Time please.

WAINWRIGHT, GEOFFREY

Introduction

I had been working in archaeology for about 10 years before my father thought to tell me that he had worked as a labourer for Cyril Fox in 1925 on a prehistoric tomb at Kilpaison Burrows near the village in Pembrokeshire where I was raised. Something may have been passed on to me from that unique experience for that young collier which was nourished and nurtured by the beauty and variety of the historic landscapes of west Wales. My purpose in writing this piece is to provide a personal perspective of the growth of my subject through my own eyes -- not to produce objective history. I cannot be objective about a subject which has consumed my working life and for which I care so passionately. I have not checked my recollections against those of my contemporaries, so as to retain the purity of that personal view, but my salutations and thanks are to them and to the countless friends with whom I have worked to push forward the boundaries of our subject. We are intensely tribal in our love of gatherings, feasting and vendettas and I have a fierce loyalty to them as well as gratitude for their companionship along the way.

In the beginning

In March 1952 the then Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments -- Bryan O'Neil -- sent a memorandum to the Director of his department which contained an account of developments in the heritage field since 1945. One can but envy his brief which was to take a strategic view of the United Kingdom, and his confidence that standards were being maintained. Any opposition to his ideas was dismissed with a lofty disdain: `we hear no criticism of our proceedings except occasionally from dilettante, who worship ruins as such without valuing them for their historical value. These people are sometimes vocal, but they cannot be many in number'. He retained his most cutting remarks for Hadrian's Wall where `some even of the local dilettante are being converted to our ways'. He had already pioneered the preservation of industrial monuments with two windmills in East Anglia and with remarkable foresight estimated the number of monuments which could be scheduled as 50,000 compared to 7554 in the UK in 1951. He had also overseen the expansion of rescue excavations between 1939 and 1945 when 55 such projects had been financed -- mainly in advance of airfields -- 450 of which had been built involving 300,000 acres of land. This programme of work continued after the war using `non-official' archaeologists instead of his own staff `because the system of subsistence for people like us is absolutely iniquitous after a stay of 28 days'. The period between 1945 and 1951 saw 40 excavations in historic cities such as London, Canterbury, Dover, Southampton and Exeter as well as Roman towns at Great Chesterford (Essex) and Caister (Norfolk) and classic post Roman sites at Thetford (Norfolk) and Mawgan Porth (Cornwall). His department was also funding a research excavation at Stanwick in Yorkshire under the direction of Mortimer Wheeler and employed 16 Inspectors of Ancient Monuments.

That 1952 memorandum had been written some years after a conference held in London in 1943 to discuss the contribution of archaeology to the post-war world (University of London 1943). Archaeologists are fond of such occasions which provide an opportunity for tribal bonding as well as forward planning, and this conference was both timely and addressed by front-rank speakers. It is rather disconcerting to realise that the subject matter would be familiar to the archaeologist nearly 60 years on -- research agendas, training, records, museums, education, amateurs and state archaeology. What was lacking in both O'Neil's memorandum and the 1943 conference proceedings was any sense of the legitimate and latent interest of the public in archaeological discoveries. For Britain this was to change in 1954 with the discovery of the Temple of Mithras in London. The queues of people wishing to see the remains, and the political and media interest, demonstrated conclusively that archaeology had a role to play in the cultural life of the country and would no longer be the preserve of the professional.

This was not reflected in the content of the archaeology course I began studying at University College Cardiff in 1955 under Leslie Alcock. That course was hard-working, pragmatic, adversarial and insular -- all the criteria required to make a career in British Archaeology. Cardiff graduates are much sought after by potential employers for their practical knowledge and application; nevertheless, when I nervously approached Kathleen Kenyon after a lecture in Cardiff to enquire -- rather brashly perhaps -- about employment prospects, I was told to inherit or obtain a private income. It was no surprise to me that a decade later Dame Kathleen published an undistinguished book on beginning in archaeology with a depressing chapter of advice on careers which concluded with the injunction to go abroad.

I did the next best thing and moved from Cardiff to London and the Institute of Archaeology in Gordon Square. When I arrived in 1958 the Director was a Pembrokeshire man -- Peter Grimes, the discoverer of the Temple of Mithras -- and the Institute was at the cutting edge of new thinking and practices in archaeology and archaeological science in particular. I was to go to India for two years at Frederick Zeuner's request in 1961, but of more relevance for the purpose of the present narrative was the publication in 1960 of A matter of time by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments for England (RCHME 1960).

An age of innocence

The Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) had been set up in 1907/08. Along with its sister Commissions in Wales and Scotland, its brief was to compile an inventory of the ancient and historical monuments and constructions from the earliest times to 1700. Normally listed by parish and then by county, the volumes were treasured possessions and provided the raw material for many academic studies. The work was conducted at a leisurely pace by staff skilled in the interpretative survey of monuments and buildings, and the 1960 survey represented a change of direction from fulfilling long-term objectives to issuing the first warning that our archaeological resource was a diminishing asset. The report was a survey of the archaeology of the river gravels in England and drew attention to the great number of sites that were being rapidly destroyed by modern methods of gravel digging. This was followed in 1963 by a list of 850 monuments -- earthworks and buildings -- selected from a far larger number, which were considered to be at risk or destroyed (RCHME 1963). These two reports are important for the influence which they had over professional attitudes during the following decades. The response by Government to the problems they revealed was to appoint three directors of rescue excavations within a structure headed by John Hamilton, whose department was focused on the rescue of archaeological sites before they were destroyed. The programme had three initiatives -- grants to organizations; the employment of consultant archaeologists on a fee and subsistence basis; and the internal group of the three excavation directors. I returned from India in 1963 to be recruited by Arnold Taylor -- the then Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments -- and to join Brian Davison and Ian Stead as the Government digging team.

Those who complain about the present structure of heritage provision in the United Kingdom would have had plenty of material in 1963. Only three months' noticE; was required to destroy a scheduled site which had to be recorded -- or not -- during that period. Few counties had sites and monuments records, and there was no integration between the planning process and archaeology. Funding was poor and little was made available for post-excavation work. Strategic surveys were extremely rare and the importance of the 1960 and 1963 studies by the RCHME cannot be overestimated. It cannot be said, however, that our work programmes on behalf of the Government bore any relevance to the state of affairs revealed by the two reports which had resulted in our appointments. We were left in the main to devise and pursue our own research strategies. This was done in an amicable fashion by lan Stead removing himself to north of the Thames and the Celto-Roman World, Brian Davison occupied himself with post-Roman matters and I was left with prehistoric sites in south England and Wales. My two big research ideas were straight forward enough. I wished to undertake complete excavations and publish as many Iron Age Settlements as possible, in order to clarify the numerous partial excavations previously undertaken. Secondly, I intended to investigate a hitherto unexplored class of henge monument in southern England whose large size and massive earthworks hinted at their former importance. John Hamilton was absolutely superb in his unlimited support for these simple ambitions, which were to occupy me happily for the next decade.

When I joined the Ministry of Works -- and for a number of years thereafter -- our method of working was with a gang of contract labourers, supplemented by supervisors who were paid fees and subsistence, and volunteers -- who were on a subsistence basis. In my case, the supervisors and volunteers formed an exuberant group who depended on my projects for their livelihood and who therefore toured the country on a semi-permanent basis, bringing prosperity to pubs and local economies wherever they settled. For 10 years from 1963 to 1973 that team was permanently in the field, occasionally undertaking rapid response work but more often pursuing the two strategic themes which John Hamilton had so enthusiastically embraced. The first opportunity to pursue the settlement theme occurred at Tollard Royal on the Pitt Rivers Estate in Wiltshire in 1965. This was a small one-acre settlement, badly eroded by ploughing and visible only from aerial photographs and the skilled eyes of Collin Bowen (another Pembrokeshire man) and Peter Fowler of the RCHME, who had become my mentors in all matters to do with chalk downland. Their eyes popped a little when I took a JCB digger to remove the ploughsoil -- thus exposing the entire settlement. This was the first time this technique had been used on chalk downland and deeply unimpressed the archaeologists of the Wessex establishment. John Hamilton quite properly resisted their outraged letters and the programme went from Tollard Royal to Walesland Rath in Pembrokeshire (1967, 1968), Gussage All Saints (1972) and Balksbury Camp (1973) (Wainwright 1971; 1979; Wainwright & Davies 1995).

Henges

The henge monument programme arose by chance in 1966 when Wiltshire County Council decided to straighten the A345 where it crosses the interior of the large earthwork enclosure at Durrington Walls. John Hamilton agreed to the expenditure of a large sum to recruit an army of 40 workmen, an equivalent number of volunteers and a fleet of JCB diggers and dumper trucks. As always, the strategy was simple -- to strip off all ploughsoil along the length of the road scheme -- about 1000M -- and reveal what was underneath. It was a hot summer in 1967 and the machines kicked up a thick pall of sweet-smelling chalk dust which permeated everything. The contract labourers were quite the worst I had ever encountered, but treated me with sullen caution after I sacked one of their number as he lay in the bottom of the enclosure ditch with a broken hip, having driven his dumper over the edge on the way back from the customary lunchtime session at the pub. Barely more tolerable -- in many ways less so -- were the Wiltshire archaeological establishment led by Richard Atkinson -- who asked Arnold Taylor to take me off the job -- and got the rebuff he richly deserved. On the credit side were the team of site staff and volunteers, the specialist colleagues -- Ian Longworth, John Evans, Tony Clark, Richard Burleigh and Ralph Harcourt -- who joined me at Durrington Walls and stayed for the remainder of the Henge Programme. The cause of all the excitement -- apart from the dust, noise and aggravation -- were the foundations of large timber circular structures revealed in the bottom of the cutting. In 1968 we moved on to Marden in the Valley of Pewsey where similar structures were found and in 1970 and 1971 to Mount Pleasant in the outskirts of Dorchester for more of the same (Wainwright 1989c). No more contract labourers were seen on my sites after Durrington Walls -- nor, indeed, was Richard Atkinson -- and the enclosures at Avebury and Knowlton remain safe from my attentions, but will reveal similar foundations one day.

Fieldwork and archaeology in the 1960s

These experiences in the 1960s formed part of a rich tapestry of investigations during that decade -- many of which were recorded in Current Archaeology, which Andrew and Wendy Selkirk first produced in March 1967 and which for the past 30 years has reflected the ebb and flow of archaeological endeavour against the familiar background of Andrew's increasingly eccentric editorials. Barry Cunliffe was consolidating his reputation as the foremost excavation director of the century with his work at Fishbourne, Bath, Porchester and Danebury. At South Cadbury, Leslie Alcock was wrestling with media attentions rather than succumbing to the warm embrace which would have welcomed his project at the end of this century; Martin Biddle was showing urban archaeologists how to do it at Winchester; Phil Barker was agonizing over the minutiae of Hen Domen and John Hurst and Maurice Beresford were engaged in the long march at Wharram Percy. Great projects were being undertaken at Knowth, Llandegai, Verulamium, Jarrow, North Elmham, Overton Down, Usk and Wroxeter. Richard Atkinson's futile and ill-advised tunnel into the heart of Silbury Hill was exposed on television and John Coles in the Somerset Levels was laying the foundations for what was to be one of the great field projects of the 20th century. The Royal Archaeological Institute launched its research project on the origin of Castles in England, under the tutelage of Brian Davison, and the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) produced a pilot copy of British Archaeological Abstracts. The discipline seemed in good heart and in retrospect that decade was truly the age of innocence.

The theme of the erosion of Britain's archaeological resource, begun in England by the Royal Commission in 1960 and 1963, was continued by the Council for British Archaeology in 1965 in a report which called for a new approach to the preservation of historic town centres (CBA 1965). The report listed over 300 towns whose special quality merited comprehensive survey. In England, excavations subsequently took place in some 60 towns between 1965 and 1970. The policy adopted by Government was to grant aid equivalent to that provided by local authorities. It was painfully obvious by the end of the decade that this response was quite inadequate. Expenditure by Government on resourcing archaeology had risen from 18,000 [pounds sterling] in 1953/54 to 150,000 [pounds sterling] in 1967 -- but this included the costs of maintaining Stead, Davison and myself in the field. There was therefore a general discontent with the way things were and a polarization of interests between the countryside and the town.

The Walsh Report

For urban archaeologists, this was not helped by the excellent report produced in 1969 by the Committee of Enquiry into the arrangements for the protection of field monuments chaired by Sir David Walsh (Walsh 1969). The Walsh report looked deeply into the problems facing monuments in the countryside -- it met on 47 occasions -- but did not take a holistic view to include historic towns. Nevertheless, its recommendations were wide-ranging and to a large extent forecast what was to happen in the future. It recommended that a consolidated record of all known field monuments should be held by County Planning Authorities and compiled by archaeologists employed by them. It recommended improvements in the legislative machinery, acknowledgement payments to farmers to refrain from ploughing, an increase in the number of scheduled monuments, the appointment of field monument wardens and an increase in the rescue archaeology budget. All these came to pass during the next decade. Two issues considered by the Walsh Committee were that the developer should pay for the archaeological record necessitated by his actions and that a mobile team of archaeologists be set up to undertake rescue excavations. Both were to happen over the next two decades but were rejected by the Walsh Committee. On the developer funding issue the Committee considered `That the British practice of providing for the conduct of excavations from public funds, or by the use of voluntary effort, is fairer in that the evidence they yield is to the public benefit'. The `polluter pays' principle was seen as an incentive to concealment (Walsh Report: para 144). The proposal for a mobile team was also rejected because of the need for a reserve of standby work, the difficulty of finding lodgings and `workmen do not like being away from their homes for a lengthy period' (Walsh Report: para 143). This was well out of touch with the true situation, but a mobile team was to be formed by Government in the mid 1970s. The Walsh Report therefore brought the decade to a close on a very positive note. The Royal Commission produced its third strategic report when it was invited by the Nene Valley Research Committee to undertake a survey of the archaeological sites and historic buildings in the area around Peterborough in advance of the New Town Development (RCHME 1969). Government prepared to implement the principal recommendations of the Walsh Report, when a meeting held at Barford in Warwickshire introduced the word crisis into the archaeological lexicon.

