Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T04:36:52.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Drowning in data? - publication and rescue archaeology in the 1990s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Roger Thomas
Roger Thomas*
Affiliation:
English Heritage, Fortress House, 23 Savile Row, London W1X 1AB
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a characteristically stimulating recent article in ANTIQUITY, Barry Cunliffe has touched on many of the most important issues concerning the publication of ‘rescue’ excavations in Britain in the 1990s (Cunliffe 1990). The purpose of the present article is to follow up some the points which Cunliffe has raised.

Publication, and the dissemination of information, is the lifeblood of any academic discipline, and questions of what is published (and of what is read!), where, how and by whom are of central importance for archaeology. Over the past two decades in Britain, and particularly in England where the volume of work has been greatest, there has been a recurrent concern with the problem of how to publish the results of ‘rescue’ archaeology. Rescue excavations can generate very large quantities of data, collected for reasons which are often largely beyond archaeological control, and the problems (both intellectual and practical) of publishing this material are considerable. In Britain the issues have been the subject of expert examination on two occasions since 1970 -the Frere (1975) and Cunliffe (1983) reports - and now in the 1990s the topic is firmly on the archaeological agenda again. This paper is intended as a contribution to the continuing debate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 65 , Issue 249 , December 1991 , pp. 822 - 828
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Roger Thomas, Inspector of Ancient Monuments at English Heritage, is closely concerned with processing and publishing the results of state-funded ‘rescue’ archaeology programmes in London, Winchester, Canterbury and elsewhere. Here he writes in a personal capacity about the problems - and the potential - of publishing excavations in an era of ‘developer-funded’ archaeology, especially when they are in the artefact-stuffed, deep stratigraphies of great European cities.

References

Alcock, L. 1977–8. Excavation and publication: some comments, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 109 (1977–8): 1–6.Google Scholar
Burrow, I. & Hunter, R. 1990. Contracting archaeology? Cultural resource management in New Jersey, USA, Field Archaeologist 12 (1990): 194–200.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1983. The publication of archaeological excavations. Typescript: report of a joint working party of the Council for British Archaeology and the Department of the Environment.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1990. Publishing in the City, Antiquity 64: 667–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of the Environment. 1990. Archaeology and planning. London: HMSO. Planning Policy Guidance Note 16.Google Scholar
English Heritage. 1991. Exploring our past – strategies for the archaeology of England. London: Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.Google Scholar
Frere, S.S. 1975. Principles of publication in rescue archaeology. London: Department of the Environment.Google Scholar
Heyworth, M. Forthcoming. The British Archaeological Bibliography: a fully computerised service for archaeology, in Proceedings of the 1991 Computer Applications in Archaeology Conference.Google Scholar
Horsman, V., Milne, C. & Milne, G. 1988. Aspects of Saxo-Norman London I: Buildings and street development. London: London and Middlesex Archaeological Society. Special paper 11.Google Scholar
Pearce, J. & Vince, A. 1988. Surrey Whitewares. London: London and Middlesex Archaeological Society. Special paper 10.Google Scholar
Miller, L., Schofield, J. & Rhodes, M. 1986. The Roman quay at St Magnus House. London: London and Middlesex Archaeological Society. Special paper 8.Google Scholar
Museum of London. 1987. Museum of London Department of Urban Archaeology archive catalogue. London: Museum of London.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1983. Divided we stand: aspects of archaeology and information, American Antiquity 48: 3–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yule, B. 1990. The ‘dark earth’ and Roman London, Antiquity 64: 620–28.Google Scholar