EDITORIAL

There are many aspects of 21st-century Development Control Archaeology that can be contrasted disparagingly with the ‘good old days’ of the Research Archaeology of the 1970s and 1980s. In some cases, the contrast is fair. However, in at least one aspect — publication — developer-funded archaeology represents an improvement that few could dispute. The time is hopefully gone for good when the original diggers on a site could grow up, grow old and die before post-excavation work was finished and the site was published.

The majority of project briefs now contain a requirement that the project outcomes be made publicly accessible, and this requirement is usually adhered to. Most newly generated excavation/recording results now make it to publication in a more-or-less timely manner. It has become comparatively rare for decades to pass in the interval, or for a report never to be completed.

However, archaeological ‘publication’ can comprise anything along a spectrum, from the all-singing, all-dancing, all-colour multi-volume monograph, to the article in an appropriate journal, to the single copy of a three-page comb-bound report stored in a drawer somewhere. The majority of archaeological results are either of relatively limited or specialist interest, or are negative. In general, this class of result is only to be found deposited as a digital document and/or as single hard copy in a suitable repository. This relatively inaccessible body of data comprises what is usually referred to as ‘grey literature’.

Most grey literature is to be found in the office of the appropriate Historic Environment Record (HER) or Sites and Monuments Record (SMR). Although technically in the public domain, this material can still be fiendishly difficult of access. The manner in which information is held in English HERs/SMRs has been gradually standardised over the last decade, as the national Monument Inventory Data Standard (MIDAS) has been implemented.1 However, there is still little uniformity in the extent and form to which these holdings are available online. The virtual postings of most HERs/SMRs provide at least skeleton records with bibliographical references, and an indication of whether a copy of a report is held in their office. A few provide downloadable copies of the relevant documents; many more will not.

Arguably, this is not that much of an improvement over having no publication at all. The material may exist, but consultation is likely to require either lengthy negotiations with a record repository, or a special trip to that repository, in order to gain a copy of the report (copyright permitting). This continues to be the case with a significant number of archaeological reports, and both nationally and internationally we are still a long way from the day when the full results of every archaeological project will be available on demand to interested researchers.

However, this state of affairs is improving. In view of the vital role that comparative archaeological material plays in our continually improving understanding of the Industrial past, this issue of the Review seems an apt opportunity for a quick appraisal of the currently available sources of grey literature.

Over the last decade, a small number of valuable web-based projects which were established in the late 1990s have gone a long way towards both improving access to site reports, and recording information that may not have been commercially published. Instant access remains a goal yet to be achieved. However, it is now possible to retrieve essential detail for virtually every developer or curator-funded archaeological project undertaken in England, Scotland and Wales, and to obtain access to a number of international fieldwork datasets.

The situation is best developed in the UK and in the US. In the UK, the most widely known and most regularly cited source for grey literature is the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) in York.2 Since the late 1990s, the ADS has curated a range of site-specific and project-specific digital data. This includes both an index to a proportion of the grey literature produced in England, Scotland and Wales, and downloadable copies of this material. Although there is a separate Grey Literature Archive on the ADS website, ease of access is reduced by the relatively small number of permitted search categories. The material can be more easily reached through ArchSearch,3 ADS’s sites and projects database (<http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk>). This database is fully searchable by Historical Date and Monument Type.4 Unfortunately, the data collection does not include all categories of archaeological investigation, and is not yet comprehensive for any of the categories which are represented. For example, although most projects involving ground disturbance are at least cited (and the majority are available as downloadable reports), few Building Records or Desk-Based Assessments are listed. This may be due to the fact that the deposit of grey literature to the ADS is linked to the purely voluntary Online Access to the Index of Archaeological Investigations project (OASIS).5 Because of the resource implications of the project, not all contracting or curatorial bodies feel able to commit themselves to routine deposit of material; this is reflected in the gaps in the database.

A more comprehensive, although less well-known, source of information about the existing grey literature is the Archaeological Investigations Project (AIP),6 hosted by the University of Bournemouth. The AIP curates a database of all archaeological projects in England (only). As part of this work, visits are made by AIP personnel to every HER/SMR in the country as well as to the vast majority of bodies carrying out fieldwork on a commercial or voluntary basis, to identify and access archive copies of all types of investigation reports. These are logged and summarised at <http://194.66.65.187/index.htm>. The database is fully searchable by a broad range of criteria, including Investigation Type and Date, Historical Date, and Monument Type.7 The website is linked to the downloadable copies of grey literature held by the ADS by clickable hotlinks where relevant. Otherwise, the report is summarised and the address of the repository holding a copy is given.