The Rescue crusade

By March 1969, almost 1000 miles of motorway had been built in Britain with little archaeological record and, not for the last time, motorway archaeology provided a catalyst for more general concerns. Peter Fowler formed the M5 Research Committee in March 1969, and thanks to his energy and vision an organization was set up which ensured that along the whole length of 75 miles all fields were walked, documentary work done, aerial photographs were scanned and an archaeologist was appointed (Fowler 1972). At the same time the extent of destruction in historic cities was becoming recognized and it was with a sense of crisis in mind that Philip Barker called a meeting at Barford in Warwickshire in February 1970. The atmosphere at the meeting was evangelical and the 35 people present were gratified -- if slightly alarmed -- at having their comments and contributions recorded for posterity. The proposals which emerged were sane enough (Fowler 1970) -- a National Antiquities Service, a comprehensive national register of antiquities and the formation of a British Archaeological Trust. The beginnings of private practice archaeology were apparent when Chris Musson described his newly formed Rescue Archaeology Group which envisaged six to eight archaeologists, working on contract or commission, able to dig almost any kind of site, anywhere in the country and at any time of the year. Such confidence made nonsense of Sir David Walsh's cautious words about the difficulties of finding lodgings. The crusade -- for that is what it was in the minds of the main sponsors -- moved to Newcastle in November 1970, and at a conference sponsored by the CBA at the University of Southampton in September 1971, papers by Charles Thomas and Peter Fowler intentionally laid stress on a situation in which the primary evidence for our past was disappearing for ever (E. Fowler 1972). The first annual general meeting of Rescue, a Trust for British Archaeology was held in January 1972 at the Senate House, London University, with more than 700 people present. The Trust achieved 2400 members in its first year with Phil Barker as its first secretary and launched Rescue News in 1972. Its intention -- which was never realized -- was to recruit 50,000 members, sponsor field work and purchase or lease areas for archaeological conservation.

The cause was carried forward with evangelical fervour by a small group of professional archaeologists who also held key positions in the CBA. The language of the time was heavy with military metaphor in an atmosphere of crisis. Charles Thomas could write `a despatch from the front line' about an actual moral duty and categorical imperative to do something (Thomas 1971). Brian Philp's new model army saved Kent's heritage from the ravages of development and there was heady talk of `officer training units for future archaeologists'. The theme was continued in articles and a book (e.g. Jones 1973; Rahtz 1974), conferences and press releases and there is no doubt that the movement influenced government thinking on heritage provision in a positive way. By December 1971 Government had already agreed to increase spending on rescue archaeology by nearly 50% to 310,000 [pounds sterling] annually -- in line with the recommendations of the Walsh Committee. It was the pressure by Rescue which increased the annual figure in 1973/4 to 813,000 [pounds sterling] and then by substantial annual increases to 2.1 million [pounds sterling] in 1976/7.

A good example of the type of pressure being generated is in the musing preface to the classic CBA study published in 1972 on archaeology and planning in towns. `Crisis in urban archaeology ... most important towns lost to archaeology in 20 years ... little time for action ... unprecedented expenditure of money and archaeological manpower required ... sheer general ignorance ... failure to act' (Heighway 1972: v-vii). No wonder Government ministers found extra money for rescue archaeology in the face of such an onslaught.

By the mid 1970s the missionary fervour and impetus had waned as the founding fathers :ran out of steam, no doubt grew tired of seeing the same faces on an almost daily basis on nominally different committees, and moved on to other things. Two meetings in January 1975 indicated that some thought was being given to the objectives of the crusade and the results to date. A seminar organized by the Department of Extra Mural Studies at Oxford University concluded -- rather desperately -- that there still was a crisis (particularly in Scotland) -- that the national situation was now more complex requiring more academic input and that the preservation of sites should be given greater emphasis over rescue before destruction (CBA 1975). The Rescue Trust organised a conference at Burwalls in Bristol in the same month which acknowledged that the original vision had gone, to be replaced with a strident policy of extracting money from the State. Questions were also asked about the value derived from the money. In 1975 Peter Fowler attended the 40th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Dallas. He returned to announce that `a reassessment of the concept of rescue archaeology is needed in Britain' (Fowler 1976). He suggested the need to develop a philosophy which uses the archaeological heritage as a non-renewable resource -- something to be conserved rather than to be exploited. Such a statement today is commonplace and uncontroversial. In 1975 it showed the first glimmerings of what we now call sustainability and his short paper is a milestone on that account. The theme was taken up by Charles Thomas in 1976 (Thomas 1977) who concluded that the rescue crusade had outrun its original purpose and that the philosophies developed in 1970 were no longer appropriate.

Rescue had successfully pressed Government for additional funds, the public service heritage provision had been restructured, archaeological bodies for undertaking field work had been formed and new categories of archaeological employment proliferated. It was a good time for Rescue to acknowledge that its primary task had been successfully completed, but like an ageing pugilist it has continued to struggle on beyond its time, unsuccessful in attracting mass membership and irrelevant to the needs of modern archaeology.

The 1970s restructuring in field archaeology

In 1972 Arnold Taylor retired. He had presided over the State's heritage service with skill and scholarship and was held in universal respect. Inspectors of Ancient Monuments had been brought together with Historic Building Investigators and the numbers of professional staff greatly increased. He was succeeded by Andrew Saunders who lost little time in coming to terms with the conditions for the new world which Rescue had helped to create. In 1973 I was completing my 10th year as an excavation director at a 40-acre hillfort called Balksbury Camp near Andover. Typically I was attempting to strip most of the interior with a fleet of machines and was looking forward to a break from the field in order to write up some excavations. The old firm were as exuberant as ever, but times were changing, and views of appropriate behaviour were no longer what they were 10 years ago. My personal plans were abruptly changed by Andrew Saunders and John Hurst who he had appointed head of excavation policy -- separating it from post-excavation which was left under John Hamilton! I had hardly seen an administrative file for the past 10 years -- except those made out for my excavation projects which were necessary for John Hamilton's approval -- but a meeting held on 22 February 1973 at our HQ at Fortress House in central London was to change all that. A restructuring of responsibilities saw me with an administrative post in charge of archaeological investigations in southern England with the newly arrived Chris Young as my assistant. My colleagues Ian Stead, Sarnia Butcher and Brian Davison were in charge of the North, Midlands and London respectively. The meeting was packed with psyched-up archaeologists, clamorous after their budgetary successes and now looking for a new national structure. What they got was an announcement by Government of its intention to see the whole of England covered by a series of regional archaeological units fully organized for all excavation and post-excavation work with common support facilities (DoE 1973). The rest of the day was taken up by a group of speakers who represented all the great and good in field archaeology at that time. Most of it was familiar stuff about motorways, Oxfordshire, Winchester, York, Norwich, Norfolk, Kent and the Rescue Archaeology Group -- even down to the total exclusion of museums from the occasion. One contribution was different. David Baker was the County Archaeologist for Bedfordshire -- one of the few in post at that time. He put a cogent case for the advantages of archaeology in a planning department as part of a far-sighted plea for archaeology to be seen for its value within a wider planning and social context. Already the battle lines were being drawn up which would lead to the collapse of the regional initiative on a national scale. John Hurst concluded the day by exhorting us all to go away and think about what we had heard -- I wish we had!

Dennis Haselgrove was appointed to a new post as Under-Secretary Archaeology under the Chief Planner to the Department of the Environment (DOE) and substantial increases in the funds allocated for conservation areas, historic buildings and archaeological excavations were announced. It looked as if the hard work of the previous three years would pay offbut, advised by David Baker, opposition to the plans increased from the local authority associations. A leak to the Times Higher Educational Supplement published by them on 15 June 1973, revealed that Government plans for the regional structure involved staff costs being met from local Government. At that time the local government associations were not formally aware of the proposal and reacted strongly against the regional structure. They were naturally dismayed to learn from their newspapers that they were to fund regional archaeological teams on a large scale.

Government persisted with their plans despite this setback and in 1974 Anthony Crossland and John Morris -- Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales -- announced new regional arrangements for rescue excavations and archaeological surveys. In England 13 Archaeological Advisory Committees were appointed to advise the DoE on policies and priorities, on applications for grants and on regional back-up facilities. At a national level in England the Department would be advised by a Committee of the Ancient Monuments Board. Both Departments undertook to continue discussions with local authorities regarding a regional structure. We were therefore left in England with a series of regional advisory and executive bodies. These usually covered the same region, held Chairmen in common and, by and large, possessed the same membership. The best way of dealing with the whole ridiculous situation was to hold meetings of the advisory and executive body on the same day -- to save everyone's time. That leak to the THES proved costly and ruined the only real chance England has had of a structured, resourced and well-managed state archaeological service which would have been sufficiently robust to accommodate the changed circumstances of the next decade. It must be seen as an opportunity lost through lack of vision, mismanagement and corporate rivalries.

Remarkably, the archaeology units showed great resilience under adversity although in order to keep them afloat it was increasingly necessary to direct the available state funds to their establishment costs. The regional unit for Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire enjoyed considerable initial success under Peter Fowler's energetic chairmanship. The regional units for Wessex and North West England are still in existence with the former, in particular, enjoying great success under Andrew Lawson. In London, the Department of Urban Archaeology under Brian Hobley -- possibly the first unit director to wear a suit -- was very successful, as were those in Oxfordshire, Peterborough, Northampton and Warwick. There was, however a heavy reliance on Government funding which inhibited growth and the pursuit of research agendas. Scotland was less than enamoured of the unit concept but in Wales a complete set of four archaeological units was established by 1975, covering the whole country and remains in place to this day.

Towards national policy and planning

In July 1974 -- the same year that the regional arrangements were announced -- the CBA and Rescue proposed a new structure for archaeology in Britain (Rescue/CBA 1974). The document was intended as all attempt to pick up the pieces of the debacle resulting from the leaking of Government plans to create a regional organization funded from central and local government in about equal proportions. The core of the proposed new Rescue/CBA structure was the establishment of a National Archaeological Service, operating through regional offices. This executive structure would be supported by a parallel structure of advisory committees at national, regional and county level. This archaeology service would be `complementary to but distinct from' the then Inspectorate in the DoE. In other words, the new proposals would set up a regional structure to carry out excavations, leaving research and heritage management in the hands of the DoE. These proposals have to be seen as the last illogical surge of the rescue crusade. Quite properly, the proposal to divide an integrated structure was rejected by the Council of the CBA in January 1975 and did the reputation of the profession a great deal of harm. The regional advisory arrangements remained in place until 1979 when Michael Heseltine, Secretary of State for the Environment, axed a number of Quangos, including the Rescue Archaeology Panel, 13 Area Advisory Committees and the Hadrian's Wall Advisory Committee -- all of whose functions were absorbed by the Ancient Monuments Board. The Panel had done good work in focusing attention on rescue funding at a national level and producing the Frere and Dimbleby reports on publication and archaeological science respectively, and the Area Advisory Committees provided a much needed view on priorities. However, without the regional executive structure they were intended to inform, their irrelevance increased as the decade advanced and their demise brought an unfortunate episode to an end.

If the archaeological politics of the 1970s were pretty awful, some important foundations were laid for the future. Surveys of the implications of development in urban and rural areas became the norm, local authority provision for archaeology attracted substantial funding and organizations were established which indicated a growing professional maturity.

The first urban survey had been published by Don Benson and Jean Cook for Oxford in 1966 (Benson & Cook 1966) followed by York (Addyman & Rumsby 1971) and Tewkesbury (Miles & Fowler 1972). The much-needed national statement was published by the CBA in 1972 (Heighway 1972). The polemic at the beginning of the study and in Martin Biddle's introduction was entirely appropriate to that febrile period when rhetoric on behalf of the rescue crusade was crucial to its success. `Of those historic towns which remain for study, the archaeological value of one-fifth will most probably have been entirely destroyed in the next 20 years' (Heighway 1972: 2). The report set the scene for the many urban implications surveys and excavations that were to come and two of its recommendations were far-sighted, if largely ignored. Recommendation 7.3 suggested that the archaeological potential of any proposed development should be considered when planning permission was granted -- nearly 20 years later this was to be a corner-stone of PPG-16 on Archaeology and Planning and recommendation 7.11 took the view that archaeology should to some extent be a charge on the developer. This report was rapidly followed by others on the City of London (Biddle & Hudson 1973), Andover (Champion 1973), Shrewsbury (Carver & Wills 1974), Lincoln (Colyer 1975) and Hereford (Shoesmith 1974). Wales was early on the scene with a study of the archaeological implications of development in the historic towns of the Principality (University College Cardiff 1976) and Perth appeared in 1976 with a classic crusading title (Stewart & Thomas 1976).

Inspectorate policies on the ground from 1973 onwards were straightforward. The national and regional advisory frameworks were established in 1974. Within that framework we encouraged the formation of regional groups to undertake field projects in what was often an adversarial atmosphere. When regional groupings were clearly not possible -- usually because of personal vendettas -- or desirable, the status quo was maintained on a county, district or city basis. Thus was created the kaleidoscope of organizations which by and large exists today. The mid-1970s was a period when a large number of organizations were established and archaeologists were in short supply for the numbers of posts that were created. The available funds were directed to these posts and to the strategic surveys which the executive bodies were asked to undertake. The surveys of major historic cities soon became county-based and Wiltshire (Haslam 1976), Avon (Leech 1975), Sussex (Aldsworth & Freke 1976), Berkshire (Astill 1978), Somerset (Aston & Leech 1977), Hampshire (Hughes 1975) and Oxfordshire (Rodwell 1975) are classic examples of the genre. The Committee for Rescue Archaeology in Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset (CRAAGS) in particular took the process into the countryside for a villages survey (Ellison 1976), Exmoor (Ellison 1977a) and forestry (Ellison 1977c). Rural surveys took in the countryside (Gingell 1976), gravel extraction (Leech 1977), ploughing (Drewett 1976) and rural development (Balkwill 1976). One survey of north England was remarkable for covering both urban and rural matters, as well as the size of the area covered and the range of topics (Clack & Gosling 1976).

Occasionally, the committees were set up to cope with specific issues such as the M3 extension under the chairmanship of Martin Biddle (Biddle & Emery 1973), which achieved great things during its life and when compared to the integration of archaeology with trunk road schemes at the end of the century illustrates how far the profession has advanced since those pioneering days. These surveys -- and many others like them, set a firm foundation for the following decades and were coupled with a policy directed towards the integration of archaeology with the planning process.

