The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca

The past in the present
• 299 •
but this was not enough. In 1960, the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments sounded a
warning bell about the destruction of archaeological sites in the English countryside through the
publication of a book entitled A Matter of Time, but its message was never really acted upon. The
pace of construction and reconstruction continued unabated into the 1970s, and new threats
came into play, for example the development of the motorway system, expanded mineral extraction,
and the extensification of forestry.
In January 1971, an organization calling itself RESCUE was formed with the aims of
increasing public awareness of the destruction of archaeological remains, improving
legislation for the protection of remains, and pressing for more state funding for excavation
and recording programmes (Rahtz 1974). In all these things they were successful, especially
in starting to raise public expenditure for rescue excavation: in England, expenditure rose
from £450,000 in 1972, passing £1m by 1975, £5.2m by 1985, and reaching a peak of
£7.5m in 1994–5.
In America, similar problems were being encountered, sometimes on an alarming scale. In the
ten year period to 1972, for example, it was estimated that 25 per cent of all known archaeological
sites in Arkansas had been destroyed (McGimsey 1972, 3). ‘Salvage archaeology’, as it is called in
the US, was commonplace and widespread, but even by the early 1970s there was disenchantment
with the approach. As McGimsey put it: ‘The archaeologist cannot afford to continue to let the
engineer, the farmer, and the urban developer determine where he is to utilize the limited resources
at his command.’ (ibid., 18). What emerged instead was ‘cultural resource management’, an
approach that advocated preservation and protection as the primary objective, followed by the
controlled and carefully reasoned exploitation of archaeological remains (Fowler 1986). In this
view, archaeological remains were seen as existing not primarily for archaeological research as
and when archaeologists felt like it, but rather as something rather more valuable that was a
community resource for which there was shared responsibility (Cleere and Fowler 1976; Fowler
1977; Thomas 1971). It was the translation of these principles across the Atlantic into Britain
during the 1980s, mixed with Britain’s own traditions of rescue archaeology, that provides the
basis of modern archaeological resource management in what can now be seen as the postrescue
era (Fowler 1978; Thomas 1977). At the core of this sector of the discipline in Britain,
three key principles have emerged:
• Sustainability of the archaeological resource so that there is a representative sample of material
for future generations to utilize.
• Plurality of endeavour so that there is a balance between preservation of material for the
future through conservation and protection, and exploitation for the present through excavation
and research.
• Informed decision making about the relative importance of specific archaeological sites and
finds and what should happen to them. This usually involves some kind of assessment or
evaluation process.
The majority of archaeologists working in Britain are employed in the field of archaeological
resource management. A survey of the profession by RESCUE in 1991 revealed that 46 per cent
of archaeologists worked in local authorities, 38 per cent in contracting units, 7 per cent in national
heritage agencies and 8 per cent in universities. Archaeology has become a highly professionalized
discipline, and within archaeological resource management there are clearly defined role sets—
the three ‘c’s: curators who are responsible for the overall well-being of the resource, contractors
who carry out archaeological investigations and surveys, and consultants who advise and guide
individuals and organizations on archaeological matters.