The CIA – Conferences
I always have a soft spot for the amateur, partly I suppose it is because it is the amateur archaeologists who form many of our readers, or other I should put it perhaps the other way round, and say that I founded Current Archaeology for the archaeologists who go out digging on their Saturday afternoons and come to lectures in the winter.
I once wrote a book published by the Adam Smith Institute called Who Owns the Past? in which I argued that it was not the professionals who are paid to curate the past who actually own the past. Professionals who are paid to curate the past all too often find themselves serving the interests of their paymasters, and may interpret the past according to the latest fashions and find it difficult to step out of step out of line.
The amateurs however are free to explore the past from their own interest. They may wish to ask where do I come from, and explore the places of their birth and upbringing. Or they may wish to explore the new homeland where they find themselves living. They may want to know were the Romans here , and what happened in prehistory. People like this can take an independent look of the past and try and make sense of it from a new angle. Some of them may decide that it doesn’t make sense and needs to be updated and as independence they will be able to say so, and produce a new insight into how we came to be what we are.
But the amateur archaeologists or Independents are in danger of becoming a dying breed. Local societies are shrinking. My lifetime has been dominated by the rise of the professional archaeologists. The ‘rescue’ movement invented an entirely new breed of professional archaeologists who now do a vast amount of huge excavations , and have enormously expanded our knowledge of what was there in the past. And on the academic side, universities have accepted that archaeology is a fit subject to study, and university departments have sprung up everywhere, and have flourished enormously.
But with the onset of professional archaeology, there was always a danger that it would go too far, and that excavation would be forbidden to the non-professional, or only done under licence. There’s also the parallel danger that that state claims all archaeological finds which is the law in many countries. Indeed this is the law in Scotland. We really needed a body that would stand up for the amateur and be prepared to oppose attempts at professionalising archaeology or to extend the law of treasure trove.
CIA Congresses: the Beginning
The CIA began one evening when I was talking over the phone to one of our subscribers who rejoiced in the name of Plantagenet Somerset Fry. He was a colourful character, well known around Cambridge for his colourful dress, and his principal claim to fame was that he had won a BBC quiz show which made him the ‘ Brain of Britain’. He made his living writing popular histories.
What we need, he said, was to set up a co-ordinating body for amateur archaeologists. We had a long discussion on what to call the conference. The word amateur had unfortunately acquired unfortunate connotations, so we decided to call it The Congress of Independent Archaeology in spite of the fact that the initials had an unfortunate similarity to a certain body in America. If you can supply the people, he said, I can supply the place. I am attached to Wolfson College Cambridge and we can hold the conference there. So I sent out the call in Current Archaeology 96, the result of which on 21st – 22nd September 1985 134 people assembled at Wolfson College.
The conference went well. We looked abroad to America where Brian Rosborough told us how Earthwatch was set up, a body that very successfully provides volunteers for excavations. We also heard from Brian Palmer, a Director of Legal and General Assurance Company who pointed out that every day 2,000 people retire and many of them become bored and that we should try to lure them into archaeology.
Then Peter Addyman came from York to report on the first year of operations of the Jorvik Viking Centre where their first year yielded a profit of £789,000 – a rare example of archaeology actually making money.
Then there was a roundup of local activity some of which revealed some of the problems. We heard from Keith Knowles, a Norfolk family doctor who was excavating at a Roman site at Bramdean, but the authorities scheduled it, – to the dismay of the farmer. We also heard from Richard Bellhouse, a vet in Cumberland who went round looking at animals for his job and looking out for Roman remains for his hobby, thereby discovering the line of Roman forts down the Cumberland coast acting as an extension to Hadrian’s Wall. But when he did a small excavation to prove a fort, the site was again scheduled to the dismay of the farmer. Even small excavations were seen by the authorities as being something to be stamped out.
The Congress ended with a regional roundup and we hoped there would be a future congress. We devoted three pages of CA 105 to it and we received many letters of support from many of the eminent amateur archaeologists.
The Second 1987 Congress – Selwyn College, 1987
We resolved to hold a second congress two years later in 1987 in the rather grander setting of Selwyn College. Throughout the weekend there ran the theme that there should be an umbrella organisation in the way that professional archaeology is represented by bodies such as the Institute of Field Archaeologists. All were conscious of the decline of enthusiasm for amateur archaeologists since the 1970s, and that this was due in some part to the huge increase in professional archaeology.
In the final session there was much discussion as to how we should go about setting up an umbrella organisation and Henry Cleere, the Director of the CBA suggested that the CBA regional groups could report at the next Congress. The afternoon sessions were devoted to case studies and twenty or so people spoke of their recent works. One of the refreshing aspects of the conference was that nobody read their scripts, but spoke extemporary. An immense programme was packed in, with speakers having ten minutes each.
