Historical archaeology and archaeological practice in Britain

ACrOSS tHE NOrtH SEA Later Historical Archaeology in Britain and Denmark, c. 1500-2000 AD edited by Henrik Harnow, David Cranstone, Paul Belford and Lene Høst-Madsen Across the North seA: Later Historical Archaeology in Britain and Denmark, c. 1500-2000 AD edited by Henrik Harnow, David Cranstone, Paul Belford and Lene Høst Madsen A joint publication of the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology, Odense City Museums and the Museum of Copenhagen University Press of Southern Denmark PAUL BELfOrD Historical archaeology and archaeological practice in Britain he development of historical archaeology in Britain is closely related to the ways in which frameworks for managing the historic environment have evolved. his chapter provides an introduction to those frameworks, and examines how the disciplines of industrial, post-medieval and historical archaeology have beneitted from the growth of commercial practice. Particular successes have included the increasing integration of above- and below-ground archaeology, and the recognition that the archaeology of the more recent past can be an important factor in future developments. he most signiicant improvements in method and practice have actually taken place in the private sector, with support from state heritage agencies; academic studies, in contrast, have only engaged with a small proportion of the available data. his disconnection between academic and professional archaeologists is one of the structural weaknesses of the British system, leading to issues around dissemination and synthesis, and ongoing challenges of training and the retention of specialist skills. Looking to the future, the chapter considers how reduced public funding might provide opportunities for historical archaeologists working across the North Sea. Historical archaeology has been studied in Britain since the beginnings of antiquarianism. Indeed, historical archaeology is largely responsible for modern awareness of ‘the historic environment’ in Britain: encompassing landscapes, buildings and below-ground archaeology. However it was not until the second half of the twentieth century that a recognisable historical archaeology emerged in Britain. from the 1960s to the 1980s historical archaeology gradually changed from an essentially amateur pursuit into an academic discipline – albeit one which remained marginal. It was only with the development of a sophisticated professional commercial sector ater 1990 that historical archaeology came into its own. radical changes to the British planning system have had a positive efect on the various strands of historical archaeology, vastly increasing the quantity – and at its best the quality – of work being undertaken. he story of the development of historical archaeology in Britain consists of two closely interwoven strands: the intellectual development of the discipline and the evolution of frameworks for managing the historic environment. his chapter provides an overview of that story. 25 an overview of the structure of Britain, and British archaeology he way in which archaeology is structured in any country naturally relects the underlying administrative and political framework. In Britain this underlying framework is the result of evolution rather than design; consequently there is considerable variation across and within the diferent component parts of the country. In fact ‘Britain’ does not really exist. he British Isles are a geographical entity, incorporating the two large islands (england, Wales and Scotland on one, Northern Ireland and the republic of Ireland on the other) and the various outlying smaller islands such as the Hebrides, orkneys, Shetlands, Isle of Man, the Scilly Isles and the Channel Islands. Within the British Isles are two separate sovereign states – the republic of Ireland and the united Kingdom. he republic of Ireland is outside the scope of this paper. he united Kingdom consists of two main components – Great Britain (a union of england, Wales and Scotland) and Northern Ireland. Within the united Kingdom these diferent components have diferent status: since the act of union in 1606 only england and Scotland are nations; Wales is a Principality, and Northern Ireland is a Province. he Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are ‘crown dependencies’ of Great Britain (and not part of either the united Kingdom or the european union), but have their own parliaments and currency: a situation perhaps analogous to that of the faroe Islands and denmark. a process of devolution since the late 1990s has resulted in greater political autonomy for the component parts of the united Kingdom. his has been particularly advanced in Scotland (its relationship to the union perhaps most closely comparable to that of denmark and Greenland), and to a lesser extent Wales. Northern Ireland, with its long history of conlict over national and sectarian identities, has followed a slower path to self-governance. he four parts of the united Kingdom have always maintained their own legal systems and administrative traditions to some degree. england, Wales and Northern Ireland are further subdivided into Counties; Scotland was historically divided into Counties, but since 1974 has not been. In england (which, unlike Wales and Scotland, does not have its own separate parliament) quite a lot of decision-making is done at County, rather than national level: this includes implementation of planning, heritage and conservation issues as well as education and other public services. as a result there is variation between diferent counties in the way that national policy guidance is implemented. here are also tensions between national and local government as diferent political parties ebb and low between centralisation and devolution of power. In Wales and particularly Scotland the centralising tendency (to Cardif or edinburgh respectively) is stronger, and local government is correspondingly weaker. as a result of this author’s personal experience and location, this chapter will mainly focus on practice in Great Britain, and particularly in england. he structure of British archaeology comprises ive main elements. hese are:      26 State heritage agencies for england, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; local government