Untitled - Council for British Archaeology

2
Editorial Notes
PRIORITIES
1974 has again been a year of remarkable archaeological
activity in our region, both on the ground and in the committee
room. Gradually the regional archaeological organisation
has begun to take a recognizable shape. We now appear to be
moving towards county based organisations with a looser
inter-county federation. It is to be hoped that the regional
organisations will not be too loose and that there will be
realistic cooperation between counties.
Inflation has hit archaeology as everything else, and as
archaeological grants are assessed a year or even two years in
advance there probably has been a real cutback in the amount
of professional archaeological activity in the last year. Nevertheless,
considerable sums of money are now being spent
in our region and it brings us back to a point that we have
raised in previous editorials, that of choice of sites and themes
for investigation. Now in a period of imminent austerity,
more than ever we should be certain of the basis on which we
choose our sites for excavation. Too often, it seems to us, we
are digging emotionally, that is choosing and excavating sites
simply because they, and as it happens the money, are there.
The broader question of their significance both nationally and
chronologically is rarely asked, or if asked, is waved aside for
local reasons. Very often these local reasons may be extremely
pressing but it is time to stand back and look at the whole
situation in order to formulate a rational policy of research on
a rescue basis. The national committees, proposed by the
Department of the Environment, and the development of
county surveys, in this respect, are major steps forward. The
latter will enable us, at least, to know of all sites which can
be identified from surface indications. .One of the beauties
of survey work is that it provides the amateur with a valuable
role in British archaeology. This approach is admirably demonstrated
in several papers in this newsletter.
Unfortunately, in the area of aerial photography the situation
is still totally unsatisfactory. 1974 was a particularly
good year for aerial photography, but there is already an enormous
backlog in the transference of information from vdsting
photographs to plans and then making them available for
planners, archaeologists and developers. How long will it be
before the current harvest of new sites finds its way on to
these maps, 1980 or 1984? We really must be in a position
where we have marshalled all the available information at our
disposal, take a long hard look at it against the probable programme
of redevelopment and then work out a researchbased
programme of excavation and fieldwork. For instance,
it might be necessary to sacrifice 90% of the archaeology in
some small towns in order to concentrate efforts on the others.
Similarly it might be inevitable that a large number of rural
sites are left to be destroyed so that large scale investigation
may take place in a particularly profitable area. How often,
for instance, do we think of, say, the environmental evidence
as a major factor in choosing a site? Are we always certain
that we have adequate back-up facilities? In other words, are
we taking a professional approach to the subject and to the
spending of public funds? Archaeology really must come of
age, the evangelical era is over, we have won the rescue argument.
It is necessary now to make sure that those very
considerable sums of public money and sympathy are spent
in the most effective way, locally, regionally and nationally,
or if the economic climate deteriorates further, unless we are
seen to be responsible and meaningful then both funds and
sympathy are likely to dry up very quickly.
Aerial photography
James Pickering's report on Aerial Reconnaissance in 1974
raises three significant points for the editors. First is the
warning from one of its leading practitioners, that 'our knowledge
of cropmarks at best is superficial and in general is based
on misconceptions'. This should be said of every approach to
the study of the material remains of the past, and we are perhaps
beginning to appreciate in particular that it should be
applied to excavation. It is therefore disappointing that the
writer should go on to say that archaeologists look to aerial
photography primarily to identify 'sites suitable for excavation'.
Surely the gospel of survey is sufficiently spread for this to be
recognised as the main aim of archaeology in the field today,
and aerial photographic results as a basic element.
Thirdly, aerial photography evidence from the East Midlands,
of field systems superimposed on and adapted to earlier
kinds of land use, emphasises the importance of the whole
archaeological context of any site, and its changing use, and
one must thoroughly endorse the writer's suggestion that 'the
continuity of land use in these areas is perhaps further back
in time than is at present accepted' and extend it to many
other areas.
This proper interest in all those who have ever been on a
site from prehistoric man to `Dad's Army' and even more
recent users is responsible, together with the emphasis on
survey before so much evidence is destroyed, for an editorial
difficulty.
The Newsletter
For the earlier numbers of this newsletter it was possible
to arrange most of the material under the traditional period
headings. This is increasingly difficult, and even a report on
a predominantly Romano-British site will now refer to earlier
occupation and give later Anglo-Saxon or medieval evidence.
All sites are multi-period and surveys obviously so.
One way to help overcome this difficulty is to look to the
archaeologists who do the work, and thus we have reports
from groups, notably in CBA 9 from the Oxfordshire Unit,
but also from societies. Inevitably increasing professionalism
should be welcomed, much more work is being done more
quickly in a rescue situation, but the role of the part-timer
is if anything more important. The reports on Northamptonshire
villages and on South Oxfordshire show this, as do the
Dunstable excavations and the work done at Abingdon and
Berinsfield. Doubtless there are many other examples of which
we have no report.