This integration had been a recommendation in the Walsh Report in 1969 and it was clear at the beginning of the 1970s that the future well-being of the archaeological resource as a whole -- rather than just that proportion which was scheduled -- lay in the hands of Planning Authorities. The establishment of archaeologists at that level would also be important in awakening local historical consciousness -- vital for the future well-being of the nation's heritage. The implementation of that policy was made more difficult by the collapse of the 1973 DoE initiative, when the County Council Association confused the need for advice on the conservation of the heritage, which we all agreed should be at local authority level, with the formation of archaeological units to undertake fieldwork, which was also regarded by the ACC as a county -- not a regional -- matter (see Baker (1976) for a classic exposition of this view). Our concern was with the conservation of the historic environment as well as with its recording through fieldwork. For the former I decided to lobby for archaeological posts in local authorities and to encourage the latter to establish and maintain sites and monuments records for their areas. The formula was quite simple and successful and did not vary from its inception to the present day. We offered local authorities 50% of the cost of establishing an archaeological post over a three-year period with an undertaking from them that the post would become permanent. This was normally coupled with an offer of grant aid to establish or enhance the sites and monuments record. In 1971 there were only a handful of archaeologists working in local authorities (Baker 1975). By 1975 there were 20. The last county to get an archaeologist was Kent in 1989, and in 1996 a survey showed that 232 staff were engaged in conservation duties. Most of those posts had been pump-primed by EH or its predecessors and the investment was without doubt the most important and significant that we have ever made.

The Sites & Monuments Records (SMRs) made more rapid progress. By 1979 an SMR had been funded in almost every county. Job Creation Programmes provided basic manpower in many places but at the expense of quality. A survey in 1978 by the Royal Commission showed that SMRs were firmly established (RCHME 1978). Their quality was to remain variable but they proved to be the basis on which policies in the next two decades were founded.

In May 1973, nine county archaeologists voted to form an Association of County Archaeologists. In 1975 a Standing Committee of Archaeological Unit Managers (SCUM) was formed and in the same year, archaeologists working in museums formed the Society of Museum Archaeologists. The profession was mobilizing into its constituent groups and was all The stronger for that. The foundation of a much-needed professional body for archaeologists was more controversial and took longer to establish. The early initiatives from 1972 onwards were shouldered by the CBA who endured a good deal of criticism for their pains. An inaugural meeting of the Association for the Promotion of an Institute of Field Archaeologists was finally held in 1979, articles were signed in 1982 and it opened for business in May 1983 with Peter Addyman as Chairman.

Rescue archaeology: the next phase

In 1977 the DoE issued a statement called Rescue Archaeology: the next phase (DoE 1977). The statement acknowledged that all hopes for the 1973 initiative had been dashed and that given the levelling-off of state funds after a period of steady growth a radical review was necessary. At that time there were 83 grant-receiving bodies and nearly 300 core posts -- virtually all of them dependent on DoE grants. The objectives set out in the revised policy were a statement of what was actually happening on the ground:

i To establish a sites and monuments record in each county.

ii To establish an archaeological presence in each county either in or closely associated with the planning department.

iii To conduct thematic surveys.

iv To carry out excavations of threatened sites according to an overall programme of research priorities established at national and area level.

v To develop the closest and most economical scientific support.

vi To prepare for publication the reports of such excavations and to ensure that the excavation archive and the objects from an excavation are safely deposited.

Reaction to this statement covered the whole spectrum of opinion from the openly welcoming to the overtly hostile. A second edition of the paper was produced some three months later to `allay some of the anxieties' without doing so to any noticeable degree and frustrations arose on both sides to an extent which drove me to Dartmoor for my final field project on Shaugh Moor. This was a happy interlude for me amongst my old team of supervisors -- under the wing of the Central Excavation Unit founded in 1976 and based near Portsmouth. I was amongst good friends, I met Judith, the archaeology was breaking new ground and I had some respite from the increasingly difficult archaeology scene, collapsing as it was under its twin burdens of declining budgets and overstaffing.

One summer's day in 1977 I was happily standing at the centre of a completely stripped Bronze Age enclosure, when four young men arrived from Southampton to invite me to speak at a conference they were organizing later that year. Tim Darvill, Mike Parker Pearson, Bob Smith and Roger Thomas were the stars of an outstanding year at the University of Southampton and were to feature prominently in the events of the next two decades although Bob's premature death robbed us of a good friend and colleague. For the purposes of this narrative they gave me the opportunity to set out a policy which gave the only chance that I could see of breaking the connection between a declining state budget which was entirely taken up with supporting numerous infrastructures. This was to implement a policy of funding only project-orientated fieldwork within a research framework. In future research designs should accompany any proposal for funding from the DoE who would direct its limited resources on the basis of what we needed to know (Wainwright 1978). We had arrived at the point where there was no flexibility in the DoE budget and priorities could not be established and funded. Most of the funds were shared out more or less equally between regions and spent on staff costs. What was proposed was a change, to a system whereby the money was allocated site by site and problem by problem rather than to the employment of staff. I recall vividly that having put these proposals to the Southampton conference, the subsequent discussion revolved largely around the ability of the sheep at Butser Iron Age Farm to jump over fences, and my friends and I left early.

The policy was implemented and as a result it was possible to count the projects we were funding for the first time in 1980/81 -- there were 350! It was also possible to tell what they were. The focus at that time was on two landscape types -- uplands as on Exmoor, Bodmin and West Penwith and Wetlands as in the Somerset Levels and the Fenlands. The flagship prehistoric excavations were the Hazleton chambered tomb and Hambledon Hill and urban interests were being well served at London, Carlisle, Chester, Colchester, Lincoln, Norwich, Stafford and York. It was as if a veil had been pulled aside and we could see clearly what was being funded, with the future flexibility to define agendas and pursue them. I returned from Dartmoor in 1980, having completed my final field project, but with the confidence that on the foundations laid during the past decade, we could cast off the political failures and proceed to implement clear polices free of restrictions imposed by funding establishment costs and infrastructures.

Building for the future

The new decade not only saw new policies for archaeology in place but also new legislation. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 first saw the light of day in 1976 in a DoE consultative document and to general surprise became law on 4 April 1979 -- the last piece of legislation to be discussed on the last day of James Callaghan's government. The most important provision was the replacement of the system of three months' notice before altering a scheduled site with one of scheduled monument consent by the Secretary of State advised by the Directorate of Ancient Monuments. The most irrelevant was Part II of the Act, which created Areas of Archaeological Importance in Berwick-on-Tweed, Canterbury, Chester, Colchester, Exeter, Gloucester, Hereford, Lincoln, Oxford and York. These provided access for nominated archaeological bodies to development sites for recording purposes. The world had moved on since Part II of the Act had been conceived. The legislation did not have a bearing on any planning decision, did not allow for any consideration of preservation issues and made no provision for funding. This went against the grain of the embryonic arrangements for the management of archaeological sites and Part II of the Act has effectively been in abeyance ever since -- although not yet removed from the statute book.

In March 1981 we issued an Advisory Note to the profession and local authorities which was primarily designed to explain the provisions of the 1979 Act (DoE 1981b). So far as rescue archaeology was concerned, the policies already stated were reiterated with the undertaking that in future DoE would fund a project from start to finish -- previously commitments had been given on an annual basis only. Within a year it was possible to issue the first of a series of annual statements analysing the grant allocations and policies behind them (Wainwright 1982). At that stage, organizations were still bidding for funds. The total bid for 1982/83 was from 103 organizations for 6.7 [pounds sterling] million in respect of 765 projects. The rescue budget was 4.8 million [pounds sterling] of which 1.5 million [pounds sterling] was spent on strategic projects. These were the excellent in-service training scheme devised by Trevor Rowley at the Department of External Studies, University of Oxford; the storage of archives in museums in collaboration with the Museums and Galleries Commission; and contracts for the provision of archaeological science at various universities managed by the Ancient Monuments Laboratory. Funding of posts in local authorities and their sites and monuments records was -- and still is -- a fixture in the programme; a project to eradicate the backlog of excavations undertaken before 1972 was in full swing; the plotting of aerial photographs for SMR purposes was an annual allocation and substantial grants were made to surveys of uplands and wetlands. Of the remainder, the project funding policy had exposed the problem of unpublished excavations and resources were directed to resolve the issue. With differences of emphases resulting from the ebb and flow of priorities these broad divisions in the rescue budget were retained for the remainder of the decade and beyond. For those who measured success by the numbers of excavations funded from state budgets this was an unwelcome development. Yet it was clear to those of us involved that local authorities were beginning to provide consistent support for our efforts as the numbers of their archaeologists grew under our urging and support. As a result, contributions from industry to archaeological projects were on the increase. There can be little doubt that the switch from funding core establishments' costs to projects in 1980 came as a rude shock to the unit system. Some organizations coped admirably, others could not and were unable to take advantage of the expanding opportunities which the decade presented. Some organizations masked their difficulties by ingenious use of Government money made available for the relief of unemployment in the Jobs Creation Programme. I recall one project sacking all its staff, thus making them unemployed, and then taking them on again under a Job Creation Programme at higher rates. A great deal of digging was done and one estimate is that in the 1980s, one-third of all archaeological field work was paid for by these means. Towards the end of the decade funds from this source were removed leaving large numbers of unpublished and poorly recorded excavations. Some good work was done under imaginative and sympathetic managers, but in general the experience was not a happy one and the penalty was paid in the next decade when some large urban units opened up their archives for inspection.

The new Ancient Monuments Act

The 1979 Act greatly improved the protection of scheduled sites by substituting the three months' notice system for one in which consent had to be given for any proposal to change their condition. The process was cumbersome. In the early years, professional officers advised their administrative colleagues just down the corridor who may -- or may not -- accept that advice when responding to the applicant. When English Heritage was established in 1984 the professional advice had to travel a greater distance but the process remained the same and remains in need of simplification. At an early stage, I drafted a set of eight criteria which governed the selection of monuments of national importance for scheduling. These criteria were closely based on those used to define sites of scientific importance and were confirmed and published by the Secretary of State in 1983. Although reissued on several occasions the criteria remain essentially the same as when originally published. We also needed to establish whether and to what extent the schedule of ancient monuments was a representative sample of England's archaeological resource. This was done by a rapid quantification of the nation's archaeological sites and comparing this with the schedule of ancient monuments. David Fraser undertook the survey using county-based sites and monuments records (Fraser 1984). This was an uneven and inadequate representation of the surviving remains, but it was the best available and it demonstrated for the first time that there were an estimated 635,000 sites and monuments in England, of which 2% were scheduled. Structural imbalances were shown in the schedule by distribution, period and monument type and the report concluded that a five-year programme using the recently defined scheduling criteria would create a representative sample of England's archaeology through a four-fold increase in the schedule (Wainwright 1984). The report was completed in time for the launch of EH who adopted the proposed programme as a policy initiative. Eventually, after a long internal wrangle, the Monuments Protection Programme emerged in 1986.

The National Heritage Bill

A major organizational change in the way in which the nation's historic environment was managed was signalled in November 1981 (DoE 1981a) when Michael Heseltine proposed the setting-up of a new agency for England to carry out the majority of the heritage functions of the DoE. Following a large number of representations, a policy statement was issued the following year (DoE 1982). The National Heritage Bill which established English Heritage (EH) was given its first reading in the House of Lords in November 1982 and was enacted in 1983. EH began work in April 1984 with Lord Montagu as Chairman and Peter Rumble as Chief Executive. The provision of a single committed and central focus for our heritage has proved to be a powerful and creative stimulus to providing a better future for our past and for communicating enjoyment and understanding to the public. With the benefit of hindsight there were three issues considered at the time where different decisions may have been beneficial. The Royal Commission on Historical Monuments had not played a central role in the events of the past 15 years -- despite its major contribution in the 1960s. Rather than merge it with EH to create a single voice it was kept as a separate body, thus creating discord and confusion until the nettle was finally grasped in 1999. Government misguidedly created a separate body for the Royal Palaces which would have been better placed within the support framework of a national heritage structure. Finally, it was thought best to keep EH as a single, centralized, London-based organization, rather than involving local communities through a regionalized structure. This misjudgement has also been rectified.

EH was launched with a number of flagship projects. Those with most direct archaeological relevance were the proposal to increase the schedule of monuments, to improve the condition of Maiden Castle hillfort in the outskirts of Dorchester and to improve the management of the nation's heritage icon at Stonehenge. The Stonehenge story is still unfolding. A definitive account of the struggle up to April 2000 has recently been published in this journal and will play no further part in this narrative (Wainwright 2000).

The great hillfort of Maiden Castle is famous on account of its size, majestic appearance and the excavations by Sir Mortimer Wheeler between 1934 and 1937. Despite its fame, the condition of the monument had been deteriorating through inappropriate management and there were no interpretation facilities on site. In 1984, EH undertook to improve the condition of the monument, to repair erosion scars on the ramparts, to provide interpretative and educational material and to undertake excavations designed to increase our understanding of the monument in the light of advances in scientific techniques since 1940. In addition, EH proposed a centre to enhance the enjoyment and appreciation of the visitor to one of the most important monuments in Britain. The project proved to be an excellent foretaste of the very similar issues we were to encounter a decade later at Stonehenge. With the enthusiastic prompting of Dai Morgan Evans, a Management Plan was prepared for the hillfort (Evans 1986); a project design established for the excavation (Wainwright & Cunliffe 1985) which was subsequently published (Sharpies 1991); consultation was undertaken on the visitor centre (EH 1985) and educational material was issued (EH 1988). The project provided valuable experience in the importance of partnerships -- the Duchy of Cornwall who owned the site and the Princes Trust who repaired the erosion scars on the ramparts were particularly central to the operation; the importance of understanding the monument before undertaking management work; and the volatility and sensitivity of community opinion. The proposed site for the visitor centre was set away from the monument with good vehicular access and an excellent approach to Maiden Castle along an established bridleway. Yet the proposal was ultimately withdrawn in the face of resistance to change by local communities and interests. The monument is now in excellent condition and it has a fine volume recording the recent excavations and putting Wheeler's work in a new light, but there is little to inform the visitor unless they drive into Dorchester to visit the excellent county museum. I would be reminded of these issues when grappling with the complexities of Stonehenge 10 years later.

Archaeological Science had been established as part of Government as long ago as 1931 when a small laboratory was set up which was staffed on a part-time basis. In 1950 Leo Biek was appointed as the first qualified member of staff and considerable progress had been made in establishing the subject both within and outside central government. So much so that in 1986 a review of science-based archaeology was undertaken by a panel of the Science and Engineering Research Council under the chairmanship of Professor Hart. His previous exposure to the archaeological profession had clearly been limited and the experience made a vivid impression. `The structure of archaeology in the UK is complicated and largely uncoordinated. ... Most of its constituent bodies seem jealous of their own autonomy, and oppose any attempt, real or imagined, to impose policies from the centre' (Hart 1985: Appendix IV). This complex and fragmented nature of UK archaeology -- as perceived with some justification by Professor Hart -- made it difficult for the full potential of Science Based Archaeology Committee-sponsored work to be realized and an initiative was taken to address it. A Forum for the Co-ordination of Funding in Archaeology was established under the Chairmanship of Colin Renfrew with the British Academy and EH as sponsors. For many years the Forum strove with varying degrees of success to co-ordinate policy until it was finally dissolved some 10 years later.