archaeology and historic environment services; universities and other academic institutions; Private sector archaeological consultants, contractors and specialists; Charities and voluntary organisations, community groups and local societies. Paul Belford 535 667 1151 3497 1014 National government or agencies 667 local government 1151 universities 1014 Private sector organisations 3497 other organisations 535 Some of the boundaries between these elements are sometimes blurred. until recently many local government services also maintained quasi-commercial ieldwork teams, theoretically separated by a so-called ‘Chinese wall’ from their colleagues in development control. also, during the 1990s and 2000s many universities ran commercial archaeological units with varying degrees of success; at one time this development seemed to be very positive, but many of these have been severely curtailed or abandoned altogether in recent years. Notable losses include arCuS (at the university of Sheield), Guard (at the university of Glasgow) and Birmingham archaeology (part of the university of Birmingham). finally, several commercial archaeological organisations also exist as charities, including some of the largest contractors, such as oxford archaeology and Wessex archaeology. he numbers of people employed by these diferent elements are shown in the igure above, derived from the most recent survey of the archaeological profession (aitchison and edwards 2008, 63-66). he irst two belong entirely in the public sector: they are agencies of national or local government which set requirements and monitor compliance with them. In total, national and local government employ approximately 27% of archaeologists in the uK. he third group – universities – is also state-funded, and accounts for 15% of archaeological jobs; although, as we shall see, only a small proportion of these are directly involved in archaeological research, and fewer still in historical archaeology. By far the largest numbers of archaeologists – approximately 51% - are employed (or self-employed) in the private sector, principally undertaking ieldwork of some sort and increasingly likely to be directly involved in aspects of historical archaeology. he balance (8%) work for museums, community organisations and other bodies which engage with the public; again, much of this work involves historical archaeology in one form or another. his does not include the contribution made by the voluntary sector, which remains strong (see below). he structure of British archaeology is therefore somewhat diferent from that of most other european countries. for example in france, around 60% of archaeological excavation is undertaken by the national state organisation (l’Institut national de recherches archéologiques preventives, or INraP), with a further 20% by local government and museums and the remaining 20% by the private sector (Schlanger and rossenbach 2010, 72). In Germany 25% work for national or local government, with more than 41% in universities or research institutes, and just over 18% in the private sector (Krausse and Nübold 2008, 23). Before the inancial turmoil of 2008, Ireland had developed an archaeological structure that was closest to that of the uK, with developer funding supporting a largely private-sector profession. he system which comes closest to that in the uK today is that of the Netherlands, where nearly 58% of archaeologists are employed in the private sector (Waugh 2008, 28-29). Historical archaeology and archaeological practice in Britain 27 The legislative framework for archaeology in Britain archaeology remained a largely amateur pursuit until the early twentieth century (Sweet 2002; Gaimster et al. 2007). Indeed British archaeology is still strongly inluenced by amateur enthusiasms, not least in historical archaeology. It has also been argued that ‘modern archaeology [has] been invented … by the antiquarians’ (Schnapp 2002, 139). his is not the place for a detailed description of seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth century endeavours; suice to say that numerous local antiquarian societies had emerged by the 1840s, and in 1851 the irst academic Chair of archaeology was established at the university of Cambridge (Malina and Vašíček 1990, 45-48). In 1869 the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland led to the state taking responsibility for monuments in Northern Ireland. Subsequently, concern about heritage at risk in Great Britain led to the irst ancient Monuments act of 1882. his (with later revisions) provided for the protection of archaeological remains through ‘scheduling’: that is, placing them on a list, or schedule, maintained by central government. although initially aimed at prehistoric monuments, it also enabled the protection of medieval and industrial remains: for example, Shropshire’s 1779 Iron Bridge was scheduled as early as 1934. he ancient Monuments and archaeological areas act (1979) is efectively the latest incarnation of the 1882 act, although substantially amended and supplemented by other legislation; it is still current in england and Wales, but no longer so in Scotland, where it has been superseded by the Historic environment (amendment) (Scotland) act of 2011. In addition, new planning laws were put in place immediately ater the Second World War speciically dealing with development control and establishing a system of ‘listed’ (ie. protected) buildings. unlike ‘scheduled’ monuments, ‘listed’ buildings are administered locally. he creation of National Parks from 1949 established the principle of protection for wider historic landscapes. In 1973 some historic shipwrecks were also protected, and from 1986 the Protection of Military remains act also covered military wreck and aircrat sites. his structure served well to protect sites and monuments which were already recognised, but it did not deal with the increasing threat to hitherto unknown archaeological remains from development. In 1990 Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 (PPG 16) on archaeology and Planning was introduced for england and Wales. his was probably the most signiicant step forward for British archaeology and the archaeological profession. PPG16 made archaeology a material consideration in planning matters, and introduced the ‘polluter pays’ principle: namely that development