The third programme was held at St John’s College York on the 10th September 1989
CIA York
We had now reached a crucial stage. Hitherto the Congress had been a meeting called together by me in an entirely informal capacity. Should we should we form a proper organisation? For my point of view, running the Congresses was rather a strain . I was running Current Archaeology at the same time, with 5000 subscribers and a magazine to produce every other month, I was, and am, essentially a writer and I really wasn’t an organisation person. Running one name and address list was quite enough. I really felt that a proper organisation was needed
I think it was clear that the next Congress was going to be a crucial meeting when we would decide whether to set up a proper body. Representatives of the leading archaeological bodies assembled at St John’s College York. There was Michael Robbins, the president of the Society of Antiquaries and the foremost railway historian whose day job was head of London Transport, running the underground system. There was Jennifer Page, director of English Heritage – still a fairly newly formed body. And then there was Rosemary Cramp, the professor of archaeology at Durham and excavator of Bede’s monastery at Jarrow, a great powerhouse of archaeology in the north, who came as president of the Council for British Archaeology. We had a formal dinner in the glittering hall at which they all delivered speeches.
In the meeting itself, representatives of all 14 regions of the Council for British Archaeology presented reports and there was a fascinating collection of short reports. Finally came the big moment: should we form a new body? Discussion was controversial. Some felt that there were too many bodies and it would overlap with the CBA, though the trouble was that the CBA represented the whole of archaeology and we wanted a body that would specifically represent the amateurs.
Others were worried that it would become a sort of gathering of the troublemakers. But this was never the intention and in the event, in never happened. The meeting was firmly chaired by Brian Wrigley, from the Hendon and District Archaeological Society who was a distinguished solicitor, and he ruled eventually that we should split up and those who were against forming the body should leave, and the remainder should stay behind and form the new body.
And so the Council for Independent Archaeology was formed. I was elected as chairman, Kevan Fadden , who had spent most of his career in the motor industry in Dunstable and has become a great friend and supporter, became treasurer, and Mike Rumbold, who was chairman of the Northamptonshire Archaeological Society became the secretary: he was another tower of strength but sadly he died in 2016(?) and his place was taken by Keith Foster who kept us in order right through to the end.
1990 Dorchester
Having formed the Council, what next? We had already formed the tradition of holding a Congress every other year, but should we not do something in the intervening years? A bright idea dawned on us. 1990 would be 100th anniversary of the birth of Sir Mortimer Wheeler: could we not celebrate it by holding a one day meeting? Sir Mortimer was to some extent one of us: he was never a conventional professional archaeologist – he never had a proper job – he was always founding new projects and then moving on, and much of the work at Maiden Castle was a triumph of the use of volunteers.
We had a lecture session in the morning held at the magnificent Dorchester Museum. We invited Sir Mortimer’s son, Michael Wheeler, a distinguished QC to provide some reminiscences of his father – I think he was very pleased that someone had remembered his father in this way. Then in the afternoon we transferred to Maiden Castle and walked round the ramparts, and I opened a bottle of wine and poured a tribute to the great man on the ramparts of the hillfort. I called down the blessings of the gods of the Neolithic causewayed camps, then to the gods of the Iron Age hillfort and finally even to the gods of the little Roman temple. It was all slightly crazy and we made it up as we went along, but Mike Rumbold egged us on, and it was great fun.
1990 Dorchester
I particularly remember the meeting we had in Dorchester to celebrate Sir Mortimer Wheeler’s hundredth birthday. In the morning we had some lectures, including one by his son, a distinguished QC, and then in the afternoon we went up to Maiden Castle and walked round and opened a bottle of wine and poured a tribute to the great man on the ramparts of the hillfort. It was all slightly crazy and we made it up as he went along, but Mike egged us on, and it was great fun! I’ll open a bottle of wine and pour a tribute to the memory of Mike.
1991 Bristol: leading work
The fourth Congress of Independent Archaeologists, at Bristol University, on September 14th – 15th 1991 provided the opportunity to hear leading independent archaeologists presenting their latest research.
Following the Congress was a computer workshop session for those who know nothing about computers but are thinking of acquiring one, with a demonstration of Shareware.There were also Guided tours of Bristol by members of the Bristol and Avon Archaeological Society and an opportunity to visit Monmouth on your way home, where a special tour of the excavations and the town were laid on for Congress members.
1992 Great Orme Mines
The Bronze Age copper mines on the Great Orme near Llandudno appeared to be the most extensive hitherto discovered anywhere in the world. We had reported on them extensively in CA 130 and this was an opportunity for members of the CIA during visit them.