Undeterred by Professor Hart's strictures we issued a policy statement on rescue archaeology in 1986. (EH 1986). This set out the background to EH policies, the principles and criteria on which funding decisions would be based, consultation arrangements and the categories and mechanisms of funding. It included the following statement (EH 1986: para 4.4):

It is important to emphasise that English Heritage allocates the funds at its disposal for recording those archaeological sites which cannot be preserved and whose destruction is taking place beyond the control of agencies with the powers and resources to deal with the problem. The Commission [i.e. English Heritage] welcomes participation by developers and other bodies in the funding of rescue programmes for its resources are inadequate to carry that burden alone. In particular, local planning authorities have a clear role to play in ensuring that the archaeological implications are properly addressed; and that where destruction of important archaeological sites is unavoidable, due provision for essential archaeological recording is agreed and made before permission for a particular development scheme is given

This was an important statement. The numbers of archaeologists employed by local authorities was on the increase, sites and monuments records were improving and developers were funding more and more archaeological work. In the same year appeared an excellent Code of Practice (1986) which brought archaeologists and developers closer together. The brainchild of Brian Hobley, the document was influential in helping to create a climate which made the integration between archaeology, planning and development much easier. January 1987 saw a report from the Environment Committee of the House of Commons (House of Commons 1987). With 42 recommendations, it was the most comprehensive survey of policy, practice and opinion in the historic environment field for many years. It gave support for the principle that both private and public developers should contribute to the cost of rescue archaeology. A circular letter from myself to the Association of Country Archaeology officers dated 22 July 1988 set out our view of archaeology and planning and this was reiterated in a letter from Lord Montagu to The Times the following year (21 March 1989). The progress of the policy was inexorable but there were to be some problems on the way before it became official government policy.

While the policy was maturing, the vision and energies of Dai Morgan Evans were expressing themselves through two innovative projects. In the first instance he commissioned Ancient Monuments in the Countryside from Tim Darvill which, for the first time, provided England with a coherent framework for the enjoyment, preservation and conservation of the historic environment in the countryside (Darvill 1987). The report took account of major shifts in perception and attitudes towards archaeology in rural areas, and made it clear that the English countryside has reached its present form as a result of human activity in the past. It also took a holistic view of the historic environment to include hedgerows, woodland and old trackways. The report was influential and accompanied by a highly successful grant scheme for farmers to enable them to manage their historic assets in a way that would be of benefit both to them and their heritage.

The second project was commissioned from the Centre for Environmental Interpretation on how to present and interpret archaeological excavations to the public. (Centre for Environmental Interpretation 1988). This was also coupled with a grant scheme in an attempt to meet a public fascination for archaeological excavations, which at that time remained largely unsatisfied. The increase in developer-funded excavations soon brought archaeology to the attention of the media, it was good publicity for the funding body, and this has in turn led to the mass popularity of the subject which we see today.

These two strategic projects broke new ground for EH and showed the potential for such studies during the next decade should integration between archaeology, planning and development receive official backing, thus freeing up the EH archaeology budget for such framework documents. In the spring of 1989, excavations in the Southwark Bridge Road by the Museum of London provided an opportunity to make the point at Ministerial level.

Capital gains

Our operational policy since 1986 was based on the document published that year and we stuck to it, despite determined attempts to deflect us. Excavations in many historic cities ran short of funds and turned to EH as their traditional supporter and punch-bag to make a grant. Their strategies were predictable and lacking in subtlety -- involving an initial approach to the press to soften us up, followed by a letter to Lord Montagu. Both Lord Montagu and Peter Rumble remained admirably firm in the face of these tactics. 1989 was a particularly turbulent year. The Queen's Hotel Site in York was found to contain an immense and palatial Roman building whilst in the City of London, Roman remains under the Huggin Hill site proved to be much grander than anticipated. We gritted our teeth, explained our position to ministers and continued to press for their endorsement of a policy which would prevent such problems in the future. Excavations in Southwark Bridge Road by the Department of Greater London Archaeology (Museum of London) brought matters to a head in the spring of 1989 when they revealed the site of the `Rose', one of the four famous Tudor/Jacobean playhouses on London's south bank, and also that visible -- though fragile -- remains of the theatre had survived. Although the Rose Theatre was a site whose previous existence was known, planning permission had already been granted by the London Borough of Southwark for the erection of an office block. The Museum of London played the by now dog-eared negotiating cards of a press release followed by a request for funds. When this was predictably refused in line with our 1986 policy the scene was set for a high-profile confrontation. Jennie Page had recently taken over as Chief Executive of EH and was initiated into the development of archaeological policy with some bemusement at first but with increasing relish and unswerving support as the drama unfolded. EH took the lead in negotiations with Imry Merchant Developers to persuade them to re-design their foundations in a non-damaging fashion and in a way which would allow the remains to be uncovered again and displayed to the public. The Museum of London were deeply unhappy about the negotiated settlement and refused to undertake the work proposed. EH therefore took over responsibility for the site and our Central Excavation Unit did the necessary works under very difficult circumstances. The Rose was ultimately saved (see Orrell & Gurr 1989; Wainwright 1989) but an enormous amount of political and public interest was generated on a scale which had not been equalled since the discovery of the Temple of Mithras in 1954. The then Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Nicholas Ridley, took a personal interest in the engineering solutions, a judicial review was hem into his refusal to schedule the site -- which upheld his decision -- and the local MP -- Simon Hughes -- properly maintained a constant pressure on us to do the right thing. Above all, an enormous amount of public interest was generated which received much media coverage, promoted of course by the theatrical world. Lord Olivier died in July and issued a plea for the Rose Theatre before he did so. Dame Peggy Ashcroft was seen in deep distress on the arms of various leading men and Sir Ian McKellan spoke strongly against the compromise solution which was negotiated. Amongst many incidents I recall rashly accepting a suggestion from Simon Jenkins -- then Deputy Chairman of English Heritage -- that I should put the case for compromise to a public meeting in the Olivier Theatre on the South Bank. In a packed auditorium stacked with devotees of direct action, baying for the hides of myself and the Imry Merchant representatives I sought a friendly face in vain amongst the crowd cheering Simon Hughes and Ian McKellan to the rafters. This was all froth. The Rose was saved, has been shown to the public and has long awaited the attentions of the Rose Theatre Trust. More importantly perhaps, there was general recognition of the need for archaeological sites to be properly integrated into the planning process. The episode led ultimately to a review of London's pre-Restoration theatres which identified their locations and condition (Blatherwick 1998). The experience also led to a review of archaeological provision in London.

So anxious were politicians to issue policy guidance on the matter, that in May 1989, Virginia Bottomley -- then Heritage Minister -- announced Government's intention to issue new guidance on archaeology and planning. The ground had been well-prepared and the timing could not have been better. A draft policy document had been prepared and its main provisions publicised by EH before it was discussed with the Department of the Environment (Wainwright 1989). The announcement was made at a time when archaeological discoveries in York and London -- culminating in the Rose Theatre -- had highlighted awareness and interest in archaeology, and the need to ensure that archaeological remains were being considered early on in the planning process.

PPG-16

A consultation document was issued in February 1990 based on the draft provided by EH. It set out a general statement of policy on the importance of archaeological remains and advice on the handling of archaeology in the planning process, the weight to be given archaeological matters in planning decisions, the use of planning conditions and the principle that the developer should pay for the recording and publication of archaeological remains which were to be destroyed by his actions. The Department received more than 200 responses and the advice note was launched as Government policy on 21 November 1990 (DoE 1990), by Baroness Blatch -- then Heritage Minister -- on the day of Margaret Thatcher's resignation. The occasion was the annual conference of the English Historic Towns Forum in Lincoln (EHTF 1990) and the keynote address by Barry Cunliffe endorsed the policy and drew attention to issues that were to become dominant over the next decade -- professional demarcation, publication and the problems of archaeology functioning in a free-market economy. A Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) is issued by Government as advice on best practice and that advice is not necessarily enshrined in legislation. This caused some to doubt its future effectiveness but these early fears have been unrealized and PPG-16 has provided a firm platform from which archaeology has expanded hugely -- and given birth to a similar phenomenon in the rest of Europe.

The operation of the PPG was reviewed one and four years after its launch. On the first occasion (Lane & Vaughan 1992) the review by Pagoda Associates indicated that by the end of 1991, the archaeological significance of virtually all planning applications in England were being properly considered. The second review by Roger Tym and Partners & Pagoda Associates (1995) confirmed that early impression and in a perceptive review identified a number of issues that were to occupy archaeologists and planners later in the decade. For the moment we and our partners in local authorities were well content with the advice from Government on archaeology and set about getting it recognized and implemented in the country.

Whilst doing so, there was some unfinished business to clear up in London. Following the Rose Theatre episode and the publication of PPG-16, a difficult period of discussion began between EH and the Museum of London over the future organization and funding of archaeology in the capital. Eventually a solution emerged (Thomas 1992) which saw EH establish its London Archaeology Advisory Service in a strategic and advisory role (EH 1998a; 1998b) and a new body -- the Museum of London Archaeology Service (MOLAS) emerge as a recognized provider of archaeological services to the nation's capital city.

Consolidation and expansion

Whilst some were surfing these turbulent times, the Monuments Protection Programme (MPP) was making steady -- if undramatic -- progress. So much so that in 1990 the Department of the Environment issued a press notice, announcing a 10-year programme to revise and update the schedule. The team assembled by Bill Startin had spent the years since 1986 developing principles, procedures and systems to enable a national assessment. (Darvill et a]. 1987). The process of evaluating records held by each SMR around a standard suite of 225 specially commissioned monument class descriptions was completed for the whole country in 1993 in partnership with archaeologists in local government. Documentation was improved, 18 regionally based archaeologists appointed, a series of strategic projects at national level set in train and by 1997 the number of scheduled monuments had risen to nearly 17,000 -- between 25,000 and 35,000 sites. Current estimates are that a schedule of 35,000 monuments should cover the 45,000-50,000 sites which fit the criteria for national importance set out in 1983 -- not far Short of Bryan O'Neil's estimate in 1954 (EH 1996; Nieke 1997). The importance of the MPP rests not simply on the numbers of monuments added to the schedule, but in the way it has taken forward our understanding of great swathes of our past -- industrial archaeology, medieval and later settlements, 20th-century defence sites, historic landscapes and flint scatters and the success of the programme is testimony to the professional skill of those who have undertaken the work.

Implementing PPG-16 on the ground was a matter of arranging regional workshops for local government planners with officials from the DoE and the Association of County Archaeology Officers (ACAO). One of the earliest was held at Taunton and it wets clear that we had a success on our hands. Not only were the doors to the room closed on a maximum audience of 200 but the level of representation was from chief executives and chief planners as well as more junior staff. As the road-show toured the country it was apparent that the advice contained in PPG-16 was timely, welcome and relevant and that only a few dinosaurs wished to turn the clock back.

The forces of reaction found clearest expression not amongst the local planning authorities but amongst government departments who suddenly saw themselves as being held responsible -- both in conservation terms and financially -- for the archaeological implications of their developments. Nowhere was the resistance to change more apparent than in the Department of Transport. The opportunity to take them to task arose in May 1989 -- such a busy year! -- when the government published a White Paper called Roads for Prosperity which announced a greatly expanded motorway and trunk road programme at a cost of over 6 billion [pounds sterling]. Additional schemes were announced in a further report in February 1990 Trunk roads, England: into the 1990s which brought the total trunk road development programme to over 2500 miles at a cost of 12.4 billion [pounds sterling]. At that time the Department of Transport were providing 500,000 [pounds sterling] annually to EH to assist in the financing or archaeological work -- a figure which had recently been increased from its previous 100,000 [pounds sterling]. Clearly this was no time for polite exchanges with the Department of Transport through our own Ministry and Gerry Friell took charge of commissioning a report on the archaeological impact of the proposals from Environmental Resources Ltd. The review (Friell 1991) showed that:

* over 800 sites could be affected

* recording costs could be of the order of 70 [pounds sterling] million

* greater weight must be given to archaeological and environmental considerations in the process of trunk road planning and assessment.

The study was not a secret but neither did Gerry Friell and I tell many people about it so it was with some secret surprise and apprehension that it formed a major component of EH's Annual Report press conference in October 1990 -- when the Conservative Party were meeting in Bournemouth. The responses from Cecil Parkinson and his staff were intemperate -- even taking our ambush into account -- and a heated controversy ensued in the pages of The Times. But Lord Montagu was as steadfast as ever and the tactic resulted in the Department of Transport agreeing to fund its own archaeological work and reviewing their Manual of Environmental Appraisal. This proved to be the key to solving the general problem. In April 1993 new arrangements for funding archaeology in advance of development carried out by Government Departments came into force, and the principles set out in PPG-16 were finally extended to Government Departments.

The publication of PPG-16 made it necessary for EH to put its own policies in order. In 1991 we issued three documents:

i A definitive policy statement regarding archaeology funding embodying the principles and procedures contained in PPG-16 (EH, 1991A). This remained substantially unaltered for the next decade.

ii Guidance on the management of archaeology projects -- called MAP2 to distinguish it from its precursor in 1989 (EH 1989; 1991c). This document was largely the brainchild of Gillian Andrews and Roger Thomas. It defined a management cycle and a project management framework for archaeology projects. Initially, it was intended for EH-funded projects but it was rapidly adopted by developers, local authorities and subsequently the Heritage Lottery Fund as standard guidance. It established the principle that all projects pass through a number of discrete phases (planning-recording -- analysis -- report preparation -- dissemination) and that an explicit decision is required to proceed with each. This document remains standard guidance in England (Thomas & Andrews 1995).

iii Following extensive consultation within the profession we issued a forward strategy document Exploring our past (EH 1991b) which identified areas of archaeological activity considered to need particular attention. These contained a mix of strategies, including chronological or thematic studies, landscapes and broad goals directed to managing the resource. The document was important because it stated firmly that although rescue funding had been taken over by developers, EH had a future role in funding rescue projects where no developer could be found -- such as wetlands and coastal erosion -- and as the lead public sector body dealing with archaeology in England. Exploring our past was therefore used to guide our archaeology funding until the end of the decade and was also used to direct programmes of work for the Central Archaeology Service and the Ancient Monuments Laboratory.