projects were responsible for funding archaeological work. he same principle was extended in 1994 to historic buildings (again for england and Wales) in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (PPG15) on Planning and the Historic environment. Broadly similar guidance was subsequently introduced in Scotland, as NPPG5 (archaeology and Planning, 1994), supported by Planning advice Note 42 (PaN42; archaeology – the Planning Process and Scheduled Monument Procedures), and NPPG18 (Planning and the Historic environment, 1999). he robustness of these Guidance Notes is evident from their long life; in england PPG15 and PPG16 were only withdrawn in 2010. heir short-lived replacement, Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5), entitled Planning for the Historic environment, resulted from consultation with the archaeological profession and was broadly welcomed. It built on the ‘polluter pays’ principle of earlier guidance, but was a more nuanced document which brought together both below-ground archaeology and historic buildings as ‘heritage assets’. hese could be either ‘designated’ (ie. listed or scheduled) or not, but their 28 Paul Belford existence, and the potential threat to their integrity through development, needed to be taken into account when new development work took place. his system is implemented slightly diferently across the uK, generally through the local planning authority. his is usually local government (which may be a City, Borough, County or unitary authority), but there are exceptions: National Parks have their own planning authorities, and some institutions (such as Crown estates, the Ministry of defence and the Church of england) are not bound by the same planning obligations. However, in principle, the system currently in operation generally works as follows. he local authority maintains an ‘Historic environment record’ (Her) which contains information about all ‘heritage assets’, including the results of previous archaeological projects and isolated inds. When a developer applies for planning permission, the local authority archaeological oicer consults the Her to assess the likely impact of the proposal on the historic environment. He or she then prepares a brief which outlines the work required. his usually begins with a desk-based assessment (consulting available historical documentation), and may include various evaluation strategies (survey or trial trenching, for example). he results of this work will then inform ‘mitigation’: that is, how the potential threat to the historic environment is managed. his could simply involve avoiding archaeological remains altogether (‘preservation in situ’). alternatively all or part of the site may be subject to full excavation, building recording or landscape survey; or a programme of archaeological monitoring (‘watching brief’) may be required over the work. he need for such mitigation is decided on the basis of a site’s signiicance, and PPS5 made it clear that ‘many heritage assets with archaeological interest that are not currently designated … are demonstrably of equivalent signiicance’ to those which are (PPS5 2010, He9.6). he local authority archaeologist’s brief is issued to the developer, who is responsible for funding the work; the developer then decides which archaeological consultant or contracting organisation is best suited to do the work. In practice, the system has a number of potential laws. one very strident criticism made during the early years of PPG16 concerned quality control. licences to undertake archaeological work are required for all terrestrial sites in Northern Ireland; in the rest of the united Kingdom formal consent is required for ieldwork on Scheduled ancient Monuments and Protected Wrecks. otherwise, in england, Wales and Scotland there is no licencing requirement for archaeologists; developers are entitled to choose anyone, and in the absence of any other information tended to favour the lowest priced bid. However this has become less of an issue as the profession (and the clientele it serves) has matured; not least due to the way in which the Institute for archaeologists (Ifa) develops and maintains standards. diiculties remain in ensuring that post-excavation (including publication) is adequately resourced. he real problem is that this is an asymmetrical market, and also a ‘market failure’ in that the beneiciary is the ‘public’ (with the local authority oicer as a proxy), while the organisation who pays for it all may see no real beneit in the work they fund; exacerbated by the fact that the local authority oicer and the consultant or contracting archaeologist both have specialist knowledge that the payer does not. Indeed, since local authority archaeological services (including maintenance of Hers) are not a statutory requirement, they are an easy target when inancial savings need to be made. recent reductions in funding represent a threat to the operation of this system, and to the wider archaeological profession. In March 2012 PPS5 was itself replaced by the National Planning Policy framework (NPPf), which has a presumption in favour of ‘sustainable development’. Historical archaeology and archaeological practice in Britain 29 although the NPPf retains many of the positive elements of PPS5, many archaeologists are concerned that provision for archaeology in the planning system may be diluted. Professional archaeological practice in Britain archaeology began to be professionalised as a function of the state during the 1880s, when lieutenant-General augustus Henry lane fox Pitt rivers became the irst Inspector of ancient Monuments on 1st January 1883 (Bowden 1991). In 1908 the government established royal Commissions for recording historic monuments in england, Wales and Scotland (Sargent 2001; ferguson 2008). he oice (later Ministry) of Works was subsequently established as the government department responsible for implementing ancient monuments legislation. Meanwhile, the irst part of the twentieth century saw the development of more rigorous ieldwork methodologies, in particular work by Mortimer Wheeler, Kathleen Kenyon and Gerald Bersu (Barker 1982, 15-26). Indeed the irst publication on historical archaeology was a report by Mortimer Wheeler on a sixteenth and seventeenth century hoard from london (Wheeler 1928). his period also saw the acceptance of