1993 Nottingham: PPG16
The introduction of PPG 16 in November 1990 was a major event in archaeology. A firm framework was now provided for rescue archaeology, making the financing a responsibility of developers. It provided a new framework for professional archaeology but what was the effect on independent archaeology? The 1993 congress held at Nottingham University in April 1993 was mainly devoted to considering PPG 16. I produced some elaborate guidelines for societies, for curators, and for contractors. In retrospect I think it was entirely useless and went entirely unnoticed. But nevertheless they provide a useful summary of the framework for PPG 16 in its early days.
But what is PPG 16? Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that it is based on the planning system. We tend to think that the problems of rescue archaeology are confined to Britain, but in fact developer funding was taking place round the world, and in most countries laws were passed to say that developers should pay for archaeology. Instead of passing a law, the problem was solved in Britain by using the planning system, and producing ‘guidelines’ – something which I, who is politically much influenced by Hayek, would normally regard with suspicion. But nevertheless it has worked well and has provided a better negotiating system between planners and developers to find the best solution to the tricky problems of just what should be allowed.
To put it formally, Planning Policies Guidance No 16 was published by the Department of the Environment to give guidance to planning authorities as to what the policies on archaeological remains should be. It is not law, it is merely guidance, though the guidance is in effect, law. But the clever bit from the government point of view, is that it puts the costs from the state to the local government, and it means that decisions can be made locally. The guidance laid down that all counties should maintain a ‘sites and monument record’ ( an SMR) – a further cost on local authorities. This means that when any planning application is made, the planners can look up in the SMR to see if any archaeology is known. There then follows three stages: if the site shows up in the SMR, the developer can then commission a desktop based assessment. This could then be followed by small scale trial trenches and if it appears that there is something important there, there should be a full-scale excavation paid for by the developer. I noted rather peevishly that there is no independent input to this process.
In fact, many if not most local archaeological societies in this period did undertake regular supervision of planning applications, but this was tedious and not very profitable, so I think this has largely dropped away. The more interesting question is whether local societies should be able to participate in the trial trenches in advance of development. In the years before PPG16, a lot of societies were involved in this, indeed at the 1997 conference Chris Butler explained the work of the Mid Sussex Archaeological Society in doing this.
It can be extremely useful and indeed exhilarating for local societies to be involved in this way. However from the point of view of the professionals, such small scale trial trenches provide their bread and butter – a useful form of income. The planning officers in local government are felt to be letting down the side if they allow amateurs to undertake such work for free. This is an aspect that needs further consideration. But if local history is to be written, – and this is surely the task of local societies – they need to have access to the information that comes from rescue archaeology.
Contractors
The other major change of PPG 16 was the change in the role of the contractors who carry out the work. Previously, professional archaeologists were locally based did most of the work in their area and it was assumed that they would be experts on the area in which they were based. PCG 16 however introduced the concept of competition: developments could be put out to tender and developers could choose the best – or cheapest. It was a system that caused considerable unhappiness but it is surprising in that it worked out as well as it does. It certainly gave developers the feeling that they could control to some extent the cost and extent of the archaeology.
As a result, three major contractors have emerged: Oxford, Wessex and the Museum of London, which is no longer confined to London, but carries out work all over the country. The system has become very efficient. The big units employ 300 or more people, with excavation departments, writing up departments and experts in pottery and and small finds. They are mostly very efficient in doing the job, but the link with archaeology as a whole is lost.
But PPG16 has no place for independent or indeed for academic archaeologists . In my guidelines I suggested that contractors should inform the local societies before coming into their area and send them copies of their final assessments. If a site is fruitful the contractors should surely invite local societies and local academics to view the site. The big contractors do indeed have Departments concerning ‘community and engagement’, but sadly their emphasis is elsewhere: concentrating on visits by schools and getting publicity in local newspapers and best of all on television. There are open days for the local population, to ‘deliver public benefit’, but local societies are not considered to be part of the public.
I concluded that the pendulum has swung too far from the time when archaeology relied too much on the amateur. But with the great expansion of PPG 16, archaeology has gone in the opposite direction, and the grass roots are in danger of withering away.
1994 Frocester: Eddie Price
In 1994 we went down to Gloucestershire to celebrate one of the quiet achievements of that are at the heart of independent archaeology: that of a farmer discovering that there was an unknown Roman villa lurking under his field, and then going out to excavate it, a new trench year by year. There was no spectacular excavation of a Roman villa laid out to view, but when laid out on a plan it all came together.
It all began as a prosperous Iron Age farm which did not prosper with the Romans and the farm was replaced by a couple of barns. It was only in the 4th century that its fortunes changed and a grand villa was laid out. However change came again with the advent of the Saxons when a new owner muscled in and built a red hall at the bottom of the garden and when the villa fell into ruins another hall was built in among the ruins. But digging archaeology was not all. A great tythe barn was erected, but this too had its problems and he set to work rerouting it all by himself, a fine example of a prosperous farmer looking after his land and exploring its archaeology and history.
