RCAHMS Centenary Workshops

The morning session was opened by Ian Shepherd, who introduced the main themes for the day:

• The interface between artefacts and sites - the blurring between what is defined as a portable antiquity and what is defined as a site.
• Contextualising records - re-establishing links between 'artefact' and 'sites'.

The first presentation, by Professor Ian Ralston and Dr Rebecca Jones on ‘Artefacts and Sites: A Long and Problematic Relationship’, began by stating that discussion of portable antiquities and sites is a way of connecting two building blocks of the discipline and is an area in which progress is achievable.  A number of case studies were presented which highlighted issues relating to the association between site and artefact and the way in which these relationships have changed over time.  Topics for preliminary consideration were also identified, including the distinction between artefact and site (case study: sculptured stones, flint scatters) and links between museum objects with the sites from which they were excavated.

The second presentation, by Peter McKeague and Trevor Cowie on ‘Mapping material culture: exploring the interface between museum artefacts and their geographical context’, reported on the MAGI (Museum Artefact Geographic Interface) pilot project run in partnership between NMS and RCAHMS.  The project aimed to redress imbalances in the databases of both NMS and RCAHMS via a web-based browser based on the PASTMAP model.  Issues raised by the pilot project were indicated, including the absence of location-based information for many artefact collections in Scotland.  The NMS is seeking to improve its information relating to geographical locations and site context and, by doing so, to complement the CANMORE database of archaeological sites held by RCAHMS.  The potential for the project as laying the foundations for a national inventory of artefacts was highlighted by extending the partnership to embrace the Scottish archaeological community as a whole, in addition to its scope for looking at international material.  The paper explored issues such as the presentation of information to a broad audience while retaining academic rigour, through to adherence to national standards, and inevitably, questions of resourcing and sustainability.  The MAGI approach meets the Scottish Government’s ‘One Scotland/One Geography’ agenda and is also a method by which a national resource could be created whilst maintaining the identity of individual organisations. 

Professor Stephen Driscoll, Dr Kenneth Brophy and Dr Gordon Noble gave a presentation on the ‘Strathearn Environs and Royal Forteviot (SERF) project’, which is a research-driven project with the core research themes of exploring the origins of Scotland and identifying royal sites and the origins of the kingdom of Scotland.  The focal point of the study is the remarkable conjunction between a prehistoric ceremonial centre dating from the Neolithic and the Early Historic palace site which has produced a remarkable collection of Pictish sculpture and the earliest historically attested royal palace in Scotland.  Summaries were given on the objectives, methods and approaches of the project.  The presentation considered how the previously known archaeological and historical evidence, site-based and artefact-based, was being utilised to frame the research programme. The results of the 2007 season of work were reviewed, and the planned activities for 2008 were summarised.

The afternoon session was chaired by Dr Anna Ritchie and focused on the issue of contextualising sites and artefacts and explored the issues concerning the cultural value of objects.

Dr Sally Foster’s presentation on ‘The curatorial consequences of being moved, moveable or portable: the case of carved stones’ explored the dual identity of carved stones, whether they are recognised as monuments or artefacts and how these different perceptions affect how they are treated, administered and protected. Two case studies were given to illustrate the “schizophrenic” nature of carved stones. The first, the impact of the original 1882 Ancient Monuments Act was assessed, illustrated by the conflicting curatorial approaches of Joseph Anderson and General Pitt-Rivers; the former preferring to collect and curate carved stones as highly decorative art pieces, contrasting with the latter’s desire to leave them in situ and not dissociate them with the region in which they were found. The second case study was the controversy surrounding the treatment of the Hilton of Cadboll cross slab (now the subject of a book by Dr Siân Jones that focuses on perceptions of the stone from the 16th century to the present). The four key problems of dual identity (artefact v monument), ownership, stewardship and philosophy (different values affect how stones are treated) were outlined; all issues underpinned by cultural heritage management. It was concluded that all the problems were a curatorial construct and are of little interest to the public and it must be accepted that legal technicalities may affect how carved stones are treated. A contextual approach that maintains a dialogue between curators and the public must be established and local community approaches taken into consideration.

The importance of recording ‘artefacts in context’ was the theme of Anne Brundle’s presentation. This was illustrated by a number of examples from the collections of Orkney Museum, a collection that has seen the number of objects rise from around 3,000 to 100,000. One example was a serrated edged whalebone artefact of unknown function, similar in form to two other examples of Norse date but carbon dated to the 3rd century BC. The original excavated context of this artefact becomes essential in interpreting an object. The importance of the inter-relationships of artefacts from the same context was also explored. It was suggested, as is particularly the case in Orkney, that excavators need to be looking outside at what contexts haven’t been excavated and not just restricting to the limited extent of a stone building, for example. The Howe was given as an example where the later deposition of artefacts within the remains of the broch was a project that was able to be undertaken because of the essential context recording that had taken place at the time of the excavation. It was noted that the ability to digitise excavation records so that researchers can navigate between artefacts, contexts, site plans and photographs will move this area forward. It was concluded that detailed artefact and context recording from the outset was vital to future interpretation.