archaeology as an academic discipline, and the post-war generation of students was extremely inluential in developing ieldwork methodologies and theoretical models which began to engage with the extremely rich material culture of the historical periods. he need for extensive reconstruction of British cities ater 1945 encouraged the somewhat ad hoc development of medieval urban archaeology. he pre-war Congress of archaeological Societies had formed a Council for British archaeology (CBa) in 1944 with a remit to coordinate ‘rescue’ eforts and raise awareness. ater a lurry of work in the 1950s, the practice of ‘rescue’ archaeology became well-established, and those involved – such as John Hurst and Philip rahtz – were also beginning to look at more recent remains. he irst local government archaeologists in england were appointed by lancashire County Council in 1963 and Gloucester City Council in 1968 (Kenneth aitchison, pers. comm.). In 1971 the organisation ‘reSCue: the Trust for British archaeology’ was established: its main function was to organise and staf ‘rescue’ excavations on threatened sites (Hudson 1981, 145-148). his distinctly non-academic and oten amateur practice was at the forefront of developing sophisticated methodologies for excavating, recording and understanding the complexities of medieval and later urban stratigraphy; most famously the Harris matrix, developed at Winchester in the 1960s. his stratigraphic aid was modestly described by its inventor as ‘one of the most useful and enduring contributions which historical archaeology has made to the profession in general’ (Harris 1998, 6). Yet even at this late stage archaeology could be characterised as ‘at best an academic discipline ... more oten it had the status of a hobby’ (addyman 1989, 302). for historical archaeology this was more of a problem, as it remained outside the academic mainstream despite (or arguably because of) its popularity with non-archaeological audiences. In 1973 the CBa set up a working party on Professionalism in archaeology, which considered whether and how to set up a ‘British archaeological Institution’ along the lines of other professional bodies (addyman 1989, 303). his was met with suspicion, and faltered. Meanwhile the department of the environment (successor to the Ministry of Works) established the Central excavation unit, which illed in some of the gaps in ‘rescue’ excavation that could not be met by amateur involvement (Hudson 1981, 151-2). In 1979 an association for the Promotion of an Institute of field archaeologists was established, and within two years had gained 500 supporters; the Institute of field archaeologists (Ifa) was formally 30 Paul Belford constituted in 1982 (Hinton 1998). In 2008 the Ifa renamed itself the Institute for archaeologists (Ifa) to relect the wider remit of the ‘historic environment’ professions; it successfully operates both as an advocate of archaeology to government and other professions, and in setting, monitoring and promoting standards, guidance and training to its members. Just as the Ifa was being established, the uK government brought about a signiicant reorganisation of national state heritage services. In england, this resulted in the creation of english Heritage (eH, formally known as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for england) as a non-departmental public body in 1983. Similar legislation created Cadw (in Wales) and Historic Scotland (HS); although HS is part of government and so does not have the same independence as eH. Initially the royal Commissions established in 1908 continued to work alongside the new bodies; however the functions of the english royal Commission (rCHMe) were merged with english Heritage in 1999. english Heritage’s remit essentially involves historic environment stewardship, so although archaeological and conservation expertise is maintained in house (including landscape survey and aerial photography functions of the former rCHMe), the majority of archaeological work on english Heritage sites is contracted out to the private sector. In Scotland, the shit away from state provision of archaeological services took place more rapidly. In 1992, two years before the introduction of NPPG5, the ‘archaeological operations and Conservation’ department of the state body Historic Scotland was privatised (ultimately becoming ‘aoC archaeology’) and all state archaeological activity was thenceforth contracted out. Whilst this had a positive efect by efectively kick-starting Scottish commercial archaeology, it resulted in a loss of skills at Historic Scotland which no longer functions as a ‘centre of excellence and best practice’, instead commissioning work from external consultants (Carter 2002, 872). However this is countered by the continuation of the Scottish royal Commission (rCaHMS), which absorbed responsibility for industrial archaeology in 1985 and maritime heritage from 1992 (ferguson 2008). In Northern Ireland, the environment and the Built Heritage department of the Northern Ireland environment agency contracts archaeological services out to commercial organisations from both the uK and the republic of Ireland (Brannon 2002, 493-497). he system in Wales is something of a hybrid. Cadw and the royal Commission (rCaHMW) complement each other at national level; locally Welsh archaeology is largely served by four charitable trusts (all to some extent supported by Cadw), which combine development control and ieldwork functions in the same body. However some local authorities also have had their own in-house archaeologists, as do Snowdonia and Pembrokeshire Coast National Parks. he trend away from state provision of historic environment services is a long-term readjustment which is not conined to the uK: it is relected in the language of the faro Convention and its notion of ‘heritage communities’. for over a decade the authoritative state expert has evolved into more of a guide and facilitator (homas 2004; Cooper 2010). Together with the introduction of ‘polluter pays’ legislation, this has resulted in the emergence of a vibrant, dynamic and intellectually conident private sector. In Scotland, private-sector archaeological activity grew three-fold between 1990 and 2000; in the same period, state funding of archaeological projects went from over 70% to just 25% (Carter 2002, 869). around 90% of all