The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca
The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca
The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
• 298 • Timothy Darvill<br />
never published the results. Leland died insane in<br />
1552, but the idea <strong>of</strong> <strong>ca</strong>taloguing, recording and<br />
trying to preserve archaeologi<strong>ca</strong>l remains endured.<br />
In the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth<br />
centuries, interest in the preservation and <strong>ca</strong>re <strong>of</strong><br />
monuments <strong>ca</strong>n be glimpsed in the writings <strong>of</strong><br />
antiquaries such as William Camden (1561–1623),<br />
John Aubrey (1626–1697), William Stukeley (1687–<br />
1765) and James Douglas (1753–1819). All, however,<br />
were operating in the intellectual traditions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Age <strong>of</strong> Enlightenment and the politi<strong>ca</strong>l climate <strong>of</strong><br />
con-servatism. It was not until the scientific<br />
revolution, positivist thinking and Liberal politi<strong>ca</strong>l<br />
reforms <strong>of</strong> the mid-nineteenth century that things<br />
Figure 17.1 <strong>An</strong>cient monuments in the countryside: a<br />
Bronze Age round barrow cemetery on King Barrow Ridge, started to change.<br />
Amesbury, Wiltshire.<br />
Concerns about the destruction <strong>of</strong> archaeologi<strong>ca</strong>l<br />
Source: Timothy Darvill<br />
remains, and the need to protect them, appear in<br />
numerous antiquarian accounts printed in the later<br />
nineteenth century. At a meeting <strong>of</strong> the International Congress on Prehistoric <strong>Archaeology</strong> held<br />
in Norwich in August 1868, a committee was set up to try to prevent the destruction <strong>of</strong> monuments<br />
in Brittany, and soon after a Committee <strong>of</strong> the Ethnologi<strong>ca</strong>l Society was formed for the purpose<br />
<strong>of</strong> describing and preserving the prehistoric monuments <strong>of</strong> <strong>Britain</strong> and Ireland.<br />
In 1870, John Lubbock, later Lord Avebury, introduced into Parliament a Bill that later be<strong>ca</strong>me<br />
the first piece <strong>of</strong> ancient monuments legislation, <strong>The</strong> <strong>An</strong>cient Monuments Protection Act 1882. Although<br />
limited in its coverage and powers, it established precedents for state control over the destiny <strong>of</strong><br />
important archaeologi<strong>ca</strong>l sites. On January 1st 1883, General Pitt Rivers, a well-known and<br />
established archaeologist, took up the post <strong>of</strong> the first Inspector <strong>of</strong> <strong>An</strong>cient Monuments, a role<br />
he continued until his death in 1900.<br />
<strong>The</strong> impact, expansion and periodic re-enactment <strong>of</strong> <strong>An</strong>cient Monuments legislation <strong>from</strong><br />
1882 down to modern times has been well documented and discussed (Saunders 1983). <strong>The</strong> early<br />
date <strong>of</strong> the first Act is, however, important as it <strong>ca</strong>me much earlier than, for example, specific<br />
legislation for the preservation <strong>of</strong> National Parks in England and Wales (1949), historic buildings<br />
(1953), the countryside (1968) and wildlife (1981). Its limitations in relating only to important<br />
monuments listed in a ‘schedule’ and its focus on the ‘preservation’ <strong>of</strong> remains through the<br />
control <strong>of</strong> works are factors that have certainly conditioned, and in many ways constrained, the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> approaches to the <strong>ca</strong>re <strong>of</strong> archaeologi<strong>ca</strong>l remains in <strong>Britain</strong>.<br />
Massive wartime devastation <strong>of</strong> historic cities such as London, Bristol, Winchester, Exeter<br />
and Southampton prompted the need for substantial archaeologi<strong>ca</strong>l provision during<br />
redevelopment. Indeed, the need had been recognized even before the end <strong>of</strong> the war when, in<br />
March 1944, the Council for British <strong>Archaeology</strong> was founded to promote British archaeology in<br />
all its aspects. <strong>The</strong> principle that be<strong>ca</strong>me established in <strong>Britain</strong> was what later be<strong>ca</strong>me known as<br />
‘rescue archaeology’ —the rapid recording <strong>of</strong> archaeologi<strong>ca</strong>l sites immediately in advance <strong>of</strong><br />
their destruction. This is all that could be done in a politi<strong>ca</strong>l climate and legal framework that<br />
promoted a presumption in favour <strong>of</strong> development.<br />
During the 1950s and early 1960s, a substantial group <strong>of</strong> itinerant rescue archaeologists moved<br />
<strong>from</strong> site to site, ex<strong>ca</strong>vating and recording remains, <strong>of</strong>ten in difficult and frustrating conditions<br />
(Rahtz 1974). In a few areas, permanent ex<strong>ca</strong>vation ‘units’ were established, Winchester being<br />
among the first in 1961, soon followed by Southampton, Oxford, Lincoln, Colchester and others;