This paper has been produced in the context of the Research Framework and Agenda, in recognition that implementation of much of the Agenda will be dependent on curators (ie those responsible for advising on the management of the archaeological resource, principally but not exclusively through the planning process). It is not a general statement on curatorial practice in the region, nor can it address specialist aspects in detail.
The purpose of this paper is to identify issues relating to curatorial practice that arise from the seminars, circulated papers, web-published papers and agenda discussions, and subsequent comments stimulated by these. These points need to be addressed by curators when giving advice at a strategic and policy level, in site-specific advice and in the preparation of site-specific briefs, and in monitoring fieldwork and post-excavation work. Such advice is given in the context of a wide range of processes which affect the historic environment, including large-scale urban regeneration, infrastructure schemes (communications and services), extensive aggregate extraction and a massive change to rural landscapes as agriculture is transformed, as well as the cumulative attrition of historic environment assets by smaller-scale development.
It is taken for granted that all archaeological work in the region is required to comply with the Code of Conduct and appropriate Standards and Guidance of the Institute for Archaeologists, and is required to be in accordance with guidelines produced by English Heritage and specialist groups.
It is essential that briefs prepared by curators address the particular regional issues identified in the Research Framework and Agenda. The fitness for purpose of specifications, project designs, project proposals, written schemes of investigation and post-excavation assessments produced by consultants and contractors must likewise be assessed against these criteria.
Details for each period are contained in the summaries, but a few key points arising from the Framework process merit reiteration here:
The occurrence of few or poorly dated finds on sites of all prehistoric periods and of early medieval date emphasises the importance of scientific dating. Therefore, a requirement for a sampling strategy for scientific dating needs to be included in briefs for work that is likely to encounter deposits of these dates. The use of radiocarbon dating with appropriate statistical analysis should be routine, even on sites where artefacts are relatively abundant, using AMS where required, and accompanied by other dating methods such as TL and OSL. Consequently, attention needs to be paid to the sampling and recovery of dateable material during the excavation process, not afterwards. Undated human burials, which could be any date from early prehistoric onwards, should be routinely radiocarbon dated and the radiocarbon dating of burials otherwise dated by artefacts would strengthen regional chronologies. Samples should be taken from existing buildings or excavated timbers for dendrochronology wherever possible and appropriate. Opportunities for dating production sites (eg archaeomagnetic dating of kilns) should not be missed.
More environmental data is required in the region for all periods: it will be a long time before the law of diminishing returns applies to palaeoenvironmental or geoarchaeological work anywhere in the region. Therefore, environmental work should be more prominent in briefs, requiring a sampling rationale and methodology, and adequate time and funding for appropriate processing of environmental samples. With pressures for contractors to keep staff costs low, it is important that curators are informed about the qualifications of specialist staff.
Reservoirs of palaeoenvironmental data, such as former stream channels at burnt mounds, should be identified and sampled on site. Off-site ‘natural deposits’ which can provide environmental data, such as alluvial sequences, palaeochannels, and peat deposits, should be sampled by appropriate specialists, including geoarchaeologists, and radiocarbon dated. Such sampling should be identified as a core evaluation activity. These deposits, which also survive in urban locations, are not solely relevant for earlier
periods: even in the medieval and post-medieval periods, on-site and off-site deposits can provide information on the impact of industry and on agricultural improvements, including introduction of exotic plants and animals.
Charred plant remains are relatively sparse in the West Midlands. Negative evidence is therefore even more important, ie samples must be sufficiently large to demonstrate that absences of charred plant material are genuine, rather than the consequence of inadequate sampling. Larger samples are also sometimes needed to obtain larger assemblages of material that can be better interpreted. Unusual and early plant taxa need to be AMS dated as often as possible to make sure that early introductions are accurately identified and that intrusive material can be recognised and excluded.
