MUSEUMS &GALLERIES COMMISSION
Survey of Archaeological Archives - Summary Report
The Museums & Galleries Commission (MGC) and English Heritage (EH)
jointly
commissioned a study of the state of archaeological archives in England
from Hedley Swain and the Museum of London Archaeology Service during
1997-8. Archaeological archive refers to the material from an
excavation,
including finds. environmental samples, site records, photographs and
other
dam.
The number of excavations in England has increased dramatically over the
last few years, rising from approximately 800 in 1990 to over 4,000 in
1997. Excavation is now largely carried out by contractors who tender
for
work funded by the developers of the sites. Most are limited companies
but
some are still local authority teams. Developer funding is occasionally
available for long-term storage and exploitation of the archives after
they
have been transferred to museums.
The findings and recommendations from the study have been received and
approved by MGC and EH. Both organisations have begun to find ways of
implementing these recommendations. A summary is outlined below. It is
clear that there must be a significant role for local authorities in the
future, as they are involved both in the planning process, which results
in
the commissioning of excavations, and in the care of the archives. A
serious problem exists in some areas where there is no suitable museum
to
take the archives and elsewhere, where the quantities of finds due for
transfer from the units are greater than the museums can cope with. In
addition there are sidlis shortages in the museums which care for the
archives.
The Findings
* Archaeological archives are held in numerous museums but most are in
county, or nationally-funded museums. Ninety two museums in the sample
have 91 staff curating these collections but 31% of these actually had
no
staff dedicated to them.
* Some areas of England have no museum responsible for caring for
archaeological archives although the archives are already held by the
relevant excavation units. Lout government reorganisation has made
patchy
coverage worse.
* Archaeological contractors responsible for excavation, can cover wide
areas of the country - 4 work in 20 museum cotlecting areas. However
all
those which work in a single museum collecting area are local authority
field teams.
* The volume of holdings of such archives appears to be around 40,000
cubic
metres. 35% of this is held by 5 museums, and of these the Museum of
London
alone holds 18% of the total. 86% of the material is artefacts and 69%
of
the archives have arrived in the museums in the last 10 years.
* Of the sample of 48 contractors, 4 hold 66% of the total volume of
archives. Many contractors have, for historical reasons, as yet failed
to
transfer their holdings to museums.
* Many of the holdings, either with contractors or with museums, are
stored
4in poor conditions. These archives are under-used and not exploited by
museums to their full potential. Some museums have not clarified who
legally owns these archives.
* The combined statistics from museums and contractors suggest that a
relatively small number of large museum services have an acute storage
problem, likely to be made worse by transfer of material to the museums
from the units. Many smaller museums, or museums in areas which are
less
archaeologically rich, have little extra capacity but expect to have to
take in little material in the near future.
* It proved exceptionally hard to define detailed costs about archive
care.
From the limited figures obtained, the cost appears to be UKP34.30 per
cubic metre per year for museums and UKP22.50 for units. Most
excavation
is now funded by developers in advance of building on a site. Only 18%
of
museums are charging for the deposition of archives from this source.
Estimating long-term costs is difficult because so few organisations
gave
detailed financial information.
* Only 60% of museums surveyed have a disposal or dispersal policy for
archaeological archives
The recommendations
The report recommendations follow, with explanatory comments on how
these
matters will be taken forward.
1 The care of archives is an essential part of the archaeological
process,
ensuring their long-term preservation and allowing access to them.
However,
there are too few experienced museum archaeologists and archaeological
conservators in England and an injection of expertise is desperately
needed
to raise standards, increase access and define disposals. This should
include training for non-specialists with such collections in their
care.
MGC will initiate work on this, involving both the local government
associations and the Area Museum Councils.
2 Museum archaeological collecting areas must be defined, based
upon
existing collections and expertise, availability of resources and long-
term
organisational viability. This is primarily a responsibility of local
authorities with whom EH and the MGC will work to move towards ensuring
that national coverage is achieved.
3 Since many archaeological contractors work nationally or
regionally, a
set of core standards for the transfer of archaeological archives should
be
prepared. This work is beginning to be carried out in conjunction with
the
appropriate professional groups, involving both museums and field
archaeologists.
4 The archaeology and museum professions should review and
redefine the
existing guidelines for the disposal or dispersal of archaeological
archives. The Society of Museum Archaeologists has a good track record
in
developing standards of this kind and is now involved in this work
through
a MGC working party.
5 A network of regional resource centres for archaeological
archives may
provide a solution to some of the problems revealed by the survey. A
more
detailed analysis of this proposal is needed, to consider space
requirements for existing holdings and allowing room for expansion, to
identify the need for qualified curators and conservators to care for
the
archives, and to liaise with both the public and the archaeological
community. It should also consider the value of regional reference
collections and the potential for more effective use of resources.
Further
research is needed to evaluate more of the information gathered for the
survey and to test where there may be support, both political and
financial
for such centres. This has been commissioned from the Museum of London
Archaeology Service which did the original research.
6 A study of the physical condition of the major archives held by
contractors should be undertaken and the cost and feasibility of
transferring these holdings to museum storage defined. This will be an
essential component of planning for future provision. EH will carry out
the conservation audit and estimate costs.
7 The MGC, working with EH has been administering an
archaeological storage
grant scheme for some years. The two organisations will review the
scheme
to evaluate how its contribution to improving storage may be enhanced.
8 The use of archaeological archives, by the public, by museums
themselves
and by the archaeological profession, must be encouraged. A study
should
be made of the means by which this may be achieved, perhaps using an
initial seminar to explore these issues and raise awareness amongst
interested parties. A seminar will be held later in 1998 in conjunction
with appropriate archaeological organisations.
9 There is an urgent need to review the nature of the digital data
being
included in archives and its suitability for long-term curation. The
Archaeological Data Service, the Museum Documentation Association and
the
Royal Commission on Historic Monuments for England will be asked to
advise
on this issue.
David Dawson email: [log in to unmask]
- - - - - - -
Outreach Manager - ICT Museum Documentation Association
MDA WEB SITE - http://www.open.gov.uk/mdocassn/index.htm
MDA Conference - The Cultural Grid - Content and Connections, Sept 9-11 1998
now booking fast - see http://www.open.gov.uk/mdocassn/manch1.htm
|
