36 C O N T E X T 1 2 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 1 outstanding work coming out of the universities and architectural practices of Mediterranean countries particularly. Much of it has been published in the proceedings of the three international congresses on ‘construction history’ (a term Europeans use as a portmanteau for architectural history, buildings archaeology, engineering history and building conservation), most of which will soon be available on-line.. How do archaeologists contribute to this intellectual ferment? All archaeologists are indoctrinated with the creed of dissemination: the information created by a project, no matter how small or short-lived, must find its way into the public domain. As far as an archaeologist is concerned, the conservation of a building’s fabric is not the sole purpose of a conservation project. The information exposed by it must be recorded and disseminated. We wrestle with this constantly. PPG16 and PPG15 initiated a huge increase in the amount and range of archaeological work in Britain, leading to a proliferation of ‘grey’ literature that we are only now getting to grips with. The archetypal method of dissemination is an article in a learned journal. Those projects not warranting full academic discourse are usually published as short summaries in the annual ‘round-up’ sections of the appropriate journal, some appearing in more than one. Larger and more important projects are often published as monographs. These ‘primary’ publications inform the ‘secondary’ thematic studies produced by the academic and popular publishing houses. The literature is also finding its way into the public domain by way of websites and thematic reviews by academics, professionals and curators.We wait to see whether English Heritage’s OASIS on-line ‘grey literature’ portal will take off, but the idea is a good one. The most basic method of dissemination is the historic environment record (HER), maintained by most counties and some unitary authorities, some of which are now accessible on-line. These hold indexed and searchable copies of all grey literature reports submitted to the local planning authority, whose planning officers and archaeological officers or advisors have well-established protocols for ensuring the reports and associated archives are securely and accessibly deposited. Anecdotal evidence suggests that reports commissioned by conservation officers are not finding their way to HERs, except in a small number of exceptional cases. Curatorial archaeologists adopt the assessment, evaluation, mitigation approach developed to deal with the impact of PPG16.When dealing with historic buildings, they are rarely seduced by external appearances. Sometimes the first two stages are amalgamated, or the last stage will not be necessary, but the principle is well-established: recording the superficial fabric of an historic building is rarely sufficient and is usually intellectually meaningless.. That does not mean that an entire building has to be examined and recorded when only one room or element is affected, but it does mean that such investigations should be predicated on a clearly defined practical or academic objective, usually established through assessment or evaluation. In practice there are two forms of ‘building recording’. One (assessment/ evaluation) provides information to help officers and designers to make decisions and will rarely be sufficient to discharge a condition alone. The other (mitigation) is commissioned as a result of those decisions. They both employ the same techniques, but to different degrees and for quite different purposes. On larger projects both will be required, with some degree of overlap and duplication. Both involve ‘building recording’ but only one – the mitigation survey – purports to be a record as such. Those two types of survey should not be confused with the former RCHME Level 1-4 Specifications, resurrected in English Heritage’s Understanding Historic Buildings, which reflected primarily the perceived importance of the building, not the questions asked of it. The RCHME/EH Specification remains a useful common reference, especially for mitigation surveys (‘preservation by record’, as it is sometimes known), but the types and degrees of recording employed in assessment or evaluation surveys is a matter for the professional judgement of the surveyor and curator. Similarly, one of the most productive strategies applied to the mitigatory stage of building investigations is the building recording ‘watching brief’: intermittent attendance and recording during building works, sometimes over periods of years, with the final report not prepared until all works are complete. This has repercussions for condition discharge, in that the ‘recording’ condition can not be discharged until the affective works are complete. Curatorial archaeologists do not work alone. To assist them in identifying and framing questions and decisions affecting archaeological remains, archaeologists hold regular conferences – regional, national, international and thematic – to help defining such objectives on individual projects and publish research framework’. There is no reason why such frameworks could not encompass, or be developed for, construction history – which is what we are talking about here. Being involved in an intellectually pointless recording exercise is one thing: having to justify it to the angry owner or client who is paying for it is quite another. What should we do? First, a standing joint committee of the IHBC and IfA would be a good idea (possibly with representatives of the RICS and the RIBA, and learned societies such as the SAHGB and the Construction History Society), charged with coordinating practice and the terminology used to commission it. Those bodies could explain to each other what they wanted a project to achieve, and develop or share methods and terminology. Second, the ALGAO’s 1997 Green Guide needs revising in the light of PPS5 and 15 years’ experience and issuing to all conservation officers. It explains how building recording can be used to help decision-making in building conservation projects in a way that Understanding Buildings does not. Third, more cross-fertilisation between the IfA and the IHBC generally would be a good idea, preferably by more joint members and joint sessions at each organisation’s conferences.We do not need to re-open the unification debate, but there has to be more dialogue. Fourth, all local planning authorities that do not employ their own in-house curatorial archaeologists should establish robust protocols for the transfer of grey literature reports from conservation officers to archaeological officers and their HERs. Fifth, the profession as a whole has to find a way around the conditiondischarge Catch 22 for building recording watching briefs, and ensure that conservation officers and planning officers are practised in its application. None of the above will add to the workload of conservation officers. It will simply make their work more intellectually rewarding. Michael Heaton is an archaeologist specialising in buildings archaeology in the south west of England.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=