Borderlands: Rethinking Archaeological Research Frameworks

ABSTRACT

Research frameworks for archaeology in the UK have a long history. Since the 1990s research frameworks have been developed in formal programmes initially driven by state heritage bodies. These were intended to facilitate better decision-making in development-driven archaeological projects, and to provide an interface between archaeologists. However the effectiveness of such frameworks is limited by a number of constraints. These include ‘internal’ boundaries created by historic environment professionals: chronological borders; professional borders; disciplinary borders; and borders limiting access and regulating control. There are also boundaries created by others, which include institutional and resourcing constraints as well as the geographical limits of modern administrative boundaries. This paper discusses these issues through the prism of the border region between England and Wales, a borderland zone with long histories of conflict and co-operation. Some suggestions are offered for future changes.

KEYWORDS:

• Research frameworks
• heritage management
• borders
• archaeology
• England
• wales

Acknowledgments

Some of the ideas in this paper have been discussed with colleagues, in particular Gary Duckers, Ian Grant, Chris Martin, Mike Nevell, Diane Scherzler, Frank Siegmund, Roger White and Andy Wigley. Thoughts were also presented at meetings in Göttingen, Bern and Cardiff, and comments from delegates there have also been incorporated. The author is also grateful to Howard Williams for support and suggestions. Any errors or omissions are entirely the author’s responsibility.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Aitchison, “Global Financial Crisis”; Allen, “Legal Principles,” 240–46; Belford, “Historical Archaeology,” 27–32; and Belford, “Some More Equal,” 27–32.

2. This paper focusses mainly on England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland are discussed where relevant but are generally better served across and between administrations than England and Wales.

3. Hawkes and Piggott, A Survey and Policy; and Olivier, Frameworks for Our Past.

4. English Heritage, Exploring Our Past; Olivier, Frameworks for Our Past; and Tait, Review of Research Frameworks.

5. Olivier, Frameworks for Our Past.

6. Glazebrook, “Research and Archaeology,” 1; Brown and Glazebrook, “Research and Archaeology,” 2; and Medlycott, “Research and Archaeology Revisited.”

7. Cooper, The Archaeology of the East Midlands; and Brennand, The Archaeology of North West England; and Watt, The Archaeology of the West Midlands.

8. Tait, Review of Research Frameworks, 68–87.

9. White, “Towards a Strategy.”

10. Williams, ”Archaeology in Northern Ireland,” 14; and RIA, Archaeology 2025, 17–22.

11. Mann, ”Developing Regional Research Frameworks,” 9.

12. Gilmour and Riordan, ”Enhancing Understanding,” 5–6.

13. Murray, ”Scottish Burgh Survey,” 2–5; Rains and Hall, Excavations in St Andrews, 10–19; and Bowler, Perth: The Archaeology and Development, 7–15.

14. Dalwood, ”Small Towns in Worcestershire,” 216–18; Thomas, ”Mapping the Towns,” 68–74; and Belford, ”Some More Equal,” 30–35.

15. Fairclough, Historic Landscape Characterisation; and Aldred and Fairclough, Historic Landscape Characterisation.

16. Darvill, ‘”Research Frameworks for World Heritage Sites,” 438–42.

17. Perring, Town and Country in England; Bayley, Crossley and Ponting, Metals and Metalworking; and Ransley et al., People and the Sea.

18. James and Millet, Britons and Romans; Blinkhorn and Milner, Developing a Mesolithic Research and Conservation Framework; Blinkhorn and Milner, Developing a Mesolithic Research and Conservation Framework.

19. Christie and Stamper, Medieval Rural Settlement.

20. Bradley, ”Bridging Two Cultures,” 9–11; Fulford, ”Impact of Commercial Archaeology,” 34–49; and Fulford and Holbrook, ”Contribution of Commercial Archaeology,” 329–38.

21. Southport Group, Planning-led Investigation; and Tait, Review of Research Frameworks.

22. Marvell, ”Wales,” 10.

23. See note 5 above.

24. Stefánsdóttir, ”Development-led Archaeology in Europe.”

25. Woolf, ”Deaf and Dumb,” 13–15.

26. Lieberman, ”Medieval Marches,” 1361–69.

27. Stanford, The Archaeology of the Welsh Marches, 35–47.

28. Fox, Offa’s Dyke; and Ray and Bapty, Offa’s Dyke.

29. Fox, The Personality of Britain; and Mullin, A Landscape of Borders.

30. Dark, End of the Roman Empire, 150–192; and White, Britannia Prima, 195–207.

31. Davies, Lordship and Society; and Stanford, The Archaeology of the Welsh Marches, 167–203.

32. Davies, Lordship and Society.

33. Belford, ”Politics and Heritage,” 2–7.

34. Ibid., 7–9.

35. Mullin, A Landscape of Borders.

36. Pannett, “Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age,” 16.

37. Walker et al., “Palaeolithic and Mesolithic,” 10.

38. Ibid., 7.

39. Myers, “North West Regional Research Framework,” 6.

40. Britnell and Silvester, “Hillforts and Defended Enclosures.”

41. See note 35 above.

42. Guilbert, Hillforts in Wales; and Ritchie, Iron Age Settlement in Wales.

43. Davies, Romano British, 2–4.

44. Esmonde-Cleary, Romano-British Period; and Ray, Romano-British Period, 2.

45. Cotton, Herefordshire, 1.

46. Stephenson, Medieval Powys, 37–52.

47. Webster, South-West England.

48. Brennand, The Archaeology of North West England; Greig, Neolithic and Bronze Age; Pearson, Later Prehistory; and Pearson, Early Post-Medieval.

49. Caseldine, “Palaeoenvironments.”

50. Barter, Historic Buildings.

51. See note 25 above.

52. Deacon, Roman Coins, 184.

53. Bolton, Portable Antiquities Scheme, 2–3.

54. Daubney, ‘Floating Culture’; Hardy, ‘Analysis of Open-Source Data’.

55. Hardy, ‘Analysis of Open-Source Data’.

56. Aitchison and Edwards, Profiling the Profession, 47.

57. See note 12 above.

58. Grove and Croft, South West England.

59. Martin Ramos, ”Review.”

60. Cusick, ”Creolization,” 48–52; and Mullin, ”Borders and Borderlands,” 100–02.

61. Lightfoot and Martinez, ”Frontiers and Boundaries,” 475–82; Naum, ”Re-Emerging Frontiers,” 118–25; and Ylimaunu et al., ”Borderlands as Spaces,” 250–60.

62. Newman, ”Borders and Bordering,” 173–8; Radu, ”Temporalizing,” 422–28; Rumford, ”Theorizing Borders,” 160–62.

63. Czajlik et al., Researching Archaeological Landscapes.

64. Gale, Later Prehistoric, 1.

65. See note 10 above.

66. Mike Nevell, pers. comm.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Paul Belford

Dr Paul Belford FSA MCIfA is the Director of the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust. He is an archaeologist with diverse interests in late prehistoric, early mediaeval and post-medieval archaeology; heritage policy and practice; and public engagement with the historic environment. Dr Belford is also a Trustee of the Black Country Living Museum, and served as a Board Member of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists from 2014-2020.