1995 Sheffield 1st – 2nd April
In this congress we set out to examine a structure of archaeology where it seems that a new structure was emerging: most counties had their county archaeological societies, varying in size from Dorset which had nearly 3,000 members and ran its own museum with a fine collection of prehistoric pottery, including the romantically named Deveril Rimbury Bronze Age pottery. And the society though basically archaeological was very nearly much the county society. And then there was the Northamptonshire Archaeological Society which was a comparatively new foundation with only 200 members, but where the city museum also had a fine collection of Neolithic Peterborough pottery. But the main role of the county society seemed to be a publishing organisation, publishing the work of amateur and professional alike.
Two contrasting entries featured in the award session : there was Chris Salisbury who was investigating the meanderings of the River Ouse chasing up the discoveries in the gravel quarries and finding numerous fish traps.
A different type of work was the study of a small Roman settlement at Tripontium on the Wattling Street near Rugby where Jack Lucas and the Rugby Archaeological Association found rather more than the standard posting station. They began by showing rescue archaeology in advance of a gravel quarry where they found a Roman fort and a surprisingly late date. But when the gravel quarry ceased operations they moved further along the valley and found an extensive courtyard building and a bath house that was presumably a mansio. The inn that formed the centre piece of the Roman postal service, but the Tripontium mansio seemed rather larger than most and seems to have been a sort of learning forum.
On the Sunday afternoon there was a workshop on the internet. I was busy discovering the internet and had just set up a website for the congress. This was on Cix Compulink, a pioneering correspondence setup. I note that it was not until 1997 that I acquired my own setup and became andrew@archaeology.co.uk with my own website for Current Archaeology www.currentarchaeology.co.uk These were the pioneering days of awareness and I got in early!
1996 Flag Fen and treasure trove
In 1996 we visited another great pioneer of archaeology: Francis Pryor. Francis made his career exploring the fens at the east of Peterborough and discovering a distinctive network of settlements and track-ways across the fens to link the settlements. There was evidence too of the ritual sacrifice of Bronze Age metalwork in the waters of the fen. He used volunteers extensively and made frequent appearances on Time Team
We spent the morning with Francis exploring his discoveries, but the afternoon was devoted to a very different matter of the future of treasure trove. The problem of what should be done with the discovery of ‘treasure’ is a complex one, full of dangers for the amateur archaeologist. In many countries around the world, when treasure is discovered it is seized by the state which makes amateur archaeology very difficult, especially if treasure is extended to include pottery and all archaeological small finds. But the English system known as Treasure Trove, though in may ways very fair, had grown up in the most cackhanded fashion. All treasure of gold and silver had to be reported to the British Museum, but an inquest was then held to determine the ownership: should it belong to the state or should belong to the landowner – or should it belong to the finder? A crazy system has sprung up to find out who it originally belonged to – did it originally belong to the land owner who had buried his ancestors in an elaborate burial with lots of treasure? Or was it lost or buried in a panic to be recovered later? In this case, the owner was unknown and it reverted to the state. It was a crazy system trying to work out the state of mind of peoples several millennia ago, and the British Museum wanted desperately to get rid of it.
The government therefore issued a discussion document on Portable Antiquities and I was very concerned that it would be a draconian document which would defined treasure too widely. In the event my concerns were exaggerated, but the document distinguished between two aspects of the problem: firstly what was treasure trove and secondly, how should the findings be recorded. Under this, the definition of treasure was extended to all coin hoards and then to all objects of gold and silver.
Secondly there was the problem as to how finds should be recorded. This had long been the task of the British Museum. With the advent of metal detectors finds were being made on a much larger scale. A system was pioneered in Norfolk by Tony Gregory, a long haired enthusiast who liaised well with the metal detectorists, and was recording huge amounts of finds outside gold and silver. Archaeologists became very worried about metal detectorists and relations varied between near war and a reluctant acquiescence.
The big unseen change was the rise of the National Council of Metal Detectorists who waged a very successful campaign largely unseen and ignored by archaeologists, and certainly I must confess by myself. Today the National Council of Metal Detectorists has nearly 40,000 members paying an annual subscription of £8 which includes valuable insurance policies. But their lobbying has been extremely successful and today the government has no knowledge of amateur archaeology and archaeological societies but considers metal detectorists as being the only alternative to professional archaeology.
But the British Museum played its cards very successfully and the Portable Antiquities Scheme has been set up masterminded by the British Museum but with representatives in each county, mostly funded by local authorities. Huge numbers of finds are being recorded annually which to some extent, particularly concerning Anglo Saxon finds, are substantial changing academic views.
We discuss the prospects at Flag Fen and I think I was over gloomy and in any case was entirely ineffective. Roger Bland at the British Museum was extremely effective and Portable Antiquities Scheme has been a great success.
1997 Nottingham
On to Rescue