archaeological investigations in england are carried out by commercial archaeological organisations (darvill and russell 2002, 52; fulford 2011, 34). despite the best eforts of the Ifa and CBa, training, career structure and standards remain issues. Indeed the ‘growth of commercial archaeology occurred in a very reactive Historical archaeology and archaeological practice in Britain 31 way without much thought being given to, or responsibility taken for, the industry’s development needs’ (aitchison 2009). Nevertheless, as we shall see, this extraordinary expansion has disproportionately beneited historical archaeology. In comparison with private-sector endeavour, very little archaeological research is directly undertaken by state agencies, and even less by community groups and academic institutions. In principle, academic archaeologists are best-placed to provide theoretical direction and synthesis, although as we shall see, structural problems, including pressures of administration and funding, do not always enable this to take place. archaeological professionals – curators, consultants and contractors – are, therefore, the main actors in British historical archaeology. Indeed it has been argued that privatisation has helped to ‘emancipate archaeology from the insulated interconnecting enclosures of state patronage and academia’ (ascherson 2006, 50). The intellectual development of historical archaeology Notwithstanding antiquarian interest in medieval art and architecture, it was only in the 1930s that British archaeology began serious exploration of periods other than the prehistoric and roman. as noted above, direct engagement with the sites and material culture of medieval and later periods expanded greatly as a consequence of post-war rebuilding and redevelopment. In 1957 the Society for Medieval archaeology (SMa) was established by archaeologists including rupert Bruce-Mitford, John Hurst, Philip rahtz and others, supported by museum professionals and historians (Gerrard 2007). he Society for Post-Medieval archaeology (SPMa) was established in 1966. he SPMa was at irst concerned primarily with the period before c.1700, and with occupation sites and artefacts – in part due to its origins in 1963 as a ceramics research group (anon 1967, 2; egan 2009, 549-551). he association for Industrial archaeology (aIa) was formed in 1973; initially explicitly focusing on production sites and technology from the eighteenth century onwards (Buchanan 2005, 19-21). all three organisations published peer-reviewed journals that began to gain national and international recognition for their various strands of the subject. he creation of these groups was paralleled in the anglophone world by the emergence of the Society for Historical archaeology (SHa) in 1967 in the united States, and, later, the australasian Society for Historical archaeology (aSHa). from the outset the SHa was determined that its remit should be ‘the archaeology of the spread of european culture throughout the world since the iteenth century’ (deetz 1977, 5). Contrasts between SHa and SPMa were characterised by robert Schuyler, who suggested that both groups ‘arrived at the same subject matter, but one looked out from europe and the other took a global view with a nod toward europe’ (Schuyler 1999, 12). his is partly true, but diferences in approach are mainly due to diferent traditions of archaeology. British archaeology is rooted in the ield of history and the humanities, whereas archaeology in the united States has closer links with anthropology and ethnography. Moreover historical archaeology in the united States emerged from within the academic establishment, whereas in Britain it started as an outsider. he diverse origins of, and approaches within, British historical archaeology have sometimes produced tensions. of these the division between middle-class, humanities-based ‘post-medieval archaeology’ and working-class, science- and engineering-based ‘industrial archaeology’ has perhaps been sharpest (Cranstone 2004; Horning and Palmer 2009). In the 1990s, both post-medieval and industrial archaeology were characterised by some as the last refuges of ‘traditionalist archaeology’, mindlessly data-gathering and lacking theoretical 32 Paul Belford rigour (West 1999, 6–7). In fact this was not the case even then, and is certainly not true today. British chronological division between pre-industrial and ‘Industrial revolution’ periods is unique, with the transition to a fully industrial society taking place much later (or not at all) in most parts of europe. even in Britain the once-heated arguments over the timing and nature of this division have now subsided, and most historical archaeologists would agree with david Gaimster’s assessment that this is ‘an increasingly sterile exercise’ (Gaimster 2009, 529). Certainly industrial archaeology began with amateur enthusiasm for conservation of industrial remains (rix 1955). a typical analysis of its scope was provided in 1967 by Kenneth Hudson, who stated that ‘the very point of Industrial archaeology... [was] ...to provide facts about the history of industry and technology’ (Hudson 1967, 9). as a result it was rightly accused at an early stage of having ‘neglected almost all theory’ to pursue a focus on steam engines and textile mills (Palmer and Neaverson 1998, 3-4). Indeed this early conservationled stage, retrospectively characterised by Neil Cossons as ‘heroic’, had withered by the late 1990s (Cossons 2000, 13-14). a ‘social archaeology’ of industrialisation subsequently emerged which sought to explore ‘social transformations ... power relations, new systems of control and the creation of a work ethic’ (Gould 1999, 153). Marilyn Palmer has acknowledged that industrialisation was ‘one of the key developments in the post-medieval British economy and society’ (Palmer 2004, 1). Industrial archaeology is today oten regarded as a subset of post-medieval archaeology, but with a speciic focus on the issues surrounding the process of industrialisation. for post-medieval archaeology, two events in 1990 ensured the maturation of the discipline. he irst was PPG16, already described above. he second was the publication of david Crossley’s book Post-Medieval Archaeology in Britain, which the late Geof egan quite rightly described as a ‘major milestone’ in the academic development of the