In addition to taking steps to ensure the acceptance of PPG-16 and aligning EH policies, it was necessary to build on the foundation which had been created. Soon after the publication of PPG-16, Graham Fairclough took the lead in drafting development plan policies for archaeology (EH 1992a) and in the same year a policy statement was issued on the management of the urban archaeological resource (Wainwright 1992). The paper clarified and re-aligned policies in respect of the management of the urban archaeological resource in the wake of PPG-16. It set out our intention to commission urban archaeological databases and to initiate a programme of Intensive Urban Assessments for 30 English towns with great chronological depth, complex stratigraphy, good survival and intensive development pressure. York was the pilot study and the strategy developed there, backed up by an archaeologist in the City Council, has ensured that the earlier crises are now well in the past (Ove Arup 1991). The policy document also considered that for most towns a less detailed approach is adequate and these were dealt with through extensive urban surveys. These proved to be very popular and, managed by Roger Thomas, Somerset, Hereford and Worcester, Shropshire, Gloucestershire, Essex, Kent, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight were soon on stream. Each project proved to be more time-consuming and expensive than originally thought, for each possess three phases -- database, assessment and strategy formulation -- and the scope was broadened to include other heritage interests; but they proved to be a reliable vehicle for securing appropriate policies for the management of the urban heritage.

Countryside and churches

In the countryside there was full recognition that the historic environment shares space with the natural environment of wildlife and land-form systems, and that both national and cultural assets constitute the fabric of our country's scenic beauty and landscape. The separate aspects of the environment are covered by three government agencies and Graham Fairclough steered us towards the first formal evidence of collaboration in a statement on conservation issues in Strategic Plans (Countryside Commission et al. 1993) and its companion volume on Conservation Issues in Local Plans (EH et al. 1996). Taken together, the volumes gave practical advice to planning authorities on how to incorporate an integrated approach to the plan-making process at local level. A number of areas were either not covered by PPG-16 -- either by accident or design -- or felt themselves to be excluded. Historic Buildings were subsequently covered by their own PPG-15 (DoE 1994), together with World Heritage Sites, Historic Parks and Gardens, Historic Battlefields and Historic Landscapes. The full benefits of this PPG in respect of historic buildings has yet to be felt as it was not pursued with the same vigour as PPG-16. Nevertheless, it gave rise to good practice papers (ALGAO 1996) and EH (1994) on the recording of historic buildings -- which is now the norm rather than the exception (Stocker 1994).

The question of the funding and disposal of excavation archives had inadvertently not been addressed in PPG-16. Grants for the storage of boxes of specified sizes had been paid since the early 1980s (Museums and Galleries Commission 1986). Eventually, a jointly funded survey by the Museums and Galleries Commission and EH (Swain 1998) provided some facts on which to base a policy. It showed that the quantity of archaeological archives held by museums is about 40,000 cubic metres, of which 35% is held by five museums with the Museum of London holding about 18% of the whole. The storage problem was therefore focused on a relatively small number of large museum services. Rather more worrying was the disclosure that 48 archaeological contractors hold 8543 individual archives and that four contractors hold 66% of this total. The recommendations of the report include a network of regional archaeological resource centres, the dissemination of the value and interest of these archives to the public and the archaeological profession and guidelines for disposal or dispersal. These recommendations must be taken forward if we are to avoid a major problem further down the line.

Churches were, of course, a problem on account of their peculiar status outside the planning system, their poverty and the large numbers falling into decay. As the first full-time secretary of the CBA Churches Committee, Richard Morris took up the challenge with enthusiasm and was responsible for a scheme to appoint archaeological consultants to each of the Diocesan Advisory Committees with such success that experienced people were hard to find -- a problem which exists to this day. An example of how conservation documents should be prepared and presented for churches is that by Tony Fleming & Glenn Foard (1997) for the Peterborough Diocese and such documents show the way forward in this difficult area.

Growing pains -- the new professionals

Nowhere did the publication of PPG-16 and its consequences have such a great effect as on the archaeology profession itself. There was nothing less than a fundamental re-shaping of the structure of the profession, not just in Britain but in the rest of Europe. (Kristiansen 1996). Because of archaeology's success in integrating with the development and planning world and its huge popularity in the media, the profession had to change rapidly. Some prospered in the new world, others found change painful and hankered after an illusory golden age, seeking eagerly for problems which would reinforce their reaction (Wainwright 1993). By 1996 it was estimated that 30-40 million [pounds sterling] annually was coming in to support archaeological work as a result of PPG-16 and developer funding. Consulting engineers and other development agencies found it necessary to set up their own archaeology divisions -- Gifford and Partners showed the way in 1989 when they appointed Tim Strickland to head up their archaeology section. Archaeological work in England has been catalogued in annual gazetteers (Darvill & Hunt 1999). These record that PPG-16 has resulted in the number of investigations per annum being increased nearly threefold in six years, from 1228 in 1990 to 3210 in 1996. The discipline has moved from being a leisure and purely research activity protesting in vain at the erosion of our heritage and the lack of resources to record it properly, to occupying a central role in environmental planning and regional and national policies for regeneration, tourism and land management (Wainwright 1999).

An early issue which the archaeology profession faced in 1991 was the appearance of contract archaeology and competitive tendering for projects. This came to the fore at an early stage as a result of the acceptance of PPG-16 by developers who recognized the need to shoulder the costs of archaeological recording arising from their proposals. The debate on the issue was led by the Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA) which sponsored a conference on the subject, agreed a Code of Practice and convened a committee to monitor developments, formulate guidelines, to provide members with information and advice and to act as an arbitrator. The IFA played a decisive and pivotal role in this issue which at the time was closely linked with that of territoriality. Vigorous organizations such as Wessex Archaeology and the Oxford Archaeological Unit tendered for work outside their traditional areas and therefore operated in territories previously considered to be the private preserves of a single body. This issue disappeared into farce in Kent, where the Oxford Unit working in Dover under the nose of the redoubtable Brian Philp were reported to IFA with a view to removing the Oxford Unit's Director David Miles from its professional register as `entering a new era of unethical activity'. Brian Philp was in turn reported to IFA by Dover District Council, and it was silly episodes such as this which opened the eyes of the majority of the profession to the futility of attempting to maintain traditional tribal boundaries.

As Roger Thomas (1993; 1995) has so convincingly demonstrated, the roles and responsibilities within the professional framework of archaeology in Britain have been fundamentally re-structured:

Curators employed by local government and national heritage bodies advise on archaeological requirements for preservation or excavation.

Contractors compete for and undertake archaeological work for developers on a commercial basis.

Consultants provide advice to developers and curators.

Crucial to the process is the separation of the roles of curator and contractor. It is not ethically possible to have the same organization specifying to the developer what should be done and then tendering for that work. Local authorities which maintained their own field teams felt this issue particularly keenly and some felt it necessary to externalize the latter. This was unpopular and created a swell of resentment against PPG-16 in some quarters, but Essex County Council have shown how it is possible to combine both roles entirely satisfactorily.

In 1998 EH -- in collaboration with Cadw, Historic Scotland and DoE Northern Ireland -- commissioned a survey of archaeological jobs in the UK (Aitchison 1999). The survey showed that there are approximately 4425 poorly paid professional archaeologists in the UK. Of these, 680 are employed by national heritage organizations, 644 in universities and colleges, 605 are local government employees and 1341 -- by far the largest number -- work for contractors. National museums employ 156 archaeologists and local museums 190. Independent consultancy is a growth industry and number 153 individuals, 170 are in commercial employment and 461 in other organizations. The profession has shown spectacular growth over the past five years and further growth is expected. This survey provides the basis on which a much-needed infrastructure can be built.

One group who perceive themselves as having lost out through PPG-16 are the local societies, at least as seen through the eyes of their main spokesman, Andrew Selkirk, who with his wife Wendy has owned and edited Current Archaeology for over 30 years and has chronicled with attractive clarity and integrity the main achievements in British archaeology over that period. Assertions that there is no longer a place for the volunteer in archaeology and that massive government intervention has cut the profession off from its grass roots (Selkirk 1997) are without foundation. It may be the case that some contractors ignore local societies and relationships have not always been easy. Mutual respect and recognition of their interlocking roles are necessary and may sometimes be lacking (Council for Independent Archaeology 1993). My own local society at Richmond in Surrey is an example of a group undertaking excellent work in productive co-existence with MOLAS and with hard work and a renouncing of personal vendettas similar opportunities exist throughout the country. Local societies are the backbone of our subject in the UK and have a strong stake in its future development.

Two organizations share much of the credit for the controlled expansion of the subject over the past decade. Local government archaeologists are in a pivotal position as advisors to local planning authorities and their advice is critical to the whole process. The promotion of professional standards and ethics has been the role of the Institute of Field Archaeologists founded in 1982 and has been central to the advances which have been made since then.

The national body for local government archaeologists is the Association of Local Government Archaeology officers (ALGAO) -- formed in 1996 through the amalgamation of the Association of County and District archaeology officers with the aid of a grant from EH to cover its infrastructure costs (ALGAO 1997). The constructive relationship between ALGAO and its predecessors with national heritage bodies has been crucial to the success of national policies and the statements produced by the ACAO in relation to sites and monuments records (ACAO 1978) and the procedural arrangements for the operation of PPG-16 (ACAO 1993) have become professional standards.

The first proposals for a professional body for archaeologists were made in 1972 by the CBA. They ran into difficulties for the usual reasons and it was not until 1982 that the IFA came into being and, as our professional body, has been invaluable in promoting professional standards through its validation process, which now includes a register of organizations, and its promotion of training and career development schemes. It is well known for its very successful annual conferences, but its role as a standards setting body and active professional organization promoting influential guidelines and standards has been secured through its succession of eminent chairmen and latterly by its Director. EH offered to fund the permanent staff posts with some reluctance -- not wishing to compromise the essential independence of the organization -- but experience has shown these initial fears to be without foundation. The IFA has also produced its share of professional standards papers which have helped to guide us through early problems. Contractual regulations (Darvill & Atkins 1991); environmental assessment (Ralston & Thomas 1993); guidelines for finds work (IFA 1992) and standards and guidance for archaeological field work (IFA 1994) are but a few of their documents. Both ALGAO and the IFA have played important roles in the developments which we see today and have much to offer for the future management of the archaeological resource and the regulation of the archaeological profession respectively.

Some parts of the archaeology profession were understandably a little queasy about the rapid strides towards its incorporation in the fields of planning, development and environmental control. Claims of `anti-intellectualism' can be dismissed as ill-informed ranting but genuine concerns were expressed about the need for a research agenda and quality control (Morris 1993) and it is time to see if archaeology did become a casualty of the market -- as feared initially by a few faint hearts.

Casualties of the market?

When Exploring our past was published in 1991 it contained a review of rescue funding in the 1980s and a strategy for the next decade. The document had been prepared not just to illuminate the way forward but to head off any predators who might regard the archaeology budget as vulnerable as a result of PPG-16. The strategy resulted from inviting the national period societies and special interest groups to give their views on priorities. These were then condensed into a single document -- without omitting any proposal! The document was therefore not so much a list of priorities but a wish list. Nevertheless it served its purpose for the rest of the decade. From 1991, EH took a more proactive role in shaping the archaeology programme and actively commissioned projects which implemented the strategy contained in Exploring our past. In the same year, the Taoiseach of Ireland, Charles Haughey, launched the Discovery Programme. This was a bold research initiative, chaired by Professor George Eogan, with its own budget and four major interdisciplinary projects (Discovery Programme, 1992). It was based -- as was Exploring our past -- on the principle of setting the questions and developing field programmes to find the answers.

Exploring our past was implemented against the backdrop of the EH agenda published in October 1992 (EH 1992b). This was the brain-child of Jocelyn Stevens who became Chairman in that year. Passionate about the heritage, committed to quality and irascible when it suited him, Jocelyn brought a breadth of vision and experience to EH to which most of us responded -- though some were burned off by his passionate insistence that only the best would do. His agenda began with dismantling an earlier proposal that EH should move to Nottingham, and contained the key messages of partnership, local management agreements for our monuments in guardianship where appropriate, more focus in our grant aid and externalizing the direct labour force. He delivered these messages in the face of knee-jerk criticism which only spurred him on and increased his determination. He rapidly became a firm friend to archaeology and his support was crucial during the remainder of the decade.

A notable achievement of the 1980s had been the virtual elimination of the unpublished backlog of 1100 state-funded excavations carried out before 1973 (Butcher & Garwood 1994). Two studies were particularly influential during that decade. The Frere Report (1975) was commissioned by the Committee for Rescue Archaeology of the Ancient Monuments Board for England. This report was particularly concerned to address the problem of how to publish an ever-increasing quantity of archaeological data. The Cunliffe Report (1982) stressed the need for the critical selection of that data and particular emphasis was placed on the research design as a means of exercising the selectivity. In 1991, The Management of Archaeological Projects (MAP2) identified the need to develop the concept of regular critical review as the key to successful project management and set out how this may be achieved. During the 1990s MAP2 was -- and still is -- a standard reference for the public and private sectors and was the framework within which programmes of analysis and publication took place. These dominated the programme, as the excavation units in the historic cities of London, York, Lincoln and Carlisle -- to name a few -- opened up their archives to the rigours of MAP2 scrutiny. They required (and received) a huge investment of funds and by the end of the decade the benefits of the policy in terms of volumes on shelves is apparent.

Survey and synthesis

Great projects were brought to a successful conclusion. The Danebury Hillfort and Landscape study (Cunliffe 2000) encompassed 28 years of work and at Boxgrove in West Sussex human remains 500,000 years old were found along with stone cutting tools and the bones of animals now extinct (Roberts & Parfitt 1999). Landscape studies on Salisbury Plain (Bradley et al. 1994) and Bodmin Moor (Johnson & Rose 1994) epitomized the richness of the uplands and emphasized the paradox of Salisbury Plain both as a military training area and an unravelled archaeological resource. Field archives were gently appropriated from elderly excavators who were given assistance to write up their great sites (e.g. Alcock 1995) and other projects were given the wherewithal to reach a successful conclusion (Bell et al. 1996). The rapid field response was retained as part of the repertoire and was exercised in respect of the Bronze Age Dover Boat and to capture a record of the country's deep-mined coal industry at a time of its radical re-structuring (Gould & Ayris 1995). The last was commissioned from the RCHME -- one of a series of major surveys undertaken with them over the decade.