Industrial residues should be analysed, including metallurgical investigation. The possibility of such residues being found, and a statement of the action to be taken if they are, should be routinely built into briefs. More guidance is needed about the range of analyses available and when it would be appropriate to apply them, for instance in trying to see the effects of industry upon the countryside, where industrial pollutants might occur in environmental deposits. Equally, we need to know where such analysis would not be worthwhile. We may in the first instance need to look for circumstances where we can test new methodologies. For example, would it be possible to identify different coal types? Industrial pollutants might also be detectable in the human skeleton. Very few substantial groups of human remains have been studied from the West Midlands from any period that could provide information on demography, disease and diet.
A requirement for an appropriate level of artefact analysis should be written into briefs. Appropriate specialists should be involved from an early stage in the evaluation and excavation processes. If they are not involved until well into the post-excavation phase it may by then be too late to get answers to the questions that need asking. Allowance should be made for investigative conservation of artefacts because of its potential to provide information on the technology of artefact manufacture and the effects of the burial environment after deposition.
There should be a full quantitative study of ceramic assemblages, together with petrological analysis, residue analysis and other analyses where appropriate. Established fabric and form series, where available, should be used as an integral part of the identification and analysis of the ceramics. Where local ceramic fabric series exist briefs should require that they are used by all pottery specialists working in that area. If a pottery specialist creates a fabric series for an area they should be required to deposit a copy of it at a local museum or appropriate institution so that it can be used by future researchers.
More artefact research is generally needed for all periods, with more well-stratified medieval and post-medieval finds assemblages being especially required from dateable contexts. For example, in the post-medieval period a key area may be the sources of ceramics supplying newly emerging towns. Also in the post-medieval period, squatter camps ought to provide closely dated assemblages.
More emphasis needs to be placed on non-invasive mapping strategies: fieldwalking, microrelief, aerial photographs, geophysics and geochemical survey. Geochemistry in particular is underused as a mapping technique.
Because of the low quantities of objects, fieldwalking is not a suitable method for locating prehistoric settlements, nor is it reliable for the location of Roman rural settlements in some parts of the region. However, heat-shattered stones may be an important site indicator. It is unclear what some surface scatters represent and to what extent chance finds, ie objects found other than in deliberate search, especially Roman coins and material
recorded in the Portable Antiquities Scheme, should be used in site prediction. There needs to be proper geospatial analysis of the distribution of individual findspots.
In general, the use of aerial photography needs to be encouraged. At present there is little indication that full use is being made of the available resource at either the evaluation or excavation stages. It is essential that all potential sources are examined as a matter of course, not just those closest to hand or those taken just for archaeological purposes.
Although the region contains extremely variable near-surface geology, specialists consider that most geophysical techniques will produce useful results, with appropriately skilled operators. Given the difficulties with geophysics on many West Midlands soils, there is a need for better integration of geophysical and geoarchaeological results to better inform future use of geophysical techniques. Curators may need to look at requiring a wider range of prospection and survey techniques.
The conventional trenching method and conventional percentage evaluation are not adequate for several periods and areas. A higher evaluation percentage is needed for dispersed and ephemeral prehistoric remains, consisting of a regular array of wide excavation trenches and gridded trial pits, or even the excavation of large areas from the outset, rather than trenching. For sites represented by flint scatters, the ploughsoil needs to be evaluated as well as the subsoil. This principle should also apply to other site types that can also be severely affected by later agricultural attrition, such as rural medieval settlements.
Where colluvium or alluvium covers or contains the archaeological remains, evaluation trenches should be wide, in order to see sufficiently large areas under it. Trenching should be preceded and accompanied by borehole data, test pits and augering, and geoarchaeologists should be involved. Similarly, in densely built-up urban areas where archaeological deposits frequently survive as ‘islands’ at some depth, large-scale evaluation is required, consisting of trenches dug to a sufficient width to reach the undisturbed natural. When open spaces within present day urban areas are affected by development, whether or not they are within historic town cores, evaluation should usually be required, even if no specific sites have previously been recorded.