discipline (Crossley 1990; egan 2009, 550). from this point, British historical archaeology began to develop more sophisticated theoretical frameworks, increasingly seeing itself as part of the broader global study of ‘historical archaeology’ (andren 1998; Hall and Silliman 2006). Initial attempts to overcome perceived academic marginalisation by the direct application of american approaches to uK situations was also not always successful; exempliied by critique of James deetz’s ‘Georgian order’ model in the early 1990s (deetz 1977; Hall 1992; Courtney 1996). his led to the development of other models. Mark leone in the united States and Matthew Johnson in Britain both developed archaeologies of capitalism, and work in the united States on industrial poverty, urban slums and immigrant communities was inluential in Britain (Johnson 1993; Johnson 1996; leone 1995; leone and Potter 1998; ludlow Collective 2001; Mrozowski et al. 1996; Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2004; Yentsch and Beaudry 1992). an archaeology of capitalism provided a mechanism by which archaeologies of consumption could be developed, enabling a shit away from empirical site and artefact studies. More recently, Sarah Tarlow’s outline of an ‘archaeology of improvement’ suggests greater self-conidence in the ability of British historical archaeology to develop its own theoretical models (Tarlow 2007). at the same time other areas of archaeological interest have developed, both in Britain and internationally. Maritime archaeology holds a particular signiicance for historical or post-medieval archaeology: colonialism and international trade are impossible without boats and ships, yet until recently maritime archaeology has been largely absent from the discourse of British historical archaeology. Shipbuilding sites have been studied by industrial Historical archaeology and archaeological practice in Britain 33 and post-medieval archaeologists, but it was not until the Mary rose project in the early 1980s that awareness of the potential of maritime studies for historical archaeology took hold (Belford 2011a; Coad 2005; divers 2002; divers 2004; rule 1983). Similarly characterised by mainstream archaeologists as an amateur pursuit, the ield of conlict archaeology only began to emerge during the 1990s. Initially concerned with medieval and later battleields, this subdiscipline has developed simultaneously sophisticated and popular approaches to conlict in a variety of theatres – particularly the archaeology of the Great War (Carman 2005; Saunders 2001). In Belgium this has resulted in the opening of a state department of first World War archaeology, drawing together a wide range of professionals (de Wilde et al. 2004). one of the more interesting intellectual developments in British historical archaeology in the last decade has been the study of contemporary archaeology. his has emerged from an anthropological ‘ethnology of the near’ (as deined by Marc augé) into what alfredo Gonzalez-ruibal has termed an ‘archaeology of supermodernity’ (augé 1992, 10; Gonzalez-ruibal 2008). In part, contemporary archaeology is also concerned with conlict, and in particular the material remains of the Cold War – as well as the more ephemeral remains of opposition to it (Schoield 2005). Notwithstanding some justiiable early critique of this sub-discipline, the maturation of contemporary archaeology has seen its acceptance by the mainstream of British historical archaeology (Buchli and lucas 2001). he study of contemporary archaeology provides an interface between the disciplines of archaeology, ethnography, anthropology and sociology; at its best it is able to ofer a powerful critique of the way archaeology is enacted in the present. Historical archaeology in Britain today: challenges and opportunities British historical archaeology is irmly part of the global discipline, yet it retains many idiosyncrasies which are a product of its long and sometimes tortured evolution. he last twenty years have seen considerable progress. looking back to the 1990s, many British historical archaeologists seemed quite gloomy, despite increasing professional and academic interest. hey saw the emergence of PPG16 with its emphasis on ‘preservation in situ’ as a deterrent to large-scale excavation; where excavations were undertaken (certainly in the early part of that decade) post-1700 deposits were simply machined away; and post-medieval archaeology was all too oten ignored in academia. However the irst decade of the twenty-irst century has been much more positive. developers and archaeologists alike have become adept at working archaeology into the planning process, with beneits on both sides; there is a range of university courses at undergraduate and postgraduate level; and the ubiquity of the internet means that the dissemination of archaeological data is no longer reliant on traditional publication in expensive monographs. British historical archaeology has gained an intellectual self-conidence, inally emerging from the long shadows cast by its american cousin. Nevertheless, there are still challenges and opportunities ahead. he introduction of PPG16 (which did not specify any particular chronological cut-of date) and the increase in redevelopment of ‘brownield’ urban sites from the mid-1990s resulted in a massive increase in ieldwork. his was gradual at irst, as an earlier generation of local government archaeologists had no training in historical archaeology and some remained suspicious of its value. However by the turn of the century many professional archaeologists had begun to see post-medieval deposits as something worth dealing with. Not only was 34 Paul Belford the archaeology itself interesting, it became clear that the archaeological remains contained information which the historical documents did not; information which was useful to local government and developer alike. Moreover it was realised that the archaeology of the more recent past was of particular interest to the public, who could relate more readily to the brick walls and Stafordshire pottery of an historic site than they could to the muddy ditches and pits of a prehistoric one. Conidence grew amongst local government archaeologists in the early 2000s, who increasingly felt able to insist on substantial archaeological projects on eighteenth, nineteenth and