid
accusations of corruption.  But there are few, if a any, places where
the archaeological decisions are being made in the best interests of
archaeology rather than of archaeologists (can't you tell I'm no longer
directly involved!).
The decision whether archaeology affected by development of any type
should be made with the full understanding of the continued preservation
of the resource after the event.  If the archive of finds and
documentation is not properly protected from the word go, then such
decisions are based on a false premise.
I accept that there are many other reasons for reaching the decision
that the archaeology on a site must be removed, and that strict
archaeological logic is often not going to be the principal one (no
matter how much we may like to think it) but how often does the entire
debate get aired before the diggers start their work?
In my, albeit limited, experience, the planning decisions are made prior
to the completion of any agreements with the recipient museums - first
flaw.  
Secondly, the excavators often (if the museums are lucky) are willing to
adopt the museum's accession number for the archive, and may even use it
as a site code, but how often will they mesh their own systems
(recording, boxing, etc) in with those of the recipient museums, to
ensure that a century in the future the museum will still have an
integrated archive?
Even were that the case, my belief is that the ownership of finds and
archives, and now the copyright as well, is rarely agreed in advance. 
This may be the greatest flaw so far.  
Let us suppose that Berty Molestrangler, the SMR (Sites and Monuments
Record) officer for Loamshire County Council (England or Wales), has
advised the need for excavation on a cemetery site in Mudtown.  On
behalf of Mudtown District Council he has prepared a brief for the work,
which has been won (by tender) by the Worldwide Heritage and Archaeology
Trust (aka WHAT).  The planners in Mudtown haven't any interest in the
Mudtown Art Gallery and Museum of Archaeology (aka MAGMA), who don't
know about the project until they read about the find of an important
13th-century ivory statue in the local newspaper, The Mudtown Rag. 
Berty Molestrangler's team have been maintaining surveillance of the
work by WHAT, and they are happy that the excavation is going as
planned. 
The Curator of MAGMA, Shirley Knott, comes under pressure from her
Councillors and the media to exhibit the statue (which the site director
has been quoted as saying will go to MAGMA), but her archaeology team
has been ignored by the project.  
WHAT says it had always planned for the archive to go to MAGMA, and will
the museum take it?  'Of course' is the enthusiastic response, although
Shirley and her team haven't a clue where they are going to put all of
it when it finally arrives - she hopes that the councillors will see the
need for additional accommodation.
Phil Theelewker, the developer and land-owner, has a slightly different
view - he reckons the statue alone would pay the cost of this d****d
archaeology, so opens negotiations with Grabbit and Runn, the
international auctioneers.
You can see where I am going.  If you can't, you need help!  
The point of this story is that there is a tendency for people to forget
the detail, or the role and needs of others.  The planning decision is
made, but is the archaeology truly being protected when there is no
serious commitment to the long-term protection of the resulting
archive?  How many 'planning' archaeologists are making absolutely sure
that the ownership of finds is vested in the recipient museum - or idea
ensuring that the recipient museum is on board before the start? I don't
mean claiming that they have done so by incorporating something into the
brief, but actually doing something about it.
Given the continued assault on local authority finances and services
(assuming there to be one) museums are increasingly under pressure to
reduce costs.  Charging is not always a successful option, but in any
event will not raise massive finance.  Storage costs a lot of money. 
New stores are as rare as hen's teeth, and most museums have reached, or
are near, capacity.
The conclusion, if unattractive, is inescapable.  Museums can not
reasonably be expected to continue to take all the finds and archives of
archaeologists, willy-nilly.
I am old enough to remember those days when we only retained items with
obvious features (decorated potsherds, rims, handles, etc.) and when
archaeologists published results - and then usually destroyed the site
notes and plans which were not in the publication, leaving the published
report as the documentary archive.  That produced enough for museums to
deal with, without the bulk that we face today.  
I know that there are all sorts of academic reasons for keeping the full
monty, but how many museums have seen researchers avidly going through
their backlog boxes in the store?  I can only think of a couple of
people who visited my museum ( a not-unimportant one) to study the bulk
finds of pottery from the past - in 20-odd years!
We are going to have to face facts at some stage.  The relative quietude
of fieldwork in recent years has lulled many of us into a false sense of
security, but come another big building boom in our historic cities and
the cracks will not only show - they may bring the whole edifice
tumbling down.
 
BUT, the problem is that museums need to collect to maintain their role,
so it is rare for a museum to refuse an archive, particularly where
there are what one might call 'goodies'.  It is an area where much more
thought and action is needed.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager