Towards a Research Strategy for London

Two characteristics were identified above (Chapter 1) which, to those actively engaged in its research, particularly distinguish London archaeology: the quantity of available data and diversity of London’s populations, and the obscurity and perceived irrelevance of past landscapes to today’s populations. These characteristics have set the philosophical parameters for the archaeological research strategy outlined below. The strategy is therefore twofold:

  1. to provide an opportunity for guiding, and potentially integrating, large numbers of research programmes and projects while providing cohesion and opportunity.
  2. to embrace the diversity of London’s people (and consequently their material culture) during the past and present, and to find ways of illuminating the present by demonstrating how modern London has grown out of and is linked to the past and how past landscapes will continue to mould the future.
Fig 40 Researchers using the newly opened LAARC in February 2002

It seems inappropriate for any one body to prescribe the research priorities for the rest of the archaeological community, especially at a time when archaeology is embracing theoretical and methodological diversity and pluralist approaches are being advocated (for example by Hodder 1999, 6). We believe it is appropriate for different groups and organisations to define their own detailed research strategies, perhaps identifying their priorities and methods in the light of their own aims and areas of operation in the context of this framework.

Accordingly, the priorities for research into London’s past, identified above, are by no means prescriptive. They are priorities that, having been articulated, the Museum of London intends to review regularly, with the involvement of a wide range of people. As the many bodies working in London archaeology continue their research our collective ideas and understanding will change and evolve. An important strand of the strategy is therefore to encourage communication by the simple act of articulating those priorities, and in turn by fostering a research culture where those interested can learn from shared lessons and results. The strategy will make use of a wide range of media and discussion fora.

The archaeological resource

Excavating the London Archaeological Archive

Some have shied away from the sheer scale of the recorded resource (resulting in the temporary closure of the London Archaeological Archive in 1996), while others have talked about ‘drowning in data’ (Thomas 1991).

This Research framework is based on the premise that it is only by embracing the size, complexity and potential of the recorded resource that its value can be harnessed. In London, the focus has shifted from the desperate need to record sites before their imminent destruction (a very real dilemma in 1972) to the need to study, analyse and publish results, without which the efforts of the excavators would arguably be wasted. In the 21st century, the greatest advances in our knowledge of London’s past are expected to come not from new sites, but from the curated archive, through a concerted programme of study and publication. This is not to say that no new, unexpected discoveries will be made in the course of current and future phases of evaluation, assessment and archaeological intervention: archaeologists are trained to expect the unexpected. Rather, it is the sheer scale and weight of hitherto unpublished data that has the potential to drive a research programme with a far greater momentum and with truly surprising results. For most people, ‘archaeological research’ is synonymous with excavating sites: in London it must become synonymous with excavating archives too.

Current research programmes

There is a very significant body of research already underway using LAARC data, involving a large number of people and organisations. Inevitably, the results of a substantial amount of research have become available since the completion and publication of AGL. It is important to publicise the contents of such programmes so that researchers not only avoid duplication of effort, but also have the opportunity to focus their work more effectively.

Impressively, there are also some strong examples of projects and research programmes that seek to add value to what is possible under the terms of necessarily focused and financially constrained project briefs. Such projects are drawing together not only different groups and different disciplines, but also different sources of funding. More partnerships and greater collaboration between different individuals and organisations is to be encouraged.

Local societies

It is a priority to collate the very great amount of work being done by archaeological and historical societies in and around London. There are numerous examples of private and individual research taking place alongside co-ordinated society projects. Some societies, such as the Richmond Archaeological Society, have recently published their work for the Thames Archaeological Survey (TAS) in two exemplary reports. Overall, much archaeological work tends to be done independently, with a gulf between so called amateur and professional archaeology exacerbated by a focus on the contractual stages of fieldwork. However, there are many examples of strongly collaborative projects. These include the Orpington and District Archaeological Society’s (ODAS) Upper Cray Valley Project, a survey carried out by ODAS in conjunction with local museums, which has resulted in the publication of a series of five period-based volumes with gazetteers of sites and finds. The TAS has built partnerships with the Richmond Archaeological Society, the City of London Archaeological Society (CoLAS) and other local societies as well. Other examples include the work of the Surrey Archaeological Society (SyAS) at Wanborough Roman Temple, the Hendon and District Archaeological Society (HADAS) project at Brockley Hill, and the work of HADAS, Birkbeck College and Museum of London Specialist Services (MoLSS) on Church End Farm in Hendon.

Universities

Students undertaking research at undergraduate and graduate level have made direct contributions to the archaeology of London, through their work placements and dissertations. Between 1992 and 2001, for example, sixteen dissertations by students from University College London (UCL) have been summarised for publication, usually in the London Archaeologist journal (some of these are listed in Archaeology International 2000, 13), while other student projects have formed components in major reports, such as the volume on St Bride’s church (Milne 1997). A number of important PhD theses are underway using London archive material at UCL and Birkbeck.

Children looking at two replica cooking pots.
Fig 41 Archaeological research contributes directly to education and public exhibitions such as ‘High Street Londinium’

Archaeological contractors

Since 1990, there has been a marked increase in the number of evaluations, excavations and watching briefs carried out by independent archaeological contractors, professional field archaeologists and consultants. Most significantly, AOC Archaeology, Framework, the Museum of London Archaeology Service (MoLAS), Oxford Archaeology (OA) (formerly Oxford Archaeological Unit (OAU)), Wessex Archaeology and Pre-Construct Archaeology (PCA), have all undertaken important projects across Greater London, and the results of that fieldwork are being researched and published. The scale of this work is enormous, and most of it funded by developers with English Heritage as the second largest contributor. The current Museum of London Archaeology Service (MoLAS) and Specialist Services (MoLSS) programme will produce, over the next five plus years, over 50 integrated monographs, nearly 30 Archaeology Studies publications, more than 10 popular books and booklets, and nearly 100 journal articles and contributions. The current PCA programme will result in publication of over 35 journal articles and one monograph (Gustav Milne, pers comm). There may well be a similar number of publications being prepared by others, and a ‘research audit’ is urgently needed. In spite of the nature of contractual agreements in a highly competitive industry, it is desirable to integrate these research programmes into a wider agenda, as discussed below. Publication via web sites and the Internet is now beginning to develop rapidly, and the archives from two major sites, the Royal Opera House and 1 Poultry, will be made available through the Archaeology Data Service (ADS).

Curatorial research

The Museum of London’s Curatorial Division also undertakes research and has recently completed a five-volume review of the work of the Roman and Medieval London Excavation Council, as part of the Grimes’s London Archive project. Much research relates to dissemination through gallery displays, for example for the prehistory gallery ‘London before London’ due to open in 2002, the medieval gallery in 2003 and temporary exhibitions based around new discoveries. Importantly, there is the ongoing study and cataloguing of the core collections.

Conclusion

There is a very substantial amount of multi-facetted research already in progress, the results of which sensibly need to be evaluated before shopping lists of ‘new’ research topics should be proposed. A research programme for London, and the Research framework which encourages it, does not have to be established anew; rather, the creation of the LAARC raises the prospect of finding major new insights and improved approaches which harness the very significant efforts already underway.

London Archaeological Archive access enhancement

Naturally, in addition to the challenge of effectively interrogating such large bodies of data, researchers will need to recognise the implications of different theories and different methods of data collection over the years. Following the assumed bias in early excavation towards recovery of the better preserved material, through decades in the ‘rescue years’ of the 1970s and 80s of emphasising objectivity in data description, and of separating evidence from interpretation (Barker 1982, 140–1), to the almost universal adoption of a formal post-excavation review stage to assess the potential of collected data for further analysis (English Heritage 1991b), selectivity is now a recognised plank of interpretation.

