From Mr Roger Bland
Sir: I was encouraged to read Richard Morris's well-balanced discussion of the Treasure Bill
(`Time now for reform of Treasure Trove', February).
No one would deny that Sir Anthony Grant's Treasure Bill is a compromise, and it is always
possible to criticise compromises. It was never likely to be easy to obtain a consensus for
reform in a country where the interests of private property always seem to have taken
precedence over the wish to protect our past, and yet this is what has been achieved.
Archaeologists may take heart from the Discussion Paper on
Portable Antiquities which the DNH has just published (see
News), which recognises that the reform of the law of
Treasure Trove only deals with one part of the problem, the acquisition of finds. It
acknowledges for the first time that there is an urgent need to take action to improve
arrangements for the recording of all archaeological objects and it invites comments on the
best methods for securing this.
Perhaps the most encouraging sign for the future lies in the fact that there is a growing
consensus amongst both archaeologists and metal detectorists in favour of co-operation.
Andrew Palmer's recent The Metal Detector Book (see
Books) displays the following message on the back
cover: `This book promotes responsible behaviour among detectorists and advocates the
recording and reporting of all finds'. Equally, archaeologists are increasingly willing to
acknowledge the contribution made by detectorists in bringing archaeological finds to light,
and to actively seek their co-operation in excavations.
Taken together, Sir Anthony Grant's Bill and the DNH's proposals represent the best chance
yet of securing improvements to the current inadequate arrangements for the acquisition and
recording of portable antiquities.
Yours sincerely,
From Professor Martin Millett
Sir: The CBA Publications Committee has recently been discussing the future of the
excavation report. If one looks back over such reports since the middle of the century it is
clear that they have become more complex, more detailed, and increasingly difficult to read
and digest.
The classic reports by archaeologists like Wheeler laid out their results, telling the reader
what the excavator had concluded and writing an historical story. As archaeology has
developed it has deployed a wider range of techniques, and excavation reports have thus
become more heavily descriptive and burdened with detailed accounts of both stratigraphy
and the finds (including an ever-widening range of tech-nical information), often at the
expense of any clear explanation of the broader significance of the excavations.
In some senses archaeology is a victim of its own success. The complexity of excavation
reports is a result of the increased sophistication of the subject. We can now discover much
more about the past through the application of a wide array of techniques and it is thus
increasingly difficult for any excavator to understand sufficient about all the evidence
collected to draw the strands together to produce a single coherent account.
Over the past few years there have been several attempts to tackle these problems, with the
CBA, the Society of Antiquaries of London and English Heritage (and its predecessors)
leading a sequence of initiatives which have considered the level of detail that needs to be
published, encouraged the use of microfiche, and urged greater attention to be paid to
publication in the planning of archaeological research.
The recommendations arising from these past debates have not always received the confident
support of the archaeological community and the problems remain. Indeed, whilst the
recommendations of various working parties have often been stimulated by the increasing cost
of publication, it is equally clear that archaeologists have an academic problem of
communication. The publication survey conducted by the CBA in 1986 showed that few
people actually read excavation reports in full, and it is noticeable that even new academic
syntheses tend to draw on information from the same older excavations, suggesting that the
results of more recent work are not being assimilated. These pointers suggest that the present
concept of the excavation report needs reconsidering.
In the CBA Publications Committee, we have been determined not to produce another set of
recommendations which create heated debate and then sit unused on a shelf. Instead, we
would like to stimulate a constructive debate within the discipline, which will help change the
culture, and enable the results of archaeological work to be more effective in reaching its
audiences. In considering the underlying principles which should guide those writing reports,
the following ideas have emerged:
Yours faithfully,
Prof Millett would welcome comments on these ideas, which should be sent c/o
British Archaeology
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1996
Treasure Trove
ROGER BLAND
Treasure Trove Liaison Officer
The British Museum
6 February
Excavation reports
MARTIN MILLETT
Chairman, CBA Publications Committee
University of Durham
29 January