Small towns, whether they are still small or were so in the past (such as medieval Birmingham), often have a very different deposit history to that of larger towns, consisting of shallower and more disturbed deposits. They therefore require larger evaluation trenches or area stripping from the outset. Their deposits are often more like those of rural settlements and may therefore require similar extensive investigation to fully realise their potential. Medieval and early post-medieval suburbs in the larger towns and cities seem to share many characteristics with the small towns.
The excavation strategy for sites of all periods needs to include an appropriate sampling strategy for all features and deposits encountered. Percentages of excavation of particular features always need to be justified for each site, in relation to the site type, its location and its geology. Various percentages of excavation of different types of features for sites of different periods were suggested during the Research Framework process. To maximise information and artefact recovery, prehistoric, early medieval and even some Roman sites require large-scale excavation and the excavation of a greater proportion of individual features than is often the case. On colluvial or alluvial sites, overburden stripping requires an approach which provides alternating long sections and areas in plan, in order to record the alluvial or colluvial sequence as well as the archaeological features and deposits.
The likely use of clay and cob walling and free-standing timber-framed buildings constructed on areas of hard standing should also be considered for sites of Roman and
other periods. Therefore, sites which have no obvious structural remains but which produce large assemblages of domestic debris (for instance from enclosure ditches) should be considered as potentially representing settlement sites and sample levels should be adjusted accordingly.
For sites of all periods, to reduce nil results from watching briefs, full excavation of sample areas may be more appropriate than a watching brief of the entire site. It is likely that many deposits are lost without record because they cannot be seen in section in foundation and service trenches, but would be visible in plan.
Where briefs are drawn up for very large projects it would generally be sensible for these to have a staged approach and, on linear projects in particular, negative results should not be accepted as necessarily conclusive without the conducting of a watching brief during groundworks at the outset of construction.
Above- and below-ground archaeology must be integrated. More building studies are required, including dating by dendrochronology where possible. The apparently poor survival of medieval and post-medieval deposits in some towns, particularly small towns, emphasises the importance of recovering information from surviving buildings.
Much of the post-1840 built environment is poorly served by designation. Study of industrial buildings, not just the exceptional but also the typical, would be useful. This demands close working with building conservation officers to ensure that the appropriate requirements are imposed when demolition or alteration is proposed, although this may be difficult where such buildings are not listed or locally listed or within conservation areas.
In the same way as we need to look at complete landscapes rather than individual monuments, we need also to assess the complete building stock of areas rather than just picking out individual buildings. Such studies are often associated with detailed historic landscape characterisation of urban areas and can help in the definition and retention of local character and distinctiveness. Archaeologists need to work in collaboration with conservation officers and others such as urban designers in these studies but may have the most appropriate skills within an authority to specify the way that such work is undertaken.
The value of garden archaeology has been demonstrated. In rural landscapes, the importance of features such as landmarks, trees, water features and paths must be recognised. Here collaboration is required with ecologists, landscape architects and landscape historians.
We need to encourage the provision of public information and other forms of engagement as an integral part of projects wherever appropriate and feasible, since the entire process is predicated upon a concept that archaeological endeavour is of public benefit. Such provision may also be of benefit to the developers who have been required to undertake the archaeological work. Although physical access may sometimes be restricted or precluded by health and safety considerations, visual access is often possible and can be supplemented by other activities and intellectual access can be provided through a variety of media.
A Regional Standards document for the West Midlands, like that for East Anglia, would refer to the Regional Research Framework and Agenda. It could include many of the
issues in this document and expand on subjects such as excavation percentages. The Regional Standards document would need to be formally adopted by the local authorities and other organisations who are advised by curators.
To carry weight in a local government context, the Regional Research Framework and Agenda need to be formally adopted as policy. This could be achieved by their inclusion in Supplementary Planning Documents for Archaeology or the Historic Environment at an individual local authority level and beyond this as part of the Regional Spatial Strategy.
I am extremely grateful to all those curators, contractors and specialists who commented on earlier drafts of this paper.
Part of the Research Frameworks Network