Study Group for Roman Pottery (SGRP)   SGRP Homepage

Guidelines for the Archiving of Roman Pottery  Edited by Margaret J Darling   1994

PREFACE

In 1980 the Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings published Guidelines for the processing and publication of Roman pottery from excavations edited by C.J. Young. The impetus for this document came from the Study Group for Romano-British Pottery, whose members served on the Steering Committee and the working parties. The drafting and final publication were greatly facilitated by the Directorate's funding of expenses, provision of meeting places and publication costs.

The drafting of this document followed close on the heels of the Frere Committee's Principles of Publication in Rescue Archaeology (DAMHB 1975) and the comparative explosion of excavations in the 1970s. It sought to establish common methods of approach and some standardisation of recording. Quantification was in its infancy, with little understanding yet of either potential or cost. Within a few years, it was clear that implementation of some of the recommendations would involve excessive cost with little return in terms of useful evidence. Increasing use of computers in archaeology and particularly for pottery opened up new areas and demanded a reappraisal of recording. Revision was clearly required and in the absence of funding to reconvene working parties, the Study Group for Roman Pottery appointed a Convenor to deal with the updating of the document. This work was passed to the present Convenor but soon after revision had started, Professor Michael Fulford was asked by HBMC to conduct a survey of Roman pottery work in Britain (Fulford and Huddleston 1991) and the drafting of the Management of .4rchaeological Projects (second edition, MAP2, 1991) started. Since the minimum archive is the foundation for further work, revision of the Guidelines was necessarily shelved to await the results of both documents.

She original aim of the Guidelines, to establish common methods of approach and some standardisation of recording, remains of paramount importance for progress in pottery studies. With the advent of competitive tendering there is a clear necessity to ensure a level playing field for such tendering. The computer revolution opens new areas of research in the amount of information potentially retrievable from pottery particularly with GIS programs. These emphasise the necessity for a common approach and some standardisation if these new techniques, and those still being developed, are to be fully utilised.

These matters demand attention to ensure pottery studies progress and do not stagnate, but equal consideration must be given to the management of projects and economic use of resources, as embodied in MAP2. This introduced a formal assessment between the fieldwork and analysis to determine the potential of the results to answer not only questions framed in the project's research design, but also any new questions produced during the fieldwork. Such assessment is an essential phase to ensure time and resources are not wasted on material of debatable value. Moreover, studies of other artefacts and environmental material depend upon pottery data, particularly in the identification of groups with high residually or contamination. While the finds from many excavations will proceed beyond this assessment point, having proven potential, some excavations clearly will not fulfil the criteria. Future work in the area, tan escape studies and surveys may, however, at a later (fate still require a minimum level of information from such sites. In order to assess the potential information to be gained from further work (as for a MAP2 assessment) or to assess the significance Of a site deemed unsuitable for extended study, certain information needs to be available. MAP2 lays down a framework of management procedures; definition of the detail required for each category of archaeological specialisation is the responsibility of' the. specialists, as noted in its preface.

Pottery has enormous importance due to its almost total survival. and provides information on chronology, trading contacts, function and socio‑economic aspects. And yet our museums are stuffed full of boxes of popery, some unwashed. unrecorded and unstudied. most of totally unknown potential, impeding our understanding of the development and nature of human settlement. This is a storehouse of unrealised information which should not be added to.

The present document has several aims. On the one hand to establish a minimum level of information necessary to satisfactorily assess the potential of pottery from a site for MAP2 purposes, and on the other to ensure sufficient data is available to assess the material contribution from sites which did not progress beyond the site archive level. In addition to the archaeological value of material, its management and the efficient use of resources and new technology, there is also the question of museum collections, their management and usage, which again demand a minimum level of information. All three are concerned with the assessment of potential. whether for immediate use leading to analysis and publication in whatever format. or for future use. The aim of this document is not to address a single aspect. but to arrive at a minimum level of information that will satisfy all. Furthermore it recognises that an archive is a working tool to explore numerous other aspects of pottery research. both now and in the future.

The first drafting of this document used a survey of recording practices carried out in 1992, which showed that a very wide variety of approaches were in use. The results of a questionnaire on pottery processing were circulated to a sub‑committee of the Study Group for Roman Pottery and a meeting was held to discuss the establishment of an agreed archive level at Lincoln on March 11, 1993, which produced a first draft. The resulting discussion document was presented to the Study Group's meeting at Birmingham on March 28, 1993, where it was approved by those attending. To ensure the fullest circulation, the discussion document was circulated to all members not present at the Birmingham meeting, and comments invited. The present document arises from the revision of the discussion document, taking into account both verbal comments from Birmingham and written comments. Copies were again circulated at the Study Group's meeting at Durham in April 1994 and a further period of consultation allowed, leading to further revisions of detail.


Archive Sub-Committee

Convenor: Margaret Darling                                  Richard Pollard

Paul Bidwell                                                             Lindsay Rollo

Paul Booth                                                               Vivien Swan

Barbara Davies                                                       Robin Symonds

Chris Going                                                              Colin Wallace

Jason Monaghan

Rob Perrin                                                               30^th September 1994

Back to Contents Page