The level of data retrieval for the AIP appears to be much higher than that achieved by ArcSearch — for example, a search for 19th-/20th-century glass works retrieved 24 records on the former site, as against 13 on the latter. This degree of retrieval is presumably due to the broad sweep of the AIP search, and to the fact that the project has no resource implications for the contracting or curatorial bodies.

For the rest of the British Isles, the position appears to be less encouraging, with regard to single-point access to a national spread of data. It had been intended for both Scotland and Wales to set up equivalents of the AIP, but this seems not to have occurred. The PastMap site (<http://jura.rcahms.gov.uk/PASTMAP/Map>) hosts data from all national datasets for Scotland, but is searchable only for location (although the site hotlinks to the relevant SMRs and HERs, which are more fully searchable). Canmore (<http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/search>) provides fully searchable access to the national data collections for Scotland. For Wales, the Archwilio site, which is currently under construction, comprises online access to the Historic Environment Records of the four Welsh Archaeological Trusts (<http://www.archwilio.org.uk>). The site is fully searchable for Historical Period and by keyword. The Historic Wales site (<http://jura.rcahms.gov.uk/NMW/Map>) is allied to the PastMap site and has similar data range and functionality. All four sites provide bibliographical detail for site reports, but provide little in the way of downloadable documents. However, both Scotland and Wales are covered by ArchSearch (although the coverage does not appear to be comprehensive), and for some archaeological sites it may be possible to download reports which have been identified from one of the other sources.

In Northern Ireland, the Department of the Environment curates the National Monuments Record (<http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/built-home/recording/sites___monuments.htm>). The site is offline at the time of writing, and it is unclear how well the available grey literature can be accessed without a visit to the repository. In the Republic of Ireland, the National Monuments Service (<http://webgis.archaeology.ie/NationalMonuments/FlexViewer>) can be searched by Monument Type and has comprehensive records available for a proportion of sites listed, with bibliographic details but no live links.

By contrast, the position in the US is similar to that which applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The National Archeological Database (Reports Module) (<http://www.cast.uark.edu/other/nps/nadb/nadb.mul.html>) is maintained by the National Park Service (NPS) and the Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies (CAST) at the University of Arkansas.8 The database is national in scope, and comprises a bibliographic inventory of reports of archaeological investigations, searchable by keyword (although not by Historical Date). The site provides contact information for the repository relevant to each record, but does not host downloadable copies. A second database, the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR at <http://core.tdar.org>) is maintained by Digital Antiquity, a non-profit organisation set up by the Archaeology Data Service and a number of American universities. This database is fully searchable and provides downloadable copies of the publicly accessible reports.9 A project to provide simultaneous search facilities between ArchSearch in the UK and tDAR in the US, by means of the Transatlantic Archaeology Gateway (TAG), is still in the experimental stage.

TAG is also intended to provide simultaneous search facilities to the principal pan-European cultural database, Europeana (<http://www.europeana.eu/portal>). This database is less comprehensive than either tDAR or ArchSearch with regard to reports, but is searchable by keyword, Historic Date and Media Type. The majority of the material indexed on the site (which includes photo and film documentation, as well as text documents) appears to be fully downloadable via links to the relevant repository. The site is polyglot, but the translation application is serviceable.

Little additional material seems to be available further afield. No comprehensive database or searchable bibliographic index appears to exist for Australia. There is a database of national scope for New Zealand (<http://archsite.org.nz>), but public access is limited and subject to a fee. The Canadian equivalent is in preparation, but here again access will be limited.

There is no question that the key to understanding is information. The more complete that the data available about individual archaeological sites is, the more nuanced and complete our picture of past societies and technologies will be. There is also a strong argument for the view that, unless the results of an investigation are made widely available and subject to study, there is no point having carried out the work in the first place. The present situation with regard to grey literature is encouraging at first sight. However, it is worth remembering that the current picture owes much to the unusual availability of resources for archaeological projects over the last 20 years. In the existing economic climate, there are already indications that the maintenance and completion of even the online databases which have already been set up is flagging — and the coming lack of funding and manpower can only make the situation worse.

It is vitally important that everyone in the archaeological community is not only aware of these sites, but both uses and contributes to them. Without vocal and practical support from practitioners and enthusiasts, there is a real danger that we will revert to the Dark Age of unavailable results and restricted information.