The solution is not, however by any means as simple and straightforward as reading the assessment document (AGL 2000), noting what ‘gaps’ there seem to be in the knowledge base, and then setting about adding the necessary stamps to the collection. Real life and real archives are rather more demanding. A series of ongoing initiatives will lead to greater physical and intellectual access to the LAARC. The first priority is to bring each of the archives to an acceptable minimum standard, where their contents are known and indexed, and their storage is in appropriately stable and accessible conditions. The ‘LAARC minimum standards project’ is well underway at the time of writing, with funding from the Getty Grant Programme and City of London Archaeological Trust (CoLAT). The Archive Management System (AMS) indexes all of the archive and stores the digitised elements. The second priority is to make the contents and indices available digitally through a computerised Archive Access System (AAS) which allows basic and advanced searches on key themes. This will be available over the web, and through work stations in the LAARC for the use of visiting researchers.

In the longer term, the aim will be to add the data from those archives created before computerised systems were in use, and to enable computer searches right across the LAARC, with on-line access to principal catalogues, reference collections and the databases of digitised data themselves.

A sizeable body of finds and records from excavations in London exists in a number of other organisations around and beyond London. Clearly, there is potential for a pan-London information and communications technology (ICT) project to trace and index that material.

The ‘London Past Places’ project

A separate but related initiative, between English Heritage and the Museum of London, is setting out to link GLSMR data to LAARC data. The ‘London Past Places’ project aims to provide information held in the GLSMR and the LAARC through a web site. Individuals will be able to search through information about individual archaeological sites and finds using modern and historic maps (via a Geographic Information System) and by asking basic questions about types of site, chronological periods or historic Londoners. The ‘Past Places’ project is aimed in the first instance at providing a sense of place and community history to those with a general interest in London, and encouraging them to delve deeper into their past.

The natural corollary of this project is the use of a digital map base for all of the archaeological interventions carried out in London, as a platform for accessing and manipulating different levels of data. In turn, there is considerable potential for integrating data from standing building recording projects.

LAARC Management System

The LAARC Access System will be underpinned by a LAARC Management System which will work alongside the two major databases operated by the Museum: the database developed for managing the Museum of London’s social history collections (using MultiMimsy), and the relational database developed (using Oracle) by MoLAS for the integrated analysis of site and finds data. These two systems will hold indices for the whole of the London Archaeological Archive and computerised information, where it exists, for individual sites. The long-term aim will be to add the data from those archives created before computerised systems were in use, and to enable computer searches right across the LAARC.

It goes without saying that for all future archives, standardisation and adherence to minimum standards at the time of deposition are pre-requisites, and that those standards will need, therefore, to be continually reviewed for their appropriateness and adoption.

A research culture

‘Preservation by publication’

The aim must be to replace the maxim ‘preservation by record’ with ‘preservation by publication’

– where dissemination may take many forms and many levels so as to be useful to both the expert and non-expert. Presentation and dissemination would probably include traditional publication, Internet and web site access, exhibition papers and conference proceedings, abstract summaries and even spiral-bound reports and ‘grey literature’.

Unlocking the potential of the LAARC undoubtedly begins with understanding the (current) processes of site-based archaeological research, since they differ from other forms of research, such as text-based historical research, or the study of unprovenanced artefact groups. For example, a simple period-based project might start with the study and publication of a single site sequence. At the next level, it would be possible to compare and contrast the results from several site sequences, integrating data from material culture studies, to publish an area study, perhaps by extracting all the required period information from a series of multi-period reports. In turn, it would be possible to discuss a series of such site and area studies in a consideration of London as a whole. As part of this process, new discoveries and allied research might enhance the research potential of important antiquarian finds held in the London Archaeological Archive. These different levels of research are clearly inter-related, since the synthetic or themed studies depend to a large measure on the availability of primary data published (or at least disseminated) in an accessible format. From this it follows that the greater the number of site sequences ‘published’, the wider and deeper the range of the next generation of studies.

The very act of publication is itself a spur to further research; experience shows us that a site for which at least a summary phased report has been published in an accessible format is far more likely to be incorporated in more detailed research than one for which no such report is available. At present it is clear that researchers tend to focus on plans and sections at the expense of any text description of individual contexts. However, many unpublished sites in the archive have an interpretive report that provides a platform for recombination and reinterpretation (B Sloane, pers comm); the next task is to consider how best to provide an interpretive account across the whole archive, without fixing any single interpretation for all time. An archaeological gazetteer covering the period 1991–2001 should be compiled to complement the existing London gazetteers. The site records, the finds and ecofacts are all stored in the London Archaeological Archive under the original site code and with the original site context numbers. The published site narrative is the key to that material. Conversely, an unpublished site or associated assemblage, however rich, remains invisible to the wider research community. Consequently, such primary data must be made available, or ‘published’, as they are the building blocks of all subsequent research.

