2 Phillips/Bradley
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 134 (2004), 17–51 PHILIPS & BRADLEY: DEVELOPER-FUNDED FIELDWORK | 17 Developer-funded fieldwork in Scotland, 1990–2003: an overview of the prehistoric evidence Tim Phillips* & Richard Bradley* ABSTRACT The paper is in two parts. The first presents a digest of the prehistoric evidence recovered by developer-funded archaeology between 1990 and 2003 and compares it with the results of projects funded by Historic Scotland. The second reflects on the wider significance of this material in relation to past and present research on Scottish prehistory and its implications for the archaeology of Britain and Ireland. PART ONE independent commercial archaeological units have conducted this fieldwork. There have also Tim Phillips been several hundred field surveys undertaken The National Planning Policy Guideline for in advance of afforestation and linear schemes Archaeology and Planning (NPPG5) states: such as road building and pipelines. The Scottish archaeological units have an The primary policy objectives are that they enviable record of publication of their most [archaeological remains] should be preserved important excavations, but the full extent and wherever feasible and that, where this proves not content of this work has never been quantified. to be possible, procedures should be in place to ensure proper recording before destruction, and Because of the requirements of planning subsequent analysis and publication. (Scottish legislation, destruction or damage to the known Office 1994, para 4) body of standing monuments is limited. This report aims to provide an overview of the This document goes on to advise that the planning prehistoric evidence revealed by this work and authorities should, ‘ensure, where appropriate, to consider it in relation to the results of more that the prospective developer arranges for an ‘traditional’ archaeology. archaeological assessment and, if necessary, It is possible to conduct such a survey because a field evaluation’ (para 25). These guidelines of two requirements of the Scottish system. A have ensured that archaeology has become part copy of the report detailing any fieldwork is sent of the planning process, with the developer to the National Monuments Record for Scotland being responsible for funding any necessary (NMRS), part of the Royal Commission on the work. This has been the case for nearly 15 years Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland and has resulted in a large number of watching (RCAHMS), based in Edinburgh, and held in briefs, evaluations and excavations across their library. At a practical level, this means that Scotland. Indeed, the number of contract field all the material can be consulted in one place. projects increased more than threefold between A summary, sometimes with site photographs 1990 and 2000 (Carter 2002, 870). Generally, and plans, is almost always published in an * Dept of Archaeology, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AB 18 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2004 annual report of all the fieldwork carried out This information was entered into a database in a particular year, Discovery and Excavation consisting of two ‘tables’. The first records all in Scotland (DES). This is published within a the development-related fieldwork conducted few months of the project taking place. This between 1990 and 2003, as listed in DES. can be compared to the unsatisfactory situation All these projects have been funded, or part- in England where there is no central repository funded, by commercial developers. They also for the reports. They are held by the local and include major road schemes funded by the regional Sites and Monuments Records and Scottish Office/Executive Roads Directorate Urban Archaeological Databases in nearly 100 but managed through Historic Scotland, and locations spread across the country (Bradley development work funded by local authorities. & Phillips, forthcoming). Annual summaries The projects are listed as ‘prehistoric’, ‘Roman’, ad are published in some counties and regions, ‘medieval’, ‘post-medieval’ (up to 1800), but there is no national published report apart or ‘negative’ for projects where no evidence from a retrospective list: Gazetteer of Archaeo- was found from any of these phases. This logical Investigations in England (BIAB database can be used as a reference tool for 1997–2003). This contains a very brief summary investigators researching other archaeological of the fieldwork and lacks explanatory site plans periods apart from prehistory. The second table contains more detailed information about the and photographs. Full academic publication in prehistoric evidence. Further information is parts of England is also limited or non-existent. given in four fields detailing the prehistoric period (Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, or ‘Prehistoric’ where the exact dating is METHODOLOGY uncertain), a description of the features found, the artefacts recovered and any additional notes. Firstly, the NMRS in Edinburgh was visited by This database is now held by Historic Scotland. Tim Phillips in 2003 as part of Richard Bradley’s AHRB-funded project on British and Irish prehistory. All the reports in its holdings were RESULTS consulted. Any parts that contained evidence of prehistoric activity were photocopied, includ- The results of this review are summarized in ing site plans. Secondly, each volume of DES Table 1. The bulk of the fieldwork consisted between 1990 and 2003 was consulted, which of watching briefs and evaluations, followed identified work and some projects that were by field surveys and excavations. This reflects not represented amongst the reports held in the planning process, where limited exploratory Edinburgh. All developer-related fieldwork work only leads to full-scale excavation if was highlighted, and the archaeological periods particularly important remains appear to be represented in each project. This information present. Very few excavations have produced was checked against unpublished data supplied entirely negative results. Relatively less by Historic Scotland. The fieldwork projects archaeological evidence has been revealed included in the sample were all developer- by the watching briefs and evaluations, yet funded watching briefs, evaluations, excavations this work is important in defining areas with and field surveys. Desk-based assessments were little archaeological material. The amount of not included. The field surveys carried out by the prehistoric evidence compares well with the commercial units relate mainly to afforestation, evidence from the medieval period. Indeed, and linear projects. These were among the prehistory is well represented amongst the material collected. targeted excavations, giving the highest number PHILIPS & BRADLEY: DEVELOPER-FUNDED FIELDWORK | 19 in the sample. The amount of evidence that is parts of the Firth of Forth (illus 2). Some of these recognizably ‘Roman’ is very low. Many sites relate to afforestation in what are marginal areas occupied during the earlier first millennium ad today. Thus, they are in different zones from the may be without recognizable ‘Roman’ artefacts. main areas of development that have involved The highest values are represented by the post- excavation. To some extent this complements medieval evidence. the work represented by illus 1, but the actual The location of fieldwork projects involving methodology is different, for the field surveys actual intervention (watching briefs, evaluations reveal signs of past human activity that are and excavations) shows a distinctive pattern visible on the surface. The major gaps in this (illus 1). The major cities and towns of work are in the south-eastern Scottish Borders, Scotland are plainly visible, as is the line Fife, Angus and the north-east. Also under- of the M74 motorway in the south-west. It represented are areas inland from the west coast must be stressed that this is not a distribution of Argyll and Highland, the interior of northern map of archaeological finds but shows where Sutherland and Caithness, and much of Dumfries development has taken place. It should also be & Galloway. In the Northern and Western Isles, noted that a watching brief, an evaluation and, there have been many coastal surveys related to in some cases, a larger excavation may all have the threat of erosion to archaeological features, taken place on the same site, each generating but these have been funded by Historic Scotland a separate event record. Much of the work has rather than developers. This distribution map can been in urban areas, especially watching briefs be compared to the locations of the RCAHMS and evaluations, concentrated through the surveys conducted between 1987 and 2002 central belt from Glasgow to Edinburgh and (Stevenson 2002, fig 3). In southern Scotland the along the southern coast of the Firth of Forth. Royal Commission Surveys have been carried Other concentrations are along the Ayrshire out in large parts of Dumfries & Galloway and coast, through Fife and Angus, and along the in smaller areas of the Scottish Borders Council southern shore of the Moray Firth. The major area. In central and eastern Scotland, large areas gaps are the Northern and Western Isles, the have been surveyed to the south and east of west coast, much of the Highland Council area, Edinburgh, across Perth & Kinross and along the Grampian Mountains, the interior of south- Strathdon. Smaller areas of the north-east and west Scotland and, to a lesser extent, inland Highland have