Introduction

The purpose of this annual review of archaeological activities within English Heritage is to integrate the work of a number of separate functional groups within the organisation, all of whom deal with archaeological issues, and to focus attention on developing policies over the twelve month period in question. These policies are reflected in the work of our statutory Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee (AMAC) under the chairmanship of Sir David Wilson, whose advice is sought on all matters of substance relating to archaeological policy.

During the year a paper designed to stimulate debate on research frameworks was widely circulated throughout the discipline. Its origins lay in the aftermath to the publication in November 1990 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 (PPG16) on Archaeology and planning, which showed the need for regional as well as academic frameworks within which to take decisions on the preservation, management, and recording of archaeological sites. The immediate response to this need was the publication of Exploring our past in 1991, which, after extensive consultation, set out a framework within which strategies for English Heritage funding of archaeological projects could be formulated. In 1994 it was felt that Exploring our past had served its purpose in this regard, and the new paper proposed a limited exercise designed to obtain the perceptions of organisations and individuals as to what should replace it and what initiatives were being taken at a local level to establish regional strategies. The paper touched a nerve in the profession, with over 500 responses received, and the results will be published in 1996. To complement this exercise, in 1994 a paper was submitted to AMAC and summarised in an article in CAS News 3 which quantified expenditure against the English Heritage agenda for archaeology over the two years 1992-94 as set out in Exploring our past. This analysis has been updated to cover the year 1994-95 and an account appears in this review.

An aim of English Heritage funding following the appearance of PPG16 has been to direct resources to strategic projects for which no other funding is available. This policy is beginning to bear fruit and several such studies appeared in 1994-95. The first of these was a survey of medieval ceramic studies in England (English Heritage 1995). In the past four decades the amount of archaeological work undertaken on sites of the medieval period has increased dramatically, resulting in an enormous quantity of information and material finds - particularly ceramics. Following the completion of the successful review of Romano-British pottery studies (Fulford and Huddleston 1991), we commissioned University College London, the Institute of Archaeology, and the Medieval Pottery Research Group to undertake a similar study of medieval ceramics. The report deals with the history of the subject and reviews the current situation along with imbalances in research. Subsequent sections cover methodology, dissemination, archives, and bibliographies. It then goes on to review the requirements of the profession and the future of ceramic research.

Archaeologists have long been divided over metal detecting which many have accused of causing serious damage to archaeological sites through the undisciplined removal of artefacts from their context. Other archaeologists have regarded metal detecting as an invaluable aid to the investigation of the past. Opinion among metal detectorists is also divided between those who regard archaeologists as elitist intellectuals determined to prevent them from pursuing a legitimate hobby and those who work in harmony with archaeologists to a joint agenda and mutually agreed goals. Yet in the decade of metal detecting's popularity, no comprehensive study has been undertaken of its effect on archaeology, whether for good or ill. In order to rectify this and to quantify the impact of the hobby on archaeology in England, we commissioned a survey from the Council for British Archaeology (Dobinson and Denison 1995) which concluded that the hobby has had positive as well as negative effects, and that its potential benefits have not yet been harnessed to the full. The conclusions represent the first attempt to address the issues in a neutral way by quantifying the impact of metal detecting on archaeological sites in England and its overall contribution to archaeological knowledge. It shows that archaeological sites are suffering significant damage from unregulated metal detecting largely because only a minuscule number of finds are reported, but also that the metal detector has been responsible for some major advances in archaeological knowledge and could bring many more. The conclusions of the report represent a starting point rather than a solution. It is clear that liaison between archaeologists and the detecting community must be improved - as must communications between archaeologists themselves. Above all, methods must be found to encourage a large increase in the referral rate of objects to museums. This will itself bring problems of resourcing which will need to be faced as part of a permanent solution to what is currently all too often viewed as a problem, but which should be seen on all sides as an opportunity to enhance understanding of our common heritage.

Since 1973, English Heritage has supported surveys and excavations in the wetlands of England. The first of the major surveys was in the Somerset Levels from 1973 to 1987. This was followed by the Fenland Project from 1976 to 1988, the North West Wetlands Survey from 1990 to 1998, and the Humber Wetlands Project from 1992 to 2003. All these major surveys have created or will create a comprehensive record of the archaeology and ancient environments of the lowland wetlands of England, and these have been documented in a series of detailed and synoptic volumes. The participation of Professor John Coles and Dr Bryony Coles throughout this programme has given it coherence and direction which has evoked admiration at an international level. Some of these archaeological sites are now being assessed with a view to preservation, and we commissioned Bryony Coles to undertake a survey and study of the measures in use and being developed elsewhere to preserve and manage wet sites and landscapes. A variety of management schemes has been identified and assessed and methodologies investigated both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere and the volume Wetland management: a survey for English Heritage (Harvard) was published in 1995. An important effect of the study has been the promotion of the cultural heritage in wetlands where the natural heritage has been the prime concern. The publication of the study has fostered a more successful relationship with all those working in wetlands so that archaeological interests are not neglected in any developments in the future.