Once this basic groundwork has been completed, other levels of study become possible. Groups of sites or features, some (perhaps all) previously published, can be analysed and re- evaluated. A major theme or industry can be studied, combining features, artefacts and environmental material from several sites, perhaps integrated with documentary, cartographic or illustrative sources. At a national or international level, groups of well-stratified, closely-dated London material can be considered in conjunction with data from a different region or country.

Challenging theory and practice

As the LAARC is used, even more thought will be given to methodology and approach; to how different groups use archaeological data, and the most effective relationship between report and archive. This, in turn, could have fundamental implications for the way in which archaeological data is collected and recorded. To its enormous benefit, London’s material past has been examined, recorded, curated and interpreted in a multitude of ways; researchers have adopted and evolved different philosophical approaches and methodologies. The development of archaeology as a discipline has seen London play a key role in several areas, such as the 1970s development of stratigraphic recording systems, and the London Archaeological Archive has the potential to contribute to a history of archaeology.

Access to the LAARC raises two interrelated, methodological issues. First, it places a requirement on the Museum of London to develop innovative tools to ensure that data held in its archives are accessible regardless of their origin or mode of collection. And second, it places an onus on researchers to consider and continually challenge their own approach to data collection and interpretation. Whereas interpretation and narrative is seen as an essential part of the archaeological process (encouraging us to ask questions and challenge our understanding) their place in the process vary considerably, for many reasons. The explicit act of interpreting findings during excavation and involving all members of the excavation team, as, for example, at Perry Oaks (Andrews et al 2000), has undoubted benefits – not least in contextualising information, empowering and informing the excavation team and better targeting excavation and sampling strategies (Hodder 1999). Other projects, such as the Blossom’s Inn excavations in the City of London by MoLAS and AOC, have also sought to break the mould described by, for example, Shanks and McGuire (1996) wherein the description of the material is kept distinct from interpretation and large sections of the workforce are excluded from decision-making, by bringing large multi-disciplinary teams together to challenge understanding and strategy during excavation (Nick Bateman, pers comm). Numerous debates and conference sessions (eg Lawson 1999; Dalwood and Moore 2000) endorse the motivations of most commercial archaeological contractors to interpret and publish. Similarly, while most archaeologists currently working in London might agree that the constraints imposed on fieldwork by construction timetables might not permit the methodologies adopted in seasonal site investigations, eg by Hodder at Çatalhöyük; most would equally agree that excavation and recording are inextricably tied to interpretation (eg Hodder 1995; Hodder 1997; Hodder 1999), and that in order for the archaeological record to be recognised as being valuable, we need to assign particular interpretations to data (Carver 1996, 52).

Archaeological research in London therefore faces a dual challenge: firstly, to develop flexible systems that provide full access to the archives of interventions going back many decades – and to continue to evolve those systems, and secondly, to challenge and improve systems of recording and interpretation in light of results and the needs of London archaeology’s users. Many classes of data are recognised now (for example, undecorated coarseware body sherds, animal bones, stratigraphic relationships, soil micromorphology) which were discarded at different stages in the past. Similarly, some classes of material which were rigorously collected in the past (for example, oyster shells) are now discarded given the limited information they yield. We must assume – and be alive to – further changes in the future.

Two archeologists in hard hats and high-vis surveying outside the front door of 10 Downing Street, watched by a policeman in uniform.
Fig 42 Surveying at
10 Downing Street, where part of Whitehall Palace, built in 1531, was recorded during the excavation of new rosebeds

Awareness

At present, while the London Archaeological Archive’s potential to inform national studies – of prehistoric chronologies, Roman building types, medieval demography, or the dating of post- medieval pottery – is one of its major virtues, it is largely untapped. Once its value in this regard is better known, it is to be hoped that London material will become a common component in a very wide range of non-London-centric research projects. Study of the archaeology from London will become as important as study of the archaeology of London.