even twentieth century sites. hese were large-scale projects with resources undreamed-of by academic colleagues. as a result the majority of the 3,500 or so British archaeologists undertaking ieldwork in the private sector will have had at least some contact with historical archaeology. Indeed for many, particularly in urban or former industrial areas, their only experience may be with historical archaeology. Consequently most professional archaeologists in Britain are familiar with the discipline, and now treat post-medieval deposits with the same respect as earlier ones. his very positive consequence of large-scale commercial projects is balanced by some rather more problematic outcomes. he most immediate crisis is the archiving of excavated material. By their very nature post-medieval sites either tend to generate large quantities of artefacts, or substantial amounts of industrial residues (or indeed sometimes both). In english law, items recovered from the ground remain the property of the landowner; in practice most artefacts are (eventually) deposited with local, regional or national museums. local government briefs for archaeological work usually require deposition of the excavated archive in the local museum. However museums have sufered from poor funding over the long term: many no longer have the resources and expertise to deal with archaeological archives, and most simply do not have the room to accommodate them (Brown 2007). It is also common for the archaeological element of the planning process to be ‘signed of’ ater ieldwork, meaning that resources for post-excavation are oten inadequate. further, it has been assumed that archaeological records and site archives would exist in perpetuity for re-interrogation by future generations; however this is not a legal obligation and may not necessarily be the case. he london archaeological archive and research Centre (laarC) at the Museum of london houses material and data from over 3,000 projects that have taken place in Greater london. Several projects have used artefacts from the laarC, to develop new approaches with artefact ‘biographies’ (owens et al. 2008). his is exceptional, however; outside london access to, and synthetic projects with, existing archives are rare. a related issue is the academic perception of the value of commercial archaeology, which has not taken account of the very high standards of data gathering and peer-review in the professional sector. academics have long complained about the apparent ‘invisibility of … the results of archaeological investigation’ (fulford 2011, 44). In fact many projects are published in local and regional journals, and most of the contents of peer-reviewed national period journals such as Post-Medieval archaeology and the Industrial archaeology review are the consequence of private-sector projects. Nevertheless this is the tip of the iceberg; most commercial projects are written up as ‘grey literature’ – client reports to inform the planning process. In fact all ‘grey literature’ reports are in the public domain and available through local Hers, and around 10,000 are easily accessible through the oaSIS website, part of the archaeology data Service (adS) hosted at the university of York (richards 2011). Yet the academic community has only recently begun to engage with the data from the last twenty years of commercial archaeology. richard Bradley examined the ‘grey literature’ for prehisHistorical archaeology and archaeological practice in Britain 35 toric Britain, and found that substantial gaps in academic understanding had in fact been illed by commercial archaeology (Phillips and Bradley 2004; Bradley 2006). More recently the ‘grey literature’ has enabled the parts of the story of roman Britain to be told in a more sophisticated and detailed manner (fulford and Holbrook 2011). Whilst no attempt has yet been made to synthesise the ‘grey literature’ for the historical periods, it is clear that much of the most interesting and useful research has been undertaken outside the formal structures of academia. his lack of connectivity between academics and professionals remains a key weakness in British archaeology of all periods, although it is particularly problematic in historical archaeology due to the volume of data being recovered. Not only are academics failing to grapple with research data (one of their roles, ater all, should be to provide syntheses and frameworks which place such research in broader contexts), but students are not being properly trained to become archaeological professionals. fieldwork forms a very small part of most undergraduate courses, and may not take place at all at postgraduate level; moreover the quality of the ieldwork experience is quite diferent from that of the commercial unit. here is almost no training in modern project management, health and safety, or even, in some cases, the role of archaeology in the planning system. Part of the problem is the British academic system: it is quite possible for someone to be teaching archaeology at university with only a few weeks’ ieldwork experience. academic activity is structured by the need to produce outputs that count towards the research excellence framework (ref), a periodic review which determines funding for individual departments. a healthy discipline requires both sides to be equal partners, and at present commercial archaeologists are much better equipped to deal with historical archaeology than their university colleagues. Issues of communication within the professional sphere are less serious, but nevertheless present opportunities for improvement. Traditionally the study of below-ground archaeology and historic buildings have been separate. his is partly a systemic issue: building conservation and archaeology deriving from archaeology and architecture respectively, and incorporated into heritage protection by two diferent sequences of legislation that until recently were not designed to integrate with each other. as a result, they are handled at diferent levels of local government, and career paths are also diferent. However increasing integration has taken place during the last decade, and the need to integrate understanding of all ‘historic environment assets’ has been made explicit by PPS5. Maritime archaeology, as noted above, also needs closer integration into the mainstream; its