In order to make the best use of technology, it is important that concepts and strategies are discussed among likely users. To this end a survey of six questions was devised and discussed with or emailed to some fifty curators of local or regional ceramic reference collections9. The three national reference collections held in Edinburgh, Scotland, and Cardiff, Wales, and two in England, one for the post- Roman period at the British Museum, London and the other for the post-medieval period in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, were also approached. The survey was carried out over a three-day period and a 50% response was achieved. A further five positive responses were received beyond this date. A summary of the results are set out below:
Question: How would you describe your place in national hierarchy?
The place of national reference collections is clear and they serve national, and international communities; only four reference collections are tied to cities serving local communities and these tend to be cities with a long tradition of archaeology, for example, Winchester, in the south central region of England. Counties/regions serve a wider community, some are independent trusts, others are contracting units, two are centres for the Historic Environment Resources. Independent spe- cialists, working for a number of different clients, hold a great deal of knowledge.
Question: How many external consultations per year?
Many of the reference collections are used actively internally, but have recorded few external visitors in the past year. This can, in part, be accounted for by the
tight economic climate, with no budget for travel or to take a day away, to visit a relevant reference collection.
National museums attract student and specialist groups, from time to time. While local and regional reference collections are used by contracting units. There is a charge in some cities to use the reference collection, for example, at Chester, in northwest England.
Question: Any plans for web access?
National Museums in England, Wales and Scotland are digitizing some of their collections, but there are no immediate plans for digitizing reference collections as such. At local level there are no plans as yet. At regional level, one Museum in the East Midlands has a long term plan (Scunthorpe Museum, Lincolnshire), while in the West Midlands two Centres for the Historic Environment Records are actively persuing online strategies (Worcestershire and Herefordshire).
Question: What funding is available for updates?
The updating of National Reference Collections is costed into the budget, but a European initiative would require new funds. For example, such a project, within a National Museum, might need to employ one person for three - five years to co-ordinate and supervise museum assistants/volunteers.
At local level, reference collections, most of which were started in the 1960s/ 1970s, would need updating, cross-referencing, where necessary and new funding. At regional level in four counties there is a public service requirement that contractors must use the local or county ceramic reference collection and some of these reference collections cover prehistory, roman and post-roman ceramics, for example, in Bedfordshire in the south east Midlands. The remaining collections are updated on an ad hoc basis, if at all.
Question: Whose reference collections/type series are they anyway?
Ownership is often tricky and the survey highlighted that it was not always clear where ownership lay. Local city reference collections are tied closely to their local museums, but the ownership of Regional Reference Collections is more varied, some are owned by local authority field units and the Centres for the Historic Environment Records are a new player. Independents still see Museums as a natural repository for reference collections, because museums are used to handling objects. It is not certain how local and regional Museums collectively perceive this role.
Question: Is it feasible to provide online national reference collections for all archaeological finds?
Here the ‘Yes’ votes just gain ascendancy; the ‘Nos’ included contracting units, museums and independents. The negative respondents noted the dangers of duplicating work. For some there was a preference to invest at regional level rather than at national level; that ceramics are too local - but non ceramics online
may be useful. The difficulties of travel to a national collection were cited and dangers in making instant identification, not supported by any accompanying understanding or knowledge were of particular concern. Many respondents mentioned that there is no substitute for handling sherds.
Question: What minimum standards, what quality control need to be in place?
The need for sustainability was perceived as critical – who edits the webpages? Who sustains the resource?
Each country needs a structure with shared standards and shared systems, properly funded and controlled. With a Web enabled database, type series at county/ regional level. The Worcestershire online resource - Pottery in Perspective10linked to national level, which in turn is linked to a European index in a specific place with quality search engine, may serve as an example.
A taxonomic key was proposed – so if an iron object requires identification, a simple procedure needs to be followed to enable the correct chronological period to be identified; this would ensure, at least, that the relevant specialist be approached.
It was suggested that peer review (two persons) should agree on classification before the information was uploaded online, with a focus on high quality data. In ceramic studies, fabric, form, decoration, provenance, source and appro- priate documentation with drawings, digital images (broken edges, aerial view, thin sections) would be the first step.
Question: Would an online European resource for all archaeological finds be useful? Any pitfalls?
Comment:
• Not necessarily beneficial to contract units; • Goods for forms but not fabrics;
• Good for metal detected finds (Portable Antiquities Scheme); • Risk of misidentification through lack of specialist knowledge.
Respondents Yes No Uncertain /
cautious
Curators of local reference collections 5
Curators of regional reference collections 9 2 1
Independent researchers 8
Table 1 Results of the straw-poll survey.
The European online provision gained greater support than the national resource, particularly with museums that need to mount exhibitions, are keen to stimulate work, draw in new researchers and have education at their core. Contracting units do not necessarily feel an online European resource would be beneficial, unless they are working in ports (Table 1).
Respondents felt very positive towards a ceramic form series, but not for local/regional fabrics types. Some imports, such as Saintonge from southwest France or the Rhenish stonewares from northern Germany, do need clarifica- tion at national and international level. The online resource supported by the Portable Antiquities Scheme11has proved useful for metal detected finds in some areas.
There remains the risk at national and international level of misidentification through lack of specialist knowledge.
The basic tool of interpretation in archaeological research is the comparison of assemblages (Orton 2001), it is the structure of archaeological assemblages which provide the key to differentiation (Fig. 3), so we also need to consider some more archaeological parameters, beyond characterization of the individual artefact. How will this new online resource aid comparison? Date range, the size of the assemblage, the stratification of the assemblage and the nature of the assemblage: monastic/domestic etc. must all be considered.
Fig. 3 Assemblage from Bull Hall, Southampton: Continental imports (left) alongside local wares. Late 13th century. (Copyright Southampton City Museums, Southampton City Council)