One of the ways of achieving greater awareness of the contents of the LAARC will be through extensive use of the Internet. Universities and other members of the research community (nationally and internationally) should be actively encouraged to undertake research on London material as part of their own projects – on projects, for example, like using dated London material in setting up reference collections for post-medieval research in the United States or in Australia. In this way, the research potential of web-based archives needs to be considered and developed, with full account taken of the way in which the balance, format and role of the next generation of printed reports may alter.

Discussion, debate and review

Systems aside, managing the LAARC and encouraging its use and exploration is being enhanced not only by the Museum’s archive team, but also through the recently created post of Research and Development, funded jointly by the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, and the Museum of London. A key aim of this initiative is to encourage partnerships between different groups and individuals, and to spot opportunities to add value to archaeological research by building bridges between developer and research funding and between commercial and so-called amateur archaeology.

The Museum of London Head of Archaeological Research and Development will encourage integration of research projects between different groups and individuals. This will entail establishing links with other related disciplines and agencies with a view to pursuing collaborative research. Obvious outcomes could mean encouraging satellite research projects to complement work which is otherwise constrained by the terms of its contract; or, say, adding an engineer to an archaeological team studying the function of an ancient structure, or bringing medical researchers to teams studying the pathology of a cemetery group.

Another key role will be to establish a forum to encourage dialogue between archaeological researchers. The web will be used to encourage interest in and use of the LAARC and help to create an on-line research community; an up-to-date register of current research projects will facilitate new levels of research by a much wider range of researchers in London, the UK and abroad, with the potential not only to access data on-line but also to discuss questions with each other. This will mean the development of an interactive research network which facilitates enquiry and discussion. Models for such facilities are already being developed by, for example, the Archaeology Data Service (ADS). The LAARC research community would comprise anybody (curators, contractors, students, academics, interested parties) involved or considering undertaking a bona fide London- related project.

The web will also be used to promote major research themes, to enable new research to complement or contribute to a collective effort or indeed to redefining the research themes themselves. The aim must be not to stifle new initiatives but to avoid re-inventing wheels and therefore maximising research opportunities. An annual summary of research on London archaeology, published as an illustrated report and on the Internet will supplement the existing Internet-based research register for London archaeology.

Periodic conferences and seminars will be promoted, to review results of new research and propose new or changed priorities and strategies for the future. These will be mainstays of the regular revision of the Research framework document itself.

Perhaps the most tangible aspect to the proposed research forum will be the production of a new series of short bulletins entitled ‘Research matters’. These bulletins might describe a particular research project, challenge an interpretation, call for collaboration and partners in a research programme, develop an idea or hypothesis in response to the Framework, or even overturn our thoughts on a major research priority. Equally, they might focus on method and technique. ‘Research matters’ will be written by different researchers engaged in the challenge of understanding London’s past, and will be published through the year as required, as part of the effort to create a much more tangible research community from the very large and currently quite disparate group of individuals and organisations. ‘Research matters’ will be made accessible both in paper form and on the Internet through the Museum of London web site.

Archaeological site with archaeologists being filmed by a camera crew as they prepare to lift a stone sarcophagus which is surrounded by supports.
Preparing to lift the stone sarcophagus of the Roman lady found at Spitalfields in 1999

Putting the archaeology of London to work

People, diversity, the historic environment and regeneration

Heritage has been described as ‘something of a sleeping giant both in cultural and economic terms’ (DCMS 2001). The historic environment is something from which we can learn, from which our economy benefits and something which can bring communities together in a shared sense of belonging. In this context, the data and collections in the LAARC are undoubtedly a ‘learning resource’ of extraordinary value.

The contribution of the historic environment to regeneration has been well demonstrated by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) and English Heritage, the latter in two key studies: Conservation-led regeneration (English Heritage 1998c) and The heritage dividend (English Heritage 1999). Urban renewal and sustainable development are mainstays of Government and Greater London Authority policy. The Government is now encouraging local authorities in preparing their community strategies, to consider the role of the historic environment in promoting economic, employment and educational opportunities within the locality (DCMS 2001). An example of good practice in Greater London is the urban regeneration work at Spitalfields in Tower Hamlets, where the public have been kept closely informed of archaeological discoveries as they have happened.