Dr Stephen Carter concluded the presentations with a discussion of ‘Finds assemblages from developer-funded archaeological investigations. How can we ensure ‘best value’?’  This focused on the issues surrounding the value placed on artefacts and illustrated this with three excavations undertaken by his own company, Headland Archaeology. The first was an excavation at Hoddom where all previously recovered artefacts were all stray finds or from poorly recorded contexts. Excavations undertaken in the 1990s uncovered a number of carved stones, both Roman and Early Christian. The biography of these stones could then be established from the high level of contextual recording that had been impossible with the previous finds from unknown contexts. This case study identified the need to realise the value and potential value of an archaeological site.  Further examples were a boat excavated at Leamington Wharf on the Union Canal; an excavation at a Glasgow pottery and the Newbridge chariot burial. Different excavation strategies were applied to each according to the value placed upon the archaeology and how this subsequently affected the recovery of artefacts.  Developer-funded excavation is generating both large assemblages with major research potential and small assemblages of (arguably) extremely limited value.  How to ensure ‘best value’ from these widely different situations was discussed.

 

[top of page]

The morning’s discussion was led by Dr Barbara Crawford, who commented on the wide diversity of topics raised during the session.
This then led to a discussion of the following topics:

• The definitions of sites and artefacts.  Definitions of each were given and discussed.  Discussion followed on whether artefacts can define a site, with the specific example of battlefields being used. 
• ‘Institutional constructs.’ Are specific definitions of ‘artefacts’ and ‘sites’ required at all, are these merely institutional constructs.  The subsequent discussion also made the point that the institutional environment should not be replicated in the information environment.
• The potential audiences for new sources of information.  Will applications like MAGI be aimed at primarily specialist audiences and should developments be accessible to all?  This led to discussion on the difference between ‘accessibility’ and ‘availability’ of information and on the difference between a website as a presentational device and on using online technology for organisational tools for bringing together sets of data.
• Locations of artefact discoveries. The availability of accurate findspot information, and the benefits and risks of making such information public, was discussed.  The policy of the Portable Antiquities Scheme is to publish 4-figure grid references, while more detailed information is available on request.  The point was raised that this discussion was not only relevant to findspots and metal detecting, but to the locations of carved stones and other ‘portable’ antiquities. 
• Aspects of the finds allocation process and Treasure Trove.  Discussion centred on the decision-making process and availability of information relating to it, and whether the Scottish system divorced finds from their findspots. 
• Public accessibility and engagement. The difficulty of sharing information with the public was also discussed in terms of the resources required in order to maintain levels of communication.  It is becoming increasingly possible to produce the information that people want.  Mention was made of projects that involve the local community in recording information and in the growth of this type of activity.

The afternoon’s discussion was led by Professor Chris Morris. 
The following topics were discussed:

• Involvement of museums at the initial excavation stage. The success that could be achieved when heritage management organisations archaeological units work together with museum professionals at an early stage in the excavation process, allowing the value of the archaeological material being recovered to be assessed from the beginning.
• Policies for the retention and disposal of artefacts. For example, the massive amount of ecofacts that can be recovered from an excavation but are of little curatorial value and therefore the need to keep ecofacts of a good contextual value.  Policy guidelines regarding the possession and disposal of artefacts were formulated 10 years ago on this topic but were never taken up by the museum community; it is hoped that following the workshop this can be progressed.
• Value of artefacts.  The changing views within archaeology over the last 100 years. First there was a policy of only collecting the “high value” items and this later changed to collection absolutely everything.  The problems of some assemblages not being bid for by museums and then being returned to the units for curation.  There was no longer a guarantee that anyone wants the material; archaeology has to justify its actions for the first time over the collection of material.  The difficulties of museums to actually de-accession material and the lack of resources and knowledge to allow it to take place was discussed, along with the advantages of having museums collaborating at the point of excavation to assist in the selection process.

 

[top of page]

The topics considered in the two main discussion sessions were identified as areas for future research:

• The definitions of sites and artefacts.   
• ‘Institutional constructs.’
• The potential audiences for new sources of information. 
• Locations of artefact discoveries.
• Aspects of the finds allocation process and Treasure Trove. 
• Public accessibility and engagement.
• Involvement of museums at the initial excavation stage.
• Policies for the retention and disposal of artefacts.
• Value of artefacts. 

For detailed discussion of these see the ‘Discussion’ section.
To promote wider accessibility to the outcomes of the day, the speakers have agreed to write up their papers for publication in a dedicated volume of Scottish Archaeological Journal, to be edited by the two workshop organisers.

 

[top of page]