Proposals for better co-operation between County Archaeologists and Local Societies

The current role of County Archaeologists was defined by PPG16 - Planning Policy Guideline number 16 from which their role has developed as employees of the county council, advising the planning department as to the archaeological implication of planning applications. A large part of their time is taken up with maintaining the SMR - sites and Monuments Record, which provides the basis for their advice.

In many cases they have little or no relationship with the local archaeological societies who should be their staunchest supporters. These guidelines make some suggestions about how a closer relationship can be achieved between the County Archaeologists and local societies.

Listing the societies

First and foremost, a list should be compiled of active local archaeological societies in the county. This could detail the area they are thought to represent, and their strengths and particular interests. The societies could then be considered to be 'stakeholders' for archaeology in their area, and should be consulted by the County archaeologists over projects concerning their area. It needs be discussed whether this list should be compiled by the County Archaeologists, or by County Archaeological Societies, or by other bodies.

Information

Those societies accepted on the list should be regarded as ‘stakeholders’ for the archaeology of their area, and should be given sufficient information to uphold their stake. This means that:

Societies should be informed of all substantial professional interventions in their area.

Contractors should be required to inform local societies of their presence

Local societies should be invited to view professional excavations.

Local societies should receive reports on professional excavations. Where confidentiality is pleaded, such confidentiality should only last until the planning decision is determined.

Local societies should be informed about, and invited to participate in all Monument Management Programmes in their area

Work that local societies could be invited to undertake

Investigate new sites on SMR

Investigate advance threats - sites where there is a possibility of development, but no developer has been found but where a little prior investigation could be helpful.

Investigate 'Adjacent sites' - sites adjacent to a professional excavation where a comparatively small-scale intervention could help fill in the larger picture.

Explore further 'finished' sites. Often sites excavated under PPG 16 are not destroyed immediately, but there is a gap - sometimes of years - before work begins. In this gap local societies could follow up work - dig out trenches only sectioned, or the other half of pits only sectioned.

Investigate ‘managed’ sites

The Limitations - what county archaeologists should not be expected to do

County archaeologists are often under-resourced for the work they are expected to do, and it is essential that they should retain their impartiality. They should not set up their own projects which would compete with the societies.

They should be encouraged to join societies, but not become officers: they might give advice, but discretely, in the background.

At the very least the county archaeologist should visit any society excavations occasionally. This would inevitably be in their spare time, at weekends, but it would provide an invaluable source of mutual support and advice, and the encouragement that every society needs.

Conclusion

Such a project could be of immense help to archaeology generally, it would provide the county archaeologists with much-needed popular backing, and would ensure that the most important stakeholders in archaeology - the local archaeological societies - are given proper recognition and support.

Return to Proposals menu

Return to main menu