2. Making Archives work: who owns the process? Quinton Carroll Historic Environment Team Manager Cambridgeshire County Council Chair – Archaeological Archives Forum 1 July 2011

3. 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)

4. A Sample Archive Ely, West Fen Road (WET99 - CAU)  Animal Bone59 boxes  Pottery57 boxes  Stone (worked)14 boxes  Fired Clay6 boxes  CBM6 boxes  ‘Mixed’3 boxes  HSR3 boxes  Slag2 boxes  Lithics2 boxes Plus small finds, paper records, plans, site notes, context sheets, photos, negatives, reports, correspondence etc IT’S NOT JUST THE PRETTY THINGS

5. 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

8. Example: Use of HSR  Two HE Teaching Collections  PhD students (6 in past two years)  Studies on C14 dating anomalies  Studies on leprosy & tuberculosis  Forensic Pathology Study  Supported Anglo-Saxon radio-carbon dating initiative by EH  Several assemblages are of national significance

9. 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

10. 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?

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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?

15. 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 central  How are archives created?

16. Lines of Communication: Pre Fieldwork Brief (DC/Contractor) Written Scheme of Investigation (Contractor/DC) PROJECT (Contractor/DC/Developer/Specialist) Advice (DC/Developer)

17. Lines of Communication: Post Fieldwork Post Excavation Assessment (Contractor/Specialist/DC) Report (Contractor/Specialist/DC) Archive (Contractor/Developer/Store)

18. Bottlenecks  Who owns the process?  Relations between archaeological curators and receiving bodies  Perceived importance of archive  Repository coverage  Museum policies  Lack of communication?

19. Ideal World?  The primacy of the brief: it’s binding  Comprehensive WSIs  Repository requirements tied into project development  Sensible Archives  Enforcement? Earlier the better  Local Outreach  Research

22. 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

23. The Archaeological Archives Forum AAF FORWARD AGENDA 2007–10 1. Archaeological resource centres – guidance and policy statement. 2. Maritime archaeological archives 3. Framework for archaeological selection strategies 4. Training 5. Museum deposition policy 6. The AAF relationship with the wider historic environment sector What Next? Work with your representative organisations