At a more detailed research level there are countless examples of how archaeological endeavour has advanced scientific and environmental research, sometimes in unexpected ways. Research into protecting archaeological remains has found a way to control asthma-causing house-mites and, through research on rock art, identified a new species of bacteria-producing antibiotic (Cassar et al 2001).

Archaeological techniques have frequently revealed data about ground conditions which have a direct bearing on environmental issues – such as fluctuating water tables, rising sea levels and subsidence – and can inform the development of better conservation and construction policies. Archaeology has long been recognised for its contribution to the history of medicine; the human osteology collections in the LAARC, comprising nearly 15,000 individuals when we include the c 10,000 medieval skeletons from the St Mary Spital cemetery, represent unparalleled potential for palaeopathological, bioarchaeological and biomolecular research.

To unlock the wider economic, social and scientific value of the LAARC two broad priorities must be met – increased public awareness and more research.

Public interpretations

The Museum of London’s own gallery exhibitions and ‘outsite’ programme (small displays of archaeological and historical material in buildings and public places around London) will need to continue to draw upon the results of research carried out by a wide range of people and organisations. Research themes identified in this document are already being developed for gallery interpretations. Public workshops and day schools, while not part of a formal gallery programme, will also continue to play a vital role in providing hands-on access and indeed tuition in particular research techniques. These sorts of activities have the potential to introduce people to new ways of finding out about their own recent and distant pasts. The need for professional archaeologists to engage with a wide range of interest groups is clear, and the value of their contribution can be seen in initiatives such as the Museum of London’s exhibition ‘The Dig’ and its ‘Roman boxes for schools’ scheme, whereby boxes of real Roman artefacts have been sent to over 200 London primary schools. But at present it still tends to be the museum profession (for example, Merriman 1991), rather than contracting archaeology, which extends its traditional roles to respond to a diversity of public audiences. The huge growth in popularity of television programmes about archaeology, of exhibitions that both interpret for the public and also ask the public to query and cross-question, and the increase in archaeological discoveries that make the main daily news bulletins are exceptions that illustrate the public’s hunger for knowledge from archaeology. Other models go further, to involve the public in interpreting the results of fieldwork: the database for Çatalhöyük will be available on the web, enabling users to draw their own decisions about the data.

Research in commercial archaeology

The role of research in commercial archaeology is still dysfunctional. Contracting archaeologists serve commercial requirements with the design and conduct of projects that almost invariably have to marry two very diverse objectives: satisfying a planning obligation and producing an academically appropriate research product. While the introduction of a strong planning tool (PPG 16, DoE 1990) has achieved great successes in improving inputs, (in how development-led archaeology is controlled), there is no equivalent mechanism for regulating the output of results into understanding and the community (Baker and Morris 2001, 610). It is clear that in order to realise the social and economic value of archaeology, the management of the in situ resource needs to be tied more closely to research. This would require resource managers, contracting archaeologists and archaeological consultants alike to adopt a value-led approach. For Greater London, a project such as that advocated in the Monuments at Risk Survey would be useful – and potentially of pivotal importance – to develop procedures that assess both the risk to the archaeological resource and the potential value of the archaeological resource to address agreed research priorities. Pragmatically, it is only within the context of an accepted framework of knowledge and research that the development industry will continue to increase their understanding and acceptance of archaeology as a mainstream environmental issue.

Overtly bringing management of research into the cultural resource closer together, would bring at least two obvious benefits. First, it would be possible to overcome the otherwise constraining nature of contractual agreements with different archaeological units in a highly competitive industry. The research projects and programmes of different bodies could be integrated into a wider agenda, for example through information-exchanging exercises during the post-excavation stages of the projects, or at least by being able to consider how each new research initiative might contribute to our wider understanding of London’s past. Second, outputs which returned information to the public and sought their input into a research agenda – popular publications, open day events, putting ‘culture on-line’ and so on – would become increasingly accepted and, indeed, expected.

Leave a Reply