Topographical considerations frequently played a major role in the programme. The importance of the uplands had been recognized in the 1980s and surveys undertaken of the Lake District, the Cheviots, Peak District, Exmoor, Dartmoor and West Penwith as well as Bodmin and Salisbury Plain. From 1973, EH supported surveys and excavations in the wetlands of England in close and productive association with John and Bryony Coles. Gradually the surveys progressed across the country from Somerset (1973-1987), the East Anglia Fens (1976-1988), the northwest wetlands (1990-1998) and the Humber Wetlands which was initiated in 1992 and where surveys will continue to 2003. All the work has been published as a series of wetland monographs and has not only created a pool of expertise in wetland matters but will lead to the preservation of selected areas in co-operation with other partners (Coles 1995). As Barry Cunliffe has shown at Danebury, the long-term view is essential for success. The coast and inter-tidal zone was another topographical zone in need of greater understanding. EH and the RCHME commissioned the Universities of Reading and Southampton to prepare a report which addressed the characterization of the archaeological resource in the intertidal zone, and the development of appropriate management strategies for it in the context of sea-level change (Fulford et al. 1997). The management issues were addressed in a separate publication (EH/RCHME 1996) and are now being followed up in selected areas (Williams & Brown 1999).

Surveys of subject areas were extensively commissioned -- often as part of the MPP. EH and Cadw commissioned a seven-year survey of Lower Palaeolithic remains in Britain. The, programme was undertaken by John Wymer within a framework provided by Wessex Archaeology. The successful completion of the surveys is a landmark in Palaeolithic studies and provides a national overview difficult to parallel elsewhere in the world. Copies of the regional surveys are held by county sites and monument records, an archaeological guidance leaflet for planning authorities and developers was produced (EH 1998c) and an academic synthesis published (Wymer 1999). Other subject areas investigated were lithic scatters (Schofield 1994); medieval settlements; industrial archaeology (EH 1995; Stocker 1995a) and 20th-century military sites (EH 1998d).

As a result of the growth in the number of excavations funded by commercial developers, we embarked upon a series of broadly-based syntheses to ensure that work was carried out within a framework of good professional practice and not in isolation. Romano-British pottery is ubiquitous and abundant and was therefore chosen as the first in a series of reviews (Fulford & Huddleston 1991), followed by medieval pottery (Mellor 1994). Later came a report on stone (Peacock 1998). Each report was supplemented by training courses concerned with basic recording standards and guidelines for processing. The implementation of PPG-16 required support through an annual gazetteer of developer-funded projects (Darvill & Hunt 1999) and at a technical level to reach a better understanding of the interaction between archaeological deposits and the buried environment (Corfield et al. 1996). This project was concerned with the successful application of mitigation strategies developed since 1991. An issue which badly needed some factual content was that of metal detecting, which was the cause of deep divisions. There can be no doubt that the hobby has caused serious damage to archaeological sites through the undisciplined removal of artefacts from their context. Others regard metal detecting as an invaluable aid to the investigation of the past.

EH commissioned a comprehensive study from the CBA of the effect of metal detecting on archaeology in England (Dobinson & Denison 1995). The study concluded that the hobby has been for good as well as ill and that its potential benefits have not been harnessed to the full. Subsequently, the Treasure Act 1996 came into force in September 1997 and was accompanied by a Code of Practice. The Act has resulted in more finds being recorded and created an important role for finds liaison officers (Bland 2000).

The great changes which took place during the decade were almost entirely due to PPG-16. The build-up to the Advisory Note had been gradual and considerable emphasis placed on its implementation, leading to its ultimate success. The number of excavations in the country tripled in its first five years and EH was able to adopt a strategic and supportive role instead of being the main provider. These changes occurred not just in England but in the rest of Europe.

Wider horizons

In June 1990, a Committee of Experts, appointed by the Council of Europe, chaired by Gustav Trotzig and guided by Daniel Therond, began the work of revising the 1969 European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage. Remarkably, the Committee completed its work in April 1991, and the text was signed by Ministers -- including the UK -- at the third European Conference of Ministers responsible for the Cultural Heritage held in Malta in January 1992 (Valletta 1992). The revised Convention was not a radical step in the protection of the archaeological heritage of Europe. Rather, it represents the embodiment of a gradual development of principles and archaeological practice which we have seen in the UK during the 1980s and its provisions can be regarded as a standard to be met throughout Europe (O'Keefe 1993; Trotzig, 1993). The Convention begins with a definition of' archaeological heritage which was -- and is -- a very contentious issue. It covers matters familiar to us from the UK experience including the integration of archaeology with planning, developer funding, the reporting of portable antiquities and their trade, and the conservation of monuments. Above all, the Valletta Convention defines not only a minimum legal system for the protection of cultural property, but also provides a framework for professional co-operation in Europe. The UK Government should ratify this Convention which is proving to be influential in promoting international collaboration.

To promote the implementation of the revised Convention, the Ministers at the same time recommended a number of actions which together might form a `European Plan for Archaeology'. One of these was concerned specifically with urban archaeology (Council of Europe 1999a). A second was a multilingual glossary of archaeological terminology (Council of Europe 1999b). A third was the preparation of a core data standard for records of archaeological sites and monuments (Council of Europe 1999c). A fourth was a European campaign on the theme `The Bronze Age, the first golden age of Europe' (Council of Europe 1994). This is an impressive record of achievement and the Council of Europe deserve all our thanks for their efforts to unite us. With their assistance the archaeology profession is organised at a European level through the European Association of Archaeologists, chaired initially by Kristian Kristiansen and latterly by Willem Willems. We have our own journal, newsletters and annual conferences -- 700 attendees from 25 countries met at Bournemouth in 1999. National cultural resource managers have organized themselves at a European level through the Archeolgiae Consilium -- initially under the chairmanship of Willem Willems and latterly Adrian Olivier. Such professional linkages are important for those of us who work on these small islands and Willem Willems has set out the sound foundation which exists for the future (Willems 1999; 2000).

Regional developments in archaeological policy

In the United Kingdom, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have developed their own versions of the events in England and I am indebted to Ann Hamlin, Richard Avent and David Breeze for their perspective on these developments. The political context of heritage management in Northern Ireland requires a full measure of scholarship and diplomacy which found its expression in Ann Hamlin. Direct Rule from 1972 means that all government is run from the `centre' and local authorities have minimal powers. This has profoundly affected the provision of the archaeological service which is a centralized integrated archaeological service combining the function of many regional and county bodies in England. This is now changing with the Northern Ireland Assembly, but the centralized system has brought many benefits. New legislation has retained strengths such as licensing excavations and reporting all finds; the Northern Ireland Monuments and Buildings Record opened in 1992 and the belated impact of developer funding has led to much evidence of prehistoric activity on greenfield sites where there were previously few clues. It is important for us to recall that heritage management in Northern Ireland and its communication to the public has taken place against a background of inter-communal strife which is partly rooted in conflicting perceptions of the past. The six-month Navan Fort Public Inquiry in 1985 and the 1986 decision to halt destructive quarrying did a huge amount to increase public awareness (Mallory 1987) and this has increased through active media exposure, educational outreach and publications. The availability of European Community funds has led to investment in the presentation and marketing of major state care monuments, with the main aims of improving provision for schools and increasing cultural awareness -- so important in Northern Ireland. It is one matter to debate the philosophy of conserving Wigmore Castle in the rural west midlands of England and quite another to communicate perceptions of the past at Navan. Our colleagues in Northern Ireland have a responsible and complex role which they have discharged with scholarship and integrity.

An important difference between EH on the one hand, and Cadw and Historic Scotland on the other, is that both Cadw and Historic Scotland remain embedded within their respective Government departments. Both are Executive Agencies and remain part of Government and are thus perhaps unable to speak and act as freely as EH.

Wales is an orderly and well-run place. Advice on the handling of archaeological matters in the planning process was issued in 1996, replacing PPG-16 (Wales) (Welsh Office 1996), and both national bodies dealing with the historic environment -- Cadw and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales -- have jointly set out their agenda for the next few years (Cadw/ RCAHMW 1999). A major milestone was the creation and development of the four Welsh Archaeological Trusts over the past 25 years. At the time of their establishment, the Trusts were seen purely as a way of dealing with major rescue threats, either through excavations or watching briefs. In the absence of archaeological services at the local authority level -- these were not fought for and financed as they were in England -- the Trusts rapidly developed their educational and curatorial roles and, by the time PPG-16 was implemented in Wales in the early 1990s, the Trusts were offering a wide range of planning advice. During the 1990s, as developers increasingly took on the role of funding rescue archaeology, Cadw have funded the Trusts to undertake this curatorial role and a range of strategic surveys including the entire length of the Welsh coastline, medieval churches and deserted rural settlements. The system relies on Cadw support. Local authorities have not taken ownership of their heritage and careful divisions have to be drawn within the Trusts between their curatorial and contractual roles. The fact that archaeological advice to local authorities is based on charitable trusts means that it does not have the statutory clout of a system based in the authorities themselves.

There have also been considerable achievements in extending the boundaries of our knowledge and understanding. The Welsh Severn Estuary has perhaps the greatest concentration of prehistoric intertidal archaeology yet found in Britain and the results of the investigations have been published. Stephen Green's excavations at Pontnewydd Cave have recorded the remains of early Neanderthals from 250,000 years ago. The discovery of evidence to suggest that copper ore was exploited on Great Orme's Head in Gwynedd on a considerable scale in prehistory in conjunction with recent work at Cwmystwyth (Ceredigion) and Parys Mountain (Anglesey) has been of great significance in our understanding of the development of metal-working technology in the British Isles. The discovery of the unexpected legionary fortress at Usk and a major programme of research and excavations on the castles and courts of the Welsh princes conclude what is, by any reckoning, a remarkable record of achievement which fully meets the challenges, potential and richness of Welsh heritage under the new Assembly.

In Scotland there is a similar emphasis on the pivotal role of the lead Heritage Agency -- Historic Scotland -- working closely and effectively with the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS). The Scottish Office issued its advice on archaeology and planning in 1994 (Scottish Office 1994a; 1994b). By 1977 it had already been decided to establish the Field Survey Unit (which came to be placed within RCAHMS), and the Central Excavation Unit -- later to become independent as AOC (Scotland). Within a short period the Scottish Urban Archaeology Unit (now the SUA Trust) was founded in Perth, and a similar urban unit in Aberdeen. The Industrial Survey was formed -- at first at Strathclyde University and later in the RCAHMS. Historic Scotland has increased its funding for archaeology from a few thousand pounds in 1970 to 600,000 [pounds sterling] by 1980 and great headway has been made with eradicating the backlog of unpublished reports (Barclay 1997). As in Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland is well placed to realize the potential of the new Assembly with the assistance of archaeologists in some local authorities. As in Wales, there remains a deep concern about the long-term future of the archaeology service in local authorities which needs to be tackled in the near future.

Last orders

In April 1999, a new lead body for the identification, documentation and conservation of the historic environment was created by the merger of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments for England (RCHME) and English Heritage (EH). The decision resulted from the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review -- the latest in a long series of government perusals of the issue -- all of which had come to opposite conclusions. A policy review of the RCHME conducted in 1988 formalized the relationship between the Commission and local record systems and the RCHME were recognized as the lead body for oversight of the system of local SMRs in England, but in a delicious compromise -- both EH and RCHME were given the discretion to fund them. The Secretary of State did not order a funds, transfer to enable the RCHME to implement their new function and the scene was set for problems during the next decade.

The review had recognized that regular liaison between the two bodies was essential and this was pursued with goodwill on both sides. Following its influential role in the 1960s the RCHME had not been a consistent part of the great series of assessment documents and surveys of the 1970s and 1980s -- save as on Bodmin Moor where local interests coincided. These two bodies came together in the 1990s jointly to undertake major strategic projects -- urban databases, intertidal zone and Monuments at Risk for example -- and, with the exception of natural tensions which arise between two organizations one of which is much larger than the other, the process of coming together worked well despite the move of the RCHME to Swindon. The problem lay in the crucial area of records.

Before 1988, there had been considerable investment by English Heritage in the development of local records which created the basis for much of the progress that we see today. After 1988, funds for local records were coming from two national bodies. English Heritage was committing an average 250,000 [pounds sterling] per annum to the creation of archaeological posts for curatorial purposes in local government and surveys to expand the content of local records. The RCHME, naturally enough, were able to commit a smaller sum to the structure of the records. The RCHME, EH and the ACAO were successful in producing strategic documents (RCHME 1993; 1998), but on the ground, where the SMRs were crucial to the protection of archaeological remains through the local planning process, which was EH's concern, the SMRs became victims of their own success and by the end of the decade were seriously or significantly under-developed. With the benefit of hindsight the tragedy of the 1988 decision regarding SMRs was not that it was necessarily wrong (Scotland and Wales demonstrated that such lead role responsibilities can work well) but that the sometimes divergent aims of the RCHME and EH were not reconciled into a set of common objectives and that this crucial area was under-resourced. The ACAO were in the middle of this and for most of the decade felt it necessary to hold separate meetings with the two organizations. Opportunities were missed as a result and in some respects the decision at the end of the decade to merge the two bodies came as a relief. A review by David Baker (1999) for ALGAO has drawn attention to the potential of SMRs both as functional planning tools and as an educational resource for the wider community. There is much to do before the local records can achieve either goal with any confidence and this area must surely be the target for substantial future investment within a structured framework.

The comprehensive spending review by government in 1988 also set out proposals for a regional structure for English Heritage and during 1998 and 1999 regional offices were set up into which were moved the advisory grant-giving and property aspect of the work. There are excellent reasons for such a structure which creates a stronger regional presence and greater accessibility. No-one would have wished that the integration of EH and the RCHME took place at the same time, but at least the process gave an opportunity of reviewing the new archaeological provision which the merger had produced. There were strong arguments -- which were accepted -- for the retention of the new Archaeology Division as a central (not a regional) resource, and the three principal centres agreed were London, Swindon (the offices of the previous Royal Commission) and Fort Cumberland near Portsmouth. At this latter the Central Archaeology Service (CAS) was based, to which it was proposed to move the Ancient Monuments Laboratory to create a single, integrated archaeology service with purpose-built accommodation -- including laboratories -- at a cost of over 2 million [pounds sterling] (Malone et a]. 2000: 255-6).

