From Miss Joan Pye
Sir: Your article `Here comes a national museums crisis' (March) prompts me to reply. There is a
well-known item of Parkinson's Law, `Records (or stored objects) expand to fill the space provided.' I
suggest that Parkinson's Law in this context is still valid.
I quote some personal experience which seems not without relevance. In the 1950s, the Government
service, which had never previously made provision for rationalising its holdings of departmental files
and other records, found itself faced with a demand for some millions of tax-payers' money to provide
extra archive storage, for papers of which a large percentage were in multi-copy form or of ephemeral
interest only. After some debate, Parliament enacted the Public Record Act 1956, which required every
government department to be responsible for the selection and conservation of its own records of long-
term interest, and to prepare lists of classes of ephemeral documents (eg, accounting invoices and day-
to-day housekeeping records) which could be regularly destroyed at the end of agreed retention
periods. At the same time, files representing the corporate memory and policy of the department
concerned would be transferred, eventually, to the Public Record Office.
The UK Atomic Energy Authority, for whom I was then working, pioneered this system at the Harwell
and Culham laboratories. Control of proliferation of records was achieved by a fiat from the Director
of Finance that no more filing cabinets would be bought, and that people must use the local archive
system properly and clear their own backlog of records.
It seems to me that there are similarities between the solution for this situation and for that now facing
museums which are running out of storage space. It appears that some radical thought needs to be
given to the archaeological material from any particular excavation which needs to be stored. Clearly
the whole archive from a particular site needs to be in safe custody until the post-excavation analysis
is complete, and possibly until the report is published, but as soon as is practicable some other less
costly method of preserving finds should be adopted (apart from the small percentage which will be
worthy of museum storage and display).
This might be done by sealing the archive boxes, preparing outline lists of their contents, depositing
the lists with the County Archaeologist or museum curator, and re-burying the finds in large heavy-
duty PVC sacks. The whole archaeological record could then be retrieved by a succeeding generation
of archaeologists, if necessary, after consulting the lists.
A standard national procedure for handling these summary lists would be desirable, and the procedures
should apply to the archives of independent archaeologists as well as to those of the professionals.
Yours sincerely,
From Dr Richard Newman
Sir: Last year you reported that the development control service provided by the Lancashire SMR was
under threat (`Council cuts put archaeology at risk', October). I am pleased to report this is no longer
the case.
The Lancashire SMR was established in 1976 at Lancaster University. The SMR was funded from a
variety of sources over the years, but recently, as elsewhere, the responsibiity for funding was moved
to the end users. Consequently, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) were asked to pay for the service,
and to recover the costs from developers. By 1994, however, the SMR was facing a crisis, with LPA
contributions failing to cover more than half its operating costs. Before 1994 the shortfall had been
made up by project funding, with a minor element of fees charged to commercial users. In the last
resort any deficit was made up by the Lancaster University Archaeological Unit. External project
funding, however, ended in 1995. Furthermore the Unit was finding itself in an increasingly awkward
situation, being seen as both local curator and contractor, and was unwilling to continue subsidising
the SMR.
Now, however, Lancashire County Council has agreed to take over responsibility for the SMR, and
earlier this year appointed Gill Chitty to a new post of Archaeologist. On 1 April, the SMR was
transferred.
Yours faithfully,
From Ms Pearl Wheatley
Sir: I refer to Prof Millett's letter about excavation reports (March). I well remember minuting
discussions for CBA 14 (now CBA East Midlands) on the production of excavation reports. A
template was suggested which plotted the various stages through which a report should proceed. After
the archival stage the final one was for a readable study for the general interest reader. Apart from
short magazine articles, this seems to be a rarity.
In the same issue you carried an article on the museums crisis. Might I suggest that
archaeology is in crisis, not just museums. This is in part due to the fact that professional
archaeologists produce highly scientific reports which are beyond or too detailed for the general
reader. The result is the general public has withdrawn its enthusiasm for archaeology. The general
public includes developers and councillors; hence the lack of funding.
Yours faithfully,
From Mr Tim Strickland
Sir: I must take issue with some of Jean Mellor's comments about cost-cutting in professional
archaeology (Letters, February). I was in charge of the Chester Archaeological Service for
many years (1972-89) and have since developed a successful archaeological organisation with Gifford
and Partners. I can therefore speak from extensive personal knowledge of archaeology in both Public
and Private Sectors.
I am not sure which these commercial contracting units and consultants are who `cut not only books
and subscriptions but any sort of training, working conditions, wages, even health and safety, in an
attempt to hang on to specialist staff who are . . . paid in peanuts'. They are certainly not relevant to
my experience in Gifford! As for local government archaeology, the important thing in my experience
is always to strive to be relevant to the interests of the Authority (and the public) concerned, and much
else then follows. Is there perhaps a message here - namely, that we must go out to our paymasters,
the public and their representatives, rather than always expecting them to come to us?
Yours sincerely,
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1996
Museum storage
JOAN PYE
Newbury
30 March
Lancashire SMR
RICHARD NEWMAN
Director, Lancaster University Archaeological Unit
11 April
Excavation reports
PEARL WHEATLEY
Lincoln
18 March
No cost cutting
TIM STRICKLAND
Director, Gifford and Partners
Chester
14 February