position now is analogous to that of industrial archaeology twenty years ago. Industrial archaeology itself is in robust health. he arguments between technology and social archaeology have now largely subsided; however it has been suggested by some that the pendulum may have swung too far, and some sites are being excavated with insuicient knowledge of technological processes (fitzgerald 2007; Gwyn 2008). he role of national state heritage bodies in producing guidance remains important here; and equally important is the role of the Ifa as a professional institute which can promote and enforce standards. a counterpoint to increasing professionalisation of archaeology has been the rise of community archaeology. his is diferent from more conventional ‘outreach’ or ‘public archaeology’, instead encouraging direct engagement by non-professionals in the understanding, management and interpretation of the historic environment (Smith 2006). as noted above, historical archaeology is a particularly resonant resource for engaging with community groups, and several projects have used domestic and industrial sites to develop new ways of working with communities (Belford 2011b; Belford and ross 2004; Boothroyd 2008; McNeil and Walker 36 Paul Belford 2002). However, explicitly ‘community’ projects potentially run the risk of ghettoising public engagement; it is important that non-professional involvement is sustained across all historical archaeology, and not just relegated to ‘community’ projects. It has been argued that developer funding should include provision for ‘proper research-based processing of the data’ not only as part of the process of producing grey literature, but as an essential part of making popular publication accessible to as wide an audience as possible (Grøn 2009, 1176). he current British government’s ‘localism’ agenda makes more community engagement inevitable, and historical archaeologists should embrace this as an opportunity. Conclusion regardless of the political colour of any British government, cutbacks in state funding are inevitable for both historic environment services and tertiary education. British historical archaeology is generally well-placed to deal with this, since it has a strong private sector and has developed sources of research funding which are not reliant on the public purse: namely funding through developers and private foundations. he next ten years will see a much closer integration of conventional post-medieval and industrial archaeology with historic buildings, landscape studies and maritime archaeology. Community archaeology in particular is an area of potential growth. Increasingly, archaeologists are aware that many elements of the historic environment have social and economic values which are independent of their status as listed buildings or scheduled monuments: ‘not all heritage needs public subsidy, and not all heritage needs designation’ (fairclough 2009, 38). academic study of historical archaeology remains a weak link – not only by failing to integrate with the archaeological profession, but also in continuing to align its philosophical directions with north america. he discipline needs closer engagement with europe and africa. as david Gaimster has pointed out, european historical archaeology is ‘a distinctively international subject and ... modern frontiers only serve to obscure the … cosmopolitan nature of european communities’ (Gaimster 2009, 526). It is relatively easy for British historical archaeologists to develop ties with the englishspeaking world, but we ignore our european colleagues at our peril. as well as ensuring that we communicate better amongst ourselves, historical archaeologists need to be better at telling our stories to others. his includes other disciplines, particularly history: Catherine Hills notes how archaeology has ‘somehow contrived to keep itself hidden from the writers of historical syntheses’ (Hills 2007, 199). Indeed, the apparent invisibility of archaeology is such that some historians have decided to (re)invent it so as to ‘unchain historians’ by eliminating ‘prehistory as a category’ (Cohen 2011; Shyrock and Smail 2011). of course archaeologists have been busy telling these sorts of stories all along – but perhaps our message is actually not getting through as much as we would like? Certainly historical archaeology must include the public, for whom we are all – public and private sector alike – ultimately working. on the whole, British historical archaeology is in good shape. he development of commercial archaeology has enormously enriched the discipline, bringing many more archaeologists into contact with the wonderful world of historical archaeology. However it still needs closer co-operation between its academic and professional sectors, closer co-operation with other disciplines, and a much closer relationship with european friends and neighbours. Hopefully this volume will go some way towards achieving these ambitions. Historical archaeology and archaeological practice in Britain 37 acknowledgments I am very grateful to Kenneth aitchison, david Cranstone, Henrik Harnow, Kate Page-Smith and Gerry Wait for their comments on, and discussion about, earlier drats of this chapter; the contents also owe a great deal to recent conversations with Jef altschul, Glyn davies, Jonathan finch, Peter Hinton, anthony Martin, Mark Spanjer and roger White. Special thanks go to Kate Page-Smith for her insight and support throughout. 38 What is historical archaeology? What are the challenges facing archaeologists looking at the remains of the last 500 years? What are the issues for archaeology itself in today’s rapidly-changing economic and political circumstances? How can we develop a uniquely European historical archaeology? he result of a conference in 2009, Across the North Sea contains 24 papers from 28 leading archaeologists, historians, curators and heritage managers from Britain and Denmark, and explores a wide range of issues – including the development of the discipline and current practice in both countries, together with a range of case studies, and discussion of future directions. his fascinating book provides an essential guide for anyone wanting to understand the evolving discipline of historical archaeology in Britain, Denmark and the North Sea region. society for Post-Medieval Archaeology