The Central Excavation Unit was founded at Fort Cumberland in 1975 to provide a flexible response in emergencies and excavations on monuments in care. In 1989 it was reviewed and re-named the Central Archaeology Service, with the revised brief of providing an intelligent customer capability to English Heritage in procurement of archaeological commissions and to provide informed and knowledgeable advice. Its recording systems and procedures formed the mainstay of advisory notes as good practice (Jefferies 1977; HBMC 1986). It fulfilled its role with great professionalism, distinguishing itself at the Rose Theatre and in the aftermath of the fires at Uppark, Windsor Castle and Hampton Court, whilst breaking new ground in respect of landscape assessment at Stonehenge and Avebury and publishing many reports.

The Ancient Monuments Laboratory (AML) was founded in 1950 and for the next 20 years or so was virtually the only authoritative focus of technical competence and knowledge in the field of archaeological science. Its London laboratories were designed in 1972 and a quarter of a century later were wildly inappropriate in terms of their central London location and accommodation. By the late 1970s sponsored posts had been set up in Universities which had flourished as a regional and national resource. The creation of EH in 1984 had made no change to the even tenor of the Laboratory's ways and by 1997 it was time for a change. The nature of that change was indicated by a review which drew attention to the exciting opportunities of integrating with the CAS. Other options were considered, but the choice of Fort Cumberland as a base rested on cost, space, the beneficial re-use of historic buildings, the opportunities to promote the Fort and the work carried out in it to the public and the huge potential for collaboration with the University of Southampton. The CAS had operated successfully from the Fort since 1976 and the new Archaeology Centre was opened in 1999. There is considerable potential for what must be one of the largest multi-disciplinary groupings of archaeologists in western Europe. Substantial investment has been made in the infrastructure, and visionary leadership is now needed to realize its full potential. The collection of papers presented at a conference held in London in 1997 (Bayley 1998) shows the potential for the future if the available opportunities are seized.

Exploring our past was overdue for review and the stage was set for this by Adrian Olivier (1996). In a review of research frameworks Adrian drew attention to the problems resulting from the rapid expansion of the profession which had produced a sense of isolation and fragmentation, as the means of dissemination and assessing the new information had not kept pace with events elsewhere. The review proposed a series of regional research frameworks as a basis for curatorial decisions and the funds to make them possible. The frameworks were soon in preparation (e.g. Glazebrook 1997) and it was time to look to our new agenda.

Tim Williams had joined the Archaeology Division early in the decade and soon took a grip on the rapidly changing situation. He moved us to a position where the archaeology budget was used to commission projects, rather than respond to requests, and presided over the archaeology programmes the Division developed during the 1990s. In 1996 he prepared and circulated for discussion an ambitious document (Williams 1996) which would be used to direct our own efforts, through the CAS, the AML, the MPP and the programme commissioned from external sources through the archaeology budget. The document was eventually called Exploring our past 1998 and an implementation plan for it was published in 1999 (Williams 1999). The Plan will need to be expanded following the merger with RCHME, but it represents a strategic framework for the future which can be modified in the light of experience, through a series of goals within which programmes can develop. It is a much more sophisticated document than Exploring our past 1991 but carries the same need to look into the future, assess what may be required and establish appropriate programmes.

One project which appeared in both editions of Exploring our past was a proposal to determine how many archaeological sites had survived, what was their distribution and type and what influences were bearing down on their condition. For years I had been asked these questions by politicians and managers and needed to provide serious answers if archaeology was to take its rightful place alongside other heritage assets. With Tim Darvill and Dai Morgan-Evans a proposal was worked up which took three years or so to get past the guardians of what was prudent in EH. A Monuments at Risk (MARS) programme would be expensive about 1 million [pounds sterling] -- and had the potential to unleash pressures on EH to re-direct resources from the traditional areas of expenditure on the built heritage to less obvious but equally deserving heritage assets. Finally, MARS was launched with 1995 as its census date and the University of Bournemouth as our contractors, Tim Darvill and Andy Fulton as project managers and the RCHME as our partners. The methodology was difficult to work through -- it was clearly impossible to look at all archaeological sites in the country -- and a sampling scheme was devised to look at a cross-section of all recorded monuments. A 5% sample was selected in 1927 1-kmx5-km randomly distributed sample transects, backed up by an aerial survey programme in which Bob Bewley of RCHME was a tower of strength. It was published in 1998 (Darvill & Fulton 1998), accompanied by a summary report and an EH implementation plan.

MARS is the first stage in what should be an on-going process for measuring and monitoring change. Much of its work was concerned with setting bench-marks against which change will be measured in future. The results exceeded expectations and provided enough statistics to keep my successors and EH busy for the next two decades, when MARS should be repeated:

* nearly a million entries in local sites and monuments records

* about 300,000 monuments in the country, of which one quarter are of unknown date

* on average, one recorded monument has been completely destroyed every day since 1945

* 80% of the wholesale destruction of our archaeological heritage is caused by five hazards: development and urbanization; demolition and building operations; mineral extraction and industry; agriculture; and road-building

* 63% of earthwork monuments are now flat

* 2% of monuments are at high risk.

MARS is the pinnacle of strategic planning for the future of our archaeological heritage. Its recommendations contain enough work for the next generation of EH Inspectors -- and other conservation agencies -- and it must be repeated at regular intervals.

EH of course is no longer alone in the field of archaeological resource management -- it has numerous partners. Local authorities and the mosaic of archaeological groupings which make up the discipline have clearly played a major role in the story of the past four decades. The National Trust -- which celebrated its centenary in 1995 -- is a long-standing ally which owns large chunks of the best archaeology in the country, is pioneering in the archaeology of gardens, has a particular role in industrial archaeology and historic landscapes and has been the first to explore the complexities of conserving our Cold War heritage at Orford Ness. The National Trust has recognized archaeology as a core subject area, backed it up with skilled and experienced staff and, with EH, is a major player in what happens to our heritage (Evans et al. 1996). A more recent partner on the heritage scene is the Heritage Lottery Fund, which will focus increasingly on funding archaeological work that includes a high level of involvement of, access by, or presentation to the general public, as well as setting an example by funding archaeological works which are an essential component of a lottery-funded project (Heritage Lottery Fund 1998).

Public interest in what archaeologists do has never been higher and this is reflected on television and radio and in newspapers. The Time Team reaches over 2 million viewers for each programme. Yet archaeologists have traditionally felt self-conscious about involving the media and the public and have patrolled the boundaries of their profession in an attempt to exclude rather than engage. A classic example is our national heritage icon at Stonehenge, where in 1995 groups of young people making for Stonehenge at the summer solstice were stopped by police road-blocks. The confrontations which followed led to the battle of the beanfield and over 500 arrests. The environs of Stonehenge had been saved from the perceived ravages of a festival, but at the cost of an appalling public-relations mess for which EH and the National Trust took the blame. In the summer of 2000 EH took the brave decision to open Stonehenge to the public for the summer solstice. The occasion was an outstanding success and restored Stonehenge in the public mind as a monument which belongs to us all, not just to its guardians (see Wainwright 2000 for the current position).

There is a need for people to be able to connect with an understanding to their past and now is an opportune time carefully to assess the future -- how our heritage may be defined and valued and how it may be administered and funded. Government ministers have seized the moment and invited EH to co-ordinate a review of government policies with particular reference to a holistic definition of the historic environment in our multi-cultural society and to establish heritage policy as a critical component of sustainable development thinking (EH 2000). If Bryan O'Neil were writing his memorandum in 2000 and not 1954 he would see many changes -- and similarities. He would not have recognized (and perhaps not have welcomed) the wholesale integration of archaeology into the planning process and the transfer of responsibilities from the centre to the local scene. He would have welcomed the huge increase in archaeological activity as a result of developer funding and done something about recording and disseminating the information. Organizations such as Wessex Archaeology with its range of over 100 clients; undertaking any form of archaeological work whether on land, or below water; a high standard of academic output with an extraordinary range of discoveries and a community officer, would have met with his full approval (Wessex Archaeology 2000). The work recently described in Kent (Current Archaeology 2000) he would have recognized immediately as an excellent example of a county archaeologist using PPG-16 and the planning process as a research tool to investigate the archaeology of the county. He would have recognized the calls for a professional infrastructure from a discipline which has expanded so rapidly and fully backed the grant of 850,000 [pounds sterling] recently made to ensure the future of a Roman site near Swindon. Maritime archaeology he could easily have taken on board -- as he had fought for industrial sites -- and he would have recognized the current research excavations at Whitby Abbey as a worthy successor to the government supported project at Stanwick. The London Mithraeum demonstrated the power of public interest in conserving our past and he would have had no problem in recognizing that legitimate interest when it has surfaced subsequently over the Rose Theatre, Stonehenge, the earliest European (Boxgrove), Arthur (Tintagel), King Alfred (Winchester) and Seahenge.

Above all he would have recognized the power of archaeology to change our perceptions of the past and thus influence the ways in which we live together in the future. If the last 40 years has brought us further along the road to that self-understanding then ! am content.

References

ADDYMAN, P.V. & J.H. RUMSBY, 1971. The archaeological implications of proposed development in York. York.

ACAO (ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICERS). 1978. A guide to the establishment of sites and monuments records. Chelmsford.

1993. Model briefs and specifications for archaeological assessments and field evaluations. Chelmsford.

AITCHISON, K. (ed. S. Denison). 1991. Profiling the profession. A survey of archaeological jobs in the UK. London: English Heritage.

ALCOCK, L. 1995. Cadbury Castle, Somerset. The Early Medieval archaeology. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

ALDSWORTH, F. & D. FREKE. 1976. Historic towns in Sussex: an archaeological survey. London.

ALGAO (ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICERS). 1996. Analysis and recording of the control of works to historic buildings. Advice to local authorities and applicants. Chelmsford.

1997. Protecting our heritage: archaeology in local government in England 1997. Chelmsford.

ASTILL, G. 1978. Historic towns in Berkshire: an archaeological appraisal. Reading.

ASTON, M. & R. LEECH. 1977. Historic towns in Somerset: archaeology and planning. Bristol: CRAAGS.

BAKER, D. 1975. The past revived through public endeavour or an archaeological view from Bedfordshire, Current Archaeology 1975: 367-9.

1976. Rescue archaeology and local government, County Councils Gazette 76-7.

BAKER, D. & E. BAKER. 1999. An assessment of English Sites and Monuments Records. Chelmsford: Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers.

BALKWlLL, C.J. 1976. Archaeology and development in rural Devon. Exeter.

BARCLAY, G.J. (ed.). 1997. State-funded `rescue' archaeology in Scotland. Past, present and future. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland Ancient Monuments Division. Occasional Paper 2.

BAYLEY, J. (ed.). 1998. Science in Archaeology: an agenda for the future. London: English Heritage.

BELL, M., P.J. FOWLER & S.N. HILLSON. 1996. The Experimental Earthwork Project 1960-1992. York: Council for British Archaeology.

BENSON, D. & J. COOK. 1966. City of Oxford redevelopment: archaeological implications. Oxford: Oxford City & County Museum.

BIDDLE, M. & F. EMERY. 1973. The M3 extension: an archaeological survey. Winchester: M3 Archaeology Rescue Committee.

BIDDLE, M. & D. HUDSON. 1973. The future of London's past: a survey of the archaeological implications of planning and development in the nation's capital. Worcester: Rescue.

BLAND, R. 2000. The Treasure Act, two years on, The Archaeologist: 23-4.

BLATHERWICK, S. 1998. London's pre-Restoration purpose-built theatres of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. London: English Heritage.

BRADLEY, R., R. ENTWHISTLE & F. RAYMOND. 1994. Prehistoric land divisions on Salisbury Plain. The work of the Wessex linear ditches project. London: English Heritage. Archaeological report 2.

BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND DEVELOPERS LIAISON GROUP. 1986. Code of Practice 1986. London. (Reprinted 1988 & 1991).

BUTCHER, S. & P. GARWOOD. 1994. Rescue excavation 1938-1972. London: English Heritage.

CADW/RCHMW (ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE ANCIENT AND HISTORICAL MONUMENTS OF WALES). 1999. Recording, preserving and presenting the Welsh archaeological landscape. A joint statement. Cardiff & Aberystwyth: Cadw & RCHMW.

CARVER, M.O.H. & J. WILLS. 1974. Shrewsbury: the buried past. The threatened archaeology of Shrewsbury and its recovery. Shrewsbury.

CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INTERPRETATION. 1988. Visitors welcome. A manual on the presentation and interpretation of archaeological excavations. London: HMSO.

CHAMPION, S. 1973. Andover: the archaeological implications of development. Andover.

CLACK, P.A.G. & P.F. GOSLING. 1976. Archaeology in the north. Durham: Northern Archaeology Survey.

COLES, B. 1995. Wetland management: A survey for English Heritage. Exeter: WARP. Occasional paper 9.

COLYER, C. 1975. Lincoln: the archaeology of an historic city. Lincoln.

CORFIELD, M., P. HINTON T. NIXON & M. POLLARD. 1996. Preserving archaeological remains in situ. London MOLAS/ Bradford: University of Bradford.

CBA (COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY). 1975. Rescue Archaeology 1975-80: Objectives and pursuit. Report on a seminar organized by the Department for Extra Mural Studies, Oxford. January 1975. Issued by the CBA June 1975 as a typescript.

1965. The Buchanon Report and historic towns. London.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE. 1994. The Bronze Age -- the first golden age of Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. European Heritage 2.

1999a. Report on the situation of urban archaeology in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

1999b. European Bronze Age monuments: a multi-lingual glossary of archaeological terminology. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

1999c. Core data standard for archaeological sites and monuments. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

COUNCIL FOR INDEPENDENT ARCHAEOLOGY. 1993. The role of local societies in PPG-16. Northampton: Council for Independent Archaeology.

COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION/EH/ENGLISH NATURE. 1993. Conservation issues in Strategic Plans. Cheltenham.

CUNLIFFE, B. 1982. The publication of archaeological excavations. London: CBA & DoE.

(Ed.). 2000. The Danebury Environs Programme: the prehistory of a Wessex Landscape. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Monographs 48 & 49.

Current Archaeology. 2000. Kent. No. 168.

DARVILL, T. 1987. Ancient Monuments in the Countryside: an archaeological management review. London: English Heritage. Archaeological report 5.

DARVILL, T. & M. ATKINS. 1991. Regulating archaeological work by contract. IFA. Technical paper 8.

DARVILL, T. & A. FULTON. 1998. MARS: The Monuments at Risk Survey of England. 1995. Bournemouth: School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University/London: English Heritage.

DARVILL, T. & A. HUNT. 1999. The Archaeological Investigations Project, Conservation Bulletin 35:14-17.