After PPG16 it rapidly became obvious that a considerable body of archaeological work was being done in relation to planning pressures, but there was no national overview of this. We therefore commissioned a nation-wide survey from the University of Bournemouth, which resulted in gazetteer, published in 1994, which covered all archaeological appraisals, assessments, and evaluations undertaken between 1982 and 1991. This will be followed in 1995 by synthetic summaries of the work undertaken in that period, by the Universities of Bournemouth and Southampton, and a project has been commissioned from the University of Bournemouth to cover the period 1991 to 1994.

In January 1994, the Department of National Heritage in conjunction with English Heritage, the Museum of London, and the Corporation of London commissioned Capita Management Consultancy Ltd to review archaeological services in London. The purpose of the exercise was to provide the parties with information relevant to their respective responsibilities. Among other things, the report concluded that a cessation of archaeological provision by the Museum of London Archaeological Service would have extremely serious consequences for the planning and construction industry, as it was thought that there was insufficient external capacity to undertake the current and expected future level of work in London. Subsequently the Board of Governors of the Museum of London decided to retain its archaeology service - a decision which was welcomed by all parties to the report.

English Heritage and its partner the National Trust continued discussions with the Highways Agency and other government departments on the future of Stonehenge and its landscape. A conference - The Great Debate - was held to raise the profile and increase the pace of debate. The objectives of English Heritage and the National Trust are:

the closure of the A303 and A344 roads

the removal of the present visitor facilities and the siting of a visitor centre outside the World Heritage Site

the establishment of a managed landscape within the World Heritage Site and the reunification of Stonehenge to that landscape

As well as the discussions designed to achieve these objectives the Central Archaeology Service and Wiltshire County Council compiled a database of archaeological entities in an area of 135 sq km centred on Stonehenge. This will provide an extremely effective management tool for assessing the impact of future proposals on the Stonehenge landscape. This database has been provided to the Highways Agency, the National Trust, Wessex Archaeology, the Wiltshire Archaeological Society, and the libraries of the Society of Antiquaries of London and the Universities of Southampton and Bournemouth in order to provide a common ground for the debates which are to come.

Because of the increasing number of strategic projects coming into the programme, Commissioners agreed to transfer an additional £2 million for one year only to the archaeology budget. In addition to the major strategic projects a number of important single sites were also funded. A total of £327,000 has now been agreed for the excavation and analysis of one of the oldest complex boats in the world which was found by Dover harbour. Grants totalling £1.3 million have now been agreed for excavations at Yarnton Cassington (Oxfordshire), 200 hectares of settlement of high archaeological importance and potential stretching from the Neolithic to the Saxon period. As well as its high academic potential the project is also making a major contribution to understanding the best ways of evaluating, managing, and investigating archaeological sites under alluvium. For Castle Mall, Norwich, grants totalling £348,000 have been made to ensure the analysis and publication of the Norman and medieval castle which in turn overlay a substantial area of the pre-Conquest settlement of Norwich. The largely developer funded excavations were among the largest in Europe - appropriate for a city which was one of the largest towns in England in 1066. A late Saxon to post-medieval village at West Stratton in Bedfordshire received grants totalling £288,000 in recognition of its importance as a rare example of a large-scale excavation of a village of this type and date. Substantial support was also provided for the analysis and publication of St Gregory's, Canterbury. This was the Norman church of Lanfranc - important to the history and development of the church in England. The religious houses of London have a collective value unparalleled elsewhere in Britain and in recognition of this grants totalling £197,000 were made to ensure the publication of St Mary's Nunnery, Clerkenwell, and £179,000 to the Cluniac Priory of St Saviour at Bermondsey, which was founded in 1089 and grew to become one of the main centres of Cluniac influence in the country.

A number of planning consents for important archaeological sites, given prior to the publication of PPG16 in November 1990, do not have appropriate recording conditions attached to them. This was the case at No 1 Poultry in the City of London - an important Roman, medieval, and Saxon site at the heart of the city. It is a pleasure to record the generosity of the developers - Lord Palumbo and Dieter Boch - who agreed to make £2 million available for the excavation of that important site following discussions with the Chairman of English Heritage. The work is in progress during 1995 and will be reported in the next issue of Archaeology Review.