DARVILL, T., A. SAUNDERS & B. STARTIN. 1987. A question of national importance: approaches to the evaluation of ancient monuments for the Monuments Protection Programme in England, Antiquity 61: 393-408.

DOBINSON, C. & S. DENISON. 1995. Metal detecting and archaeology in England. London: EH/CBA.

DoE (DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT). 1973. DoE Rescue Excavations. A meeting held at Fortress House, London on 22 February 1973. Typescript report.

1977. Rescue Archaeology: the next phase. Circulated in typescript.

1981a. Organisation of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings. Consultation Paper. London: HMSO.

1981b. Preservation and Excavation Policies. Advisory note 28 to Grant-aided units.

1982. The way forward. London: DoE.

1990. Archaeology and Planning (PPG-16). London: HMSO.

1994. Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG-15). London: HMSO.

DREWETT, P.L. 1976. An extensive survey of plough-damage to known archaeological sites in West and East Sussex. London.

EH (ENGLISH HERITAGE). 1985. Maiden Castle Visitor Centre. Consultative Document. London: English Heritage.

1986. Rescue archaeology funding: a policy statement. London: English Heritage.

1988. Planning and conservation: a case study of Maiden Castle. London: English Heritage Education Service. Schools Council Geography 16-19 Project.

1989. The Management of archaeology projects. London: English Heritage.

1991a. Rescue archaeology funding: a policy statement. London: English Heritage.

1991b. Exploring our past: strategies for the archaeology of England. London: English Heritage.

1991c. The Management of archaeological projects. 2nd edition. London: English Heritage.

1992a. Development Plan policies for archaeology. London: English Heritage.

1992b. Managing England's heritage: setting our priorities for the 1990s. London: English Heritage.

1994. Investigative work on historic buildings. London: English Heritage.

1995a. Industrial archaeology: a policy statement. London: English Heritage.

1995b. Register of historic battlefields. London: English Heritage.

1996. The Monuments Protection Programme 1986-96 in retrospect. London: English Heritage.

1998a. Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service. Archaeological guidance papers 1-5. London: English Heritage.

1998b. Capital archaeology: strategies for sustaining the historic legacy of a world city. London: English Heritage.

1998c. Identifying and protecting palaeolithic remains. London: English Heritage.

1998d. Monuments of war. The evaluation, recording and management of twentieth century military sites. London: English Heritage.

2000. Review of policies relating to the historic environment. London: English Heritage.

EH/COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION/ENGLISH NATURE. 1996. Conservation issues in Local Plans. London: English Heritage.

EH/RCHME. 1996. England's coastal heritage. A statement on the management of coastal archaeology. London: English Heritage.

ENGLISH HISTORIC TOWNS FORUM. 1990. Archaeology in historic towns -- Constraint or opportunity. Lincoln.

ELLISON, A. 1976. Villages survey -- an interim report. Bristol: CRAAGS.

1977a. Exmoor survey. Bristol: CRAAGS.

1977b. A survey of the archaeological implications of forestry in the Forest of Dean. Bristol: CRAAGS.

1977c. A survey of the archaeological implications of hard stone quarrying in the counties of Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset. Bristol: CRAAGS.

EVANS, D.M. 1986. Maiden Castle Management Plan. London: English Heritage.

EVANS, D.M., P. SALWAY & D. THACKRAY. 1996. `The remains of distant times'. Archaeology and the National Trust. London: Society of Antiquaries. Occasional paper 19.

FLEMING, A.J. & G. FOARD. 1997. Church archaeology in the Peterborough Diocese: a review of conservation archaeology in the management of church and churchyard. Peterborough.

FOWLER, E. (ed.). 1972. Field survey in British archaeology. London: Council for British Archaeology.

FOWLER, P. 1970. The crisis in field archaeology, Current Archaeology 23: 343-5.

1972. Field archaeology on the M5 Motorway 1969-71, in Fowler (ed.).

1976. US Archaeology through British eyes, Antiquity 50: 230-32.

FULFORD, M., T. CHAMPION & A. LANG (ed.). 1997. England's coastal heritage. London: English Heritage. Archaeological report 15.

FULFORD, M. & K. HUDDLESTONE. 1991. Romano British pottery studies. London: English Heritage.

FRASER, D. 1984. England's archaeological resource. London: DoE.

FRERE, S.S. 1975. Principles of publication in rescue archaeology. London: Ancient Monuments Board for England Committee for Rescue Archaeology.

FRIELL, G. 1991. Archaeology and the Trunk Roads Programme. London: English Heritage.

GINGELL, C. 1976. Archaeology in the Wiltshire countryside. Devizes.

GLAZEBROOK, J. (ed.). 1997. Research and archaeology: a framework for the eastern counties. 1. Resource assessment. Scole: East Anglian Archaeology. Occasional paper 3.

GOULD, S. & I. AYRIS. 1995. Colliery landscapes: an aerial survey of the deep-mined coal industry of England. London: English Heritage.

HART, M. 1985. The funding of research in science based archaeology in universities and polytechnics. Swindon: Science and Engineering Research Council.

HEIGHWAY, C.M. 1972. The erosion of history. Archaeology and planning in towns. London: CBA.

HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND. 1998. Archaeology guidance notes. London: HLF.

HBMC (HISTORIC BUILDINGS & MONUMENTS COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND). 1986. Preservation by record. The work of the Central Excavation Unit 1975-85. London: English Heritage.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. 1987. First report from the Environment Committee. Session 1986-87. Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments. House at Commons, 146 I-III.

HUGHES, M. 1975. The small towns of Hampshire. Southampton.

IFA. 1992. Guidelines for finds work. Birmingham: IFA.

1994. Standards and guidance for archaeological desk-based assessments/archaeological field evaluations/archaeological field evaluations/archaeological watching briefs/archaeological excavations. Birmingham: IFA.

JEFFERIES, J.S. 1977. Excavation records. Techniques in use by the Central Excavation Unit. London: DAMHB. Occasional papers 1.

JOHNSON, N. & P. ROSE. 1994. Bodmin Moor. An archaeological survey 1: the human landscape to c. 1800. London: English Heritage. Archaeological Report 24/RCHM England Supplementary series 11.

JONES, G.D.B. 1973. Crisis in archaeology, Journal of Environmental Planning and Pollution Control 1(3): 50-63.

KRISTIANSEN, K. 1996. Old boundaries and new frontiers. Reflections on the identity of archaeology, Current Swedish Archaeology 4: 103-22.

LANE, J. & S. VAUGHAN. 1992. An evaluation of the impact of PPG-16 on archaeology and planning. London: Pagoda Projects.

LEECH, R. 1977. The Upper Thames Valley in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire: an archaeological survey of the river gravels. Bristol: CRAAGS.

MALLORY, J. 1987. The saving of Navan, Antiquity 61: 64-6.

MELLOR, M. 1994. Medieval ceramic studies in England. A review for English Heritage. London: English Heritage.

MORRIS, R. 1993. Archaeology -- a casualty of the market? British Archaeological News 8: 1-3.

MILES, D. & P.J. FOWLER. 1972. Tewkesbury: the archaeological implications of development. Tewkesbury.

MUSEUMS & GALLERIES COMMISSION. 1986. Eligibility criteria for the grant aided storage of excavation archives. London: MGC.

O'KEEFE, P.J. 1993. The new European Convention 1, Antiquity 67: 406-13.

OLIVIER, A. 1996. Frameworks for our past. A review of research frameworks, strategies and perceptions. London: English Heritage.

O'NEIL, B.H. ST J. 1952. Internal Memorandum by Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments, 12 March 1952.

ORRELL, J. & A. GURR. 1989. What the Rose can tell us, Antiquity 63: 421-9.

OVE ARUP AND PARTNERS & YORK UNIVERSITY. 1991. York development and archaeology study. York: City Council/ Manchester: English Heritage.

PEACOCK, D.P.S. 1998. The archaeology of stone. London: English Heritage.

RALSTON, I. & R. THOMAS (ed.) 1993. Environmental assessment and archaeology. Birmingham: IFA. Occasional paper 5.

RAHTZ, P.A. (ed.). 1974. Rescue archaeology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

RCHME (ROYAL COMMISSION ON HISTORICAL MONUMENTS (ENGLAND)). 1960. A matter of time. London: HMSO.

1963. Monuments threatened or destroyed. A select list: 1956-1962. London: HMSO.

1969. Peterborough New Town. A survey of the antiquities in the areas of development. London: HMSO.

1978. Survey of surveys 1978. A review of local archaeological field survey and recording. London.

1993. Recording England's past. A review of national and local Sites and Monuments Records in England. London: RCHME.-

RCHME/ALGAO/ENGLISH HERITAGE. 1998. Unlocking the past for the new millennium. Swindon: RCHME.

RESCUE/COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. 1974. Archaeology and Government. A plan for archaeology in Britain. London.

ROBERTS, M.B. & S.A. PARFITT. 1999. Boxgrove. A middle pleistocene hominid site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. London: English Heritage. Archaeological report 17.

RODWELL, K. (ed.). 1975. Historic towns in Oxfordshire: a survey of the new county. Oxford.

ROGER TYM AND PARTNERS & PAGODA ASSOCIATES LTD. 1995. Review of the implementation of PPG-16 Archaeology and Planning. London: English Heritage.

SCHOFIELD, J. 1994. Looking back with regret; looking forward with optimism: making more of surface lithic scatter sites, in N. Ashton & A. David (ed.), Stories in stone: 80-88. Lithic Studies Society. Occasional paper 4,.

SCOTTISH OFFICE. 1994a. National Planning Policy Guideline 5, archaeology and planning. Edinburgh: HMSO.

1994b. Planning Advice Note 42, archaeology -- the planning process and scheduled monument procedures. Edinburgh: HMSO.

SELKIRK, A. 1997. Who owns the past? A grass roots critique of heritage policy. London: Adam Smith Institute.

SHARPLES, N.M. 1991. Maiden Castle. Excavations and Field Survey 1985-86. London: English Heritage. Archaeological report 19.

SHOESMITH, R. 1974. The City of Hereford: archaeology and development. Birmingham.

STEWART, M.E.C. & L.M. THOMAS. 1976. It will soon be too late: an archaeological survey of Perth. Perth.

STOCKER, D. 1994. Understanding what we conserve, in J. Wood (ed.), Buildings archaeology: Applications in practice. Oxford: Oxbow.

1995. Choosing industrial monuments, Conservation Bulletin, 27: 8-9.

SWAIN, H. 1998. A survey of archaeological archives in England. London: Museums & Galleries Commission/English Heritage.

THOMAS, C. 1971. Ethics in archaeology, Antiquity 45: 268-74.

1977. After Rescue -- what next? The first Beatrice de Cardi lecture 1976. Council for British Archaeology. Privately circulated.

THOMAS, R. 1992. Archaeology in London, Conservation Bulletin 16: 8-9.

1993. English Heritage Funding Policies and their impact on research strategy, in J. Hunter & I. Ralston (ed.), Archaeological resource management in the United Kingdom -- an introduction: 136-48. Stroud: Alan Sutton.

1995. Curators, clients, contractors, consultants - roles and responsibilities in British Archaeology today. First annual conference of the European Association of Archaeologists, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

THOMAS, R. & G. ANDREWS. 1995. The management of archaeology projects -- theory and practice in the UK, in M. Cooper, A. Firth, J. Carman & D. Wheatley (ed.), Managing archaeology: 189-207. London: Routledge.

TROTZIG, G. 1993. The new European Convention II, Antiquity 67: 414-15.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CARDIFF. 1976. Archaeological implications of re-development in historic towns. Urban Research Unit 1973-1976. Cardiff: University College.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY. 1943. Conference on the future of archaeology. London: Institute of Archaeology. Occasional paper 5.

VALETTA. 1992. European Convention on the protection of the archaeological heritage. (Revised.) Strasbourg. European Treaty Series 143.

WAINWRIGHT, G.J. 1971. The excavation of a fortified settlement at Walesland Rath, Pembrokeshire, Britannia 2: 48-108.

1978. Theory and practice in field archaeology, in T. Darvill, M. Parker Pearson, B. Smith & R. Thomas (ed.), New approaches to our past. An archaeological forum: 11-28. Southampton: Southampton University Archaeological Society.

1979. Gussage All Saints. An Iron Age settlement in Dorset. London: HMSO. Department of the Environment Archaeological reports 10.

1982. An analysis of Central Government (DAMHB): support in 1982/3 for the recording of archaeological sites and landscapes in advance of their destruction. London: DAMHB.

1984. The pressure of the past: Presidential Address, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50: 1-22.

1989a. Saving the Rose, Antiquity 63: 430-35.

1989b. Archaeology and planning, Conservation Bulletin 7:17.

1989c. The Henge Monuments. Ceremony and society in prehistoric Britain. London: Thames & Hudson.

1992. Managing the urban archaeological resource. London: English Heritage.

1993. The management of change: archaeology and planning, Antiquity 67: 416-21.

1999. Honor the past and imagine the future, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65: 447-55.

2000. The Stonehenge we deserve, Antiquity 74: 334-42.

WAINWRIGHT, G.J. & B.W. CUNLIFFE. 1985. Maiden Castle: excavation, education and entertainment? Antiquity 59: 97-100.

WAINWRIGHT, G.J. & S.M. DAVIES. 1995. Balksbury Camp, Hampshire. Excavations 1973 and 1981. London: English Heritage. Archaeological report 4.

WALSH, D. 1969. Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the arrangements for the protection of field monuments 1966-68. London: HMSO.

WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY. 2000. Beneath the surface. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.

WELSH OFFICE. 1996. Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology. Welsh Office Circular 90/96.

WILLEMS, W.J.H. 1999. The future of European archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow. Lecture 4, Archaeology in Britain Conference 1997.

2000. Challenges for European archaeology. Report on the inaugural meeting of the Europae Archaeologiae Consilium at the Council of Europe. Amsterdam: Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.

WILLIAMS, J. & N. BROWN. 1999. Greater Thames Estuary. An archaeological research framework. Chelmsford: English Heritage, Essex County Council, Kent County Council and Thames Estuary Partnership.

WILLIAMS, T. 1996. Archaeology and English Heritage: agenda for the future, for discussion. London: English Heritage.

1999. Implementation plan for exploring our past 1998. London: English Heritage.

WYMER, J. 1999. The Lower Palaeolithic occupation of Britain. London: Wessex Archaeology/English Heritage.

GEOFFREY WAINWRIGHT, wainwright@bstone.demon.co.uk