SUMMER 2003 NEWSLETTER

Editor: Peter Pickering, Assistant Secretary of SCOLA
3 Westbury Road London N12 7NY
020-8445 2807. e-mail: pe.pickering@virgin.net

The annual SCOLA Newsletter is intended to keep members in touch with what we are doing and the problems we are addressing. The Committee is very grateful for members' continuing support. Several consultants and contractors have joined in recent months; now we need more local societies and London boroughs and, of course, individuals who want to help in our work. Do what you can to win them. Our finances are reasonably healthy; what SCOLA needs is a breadth of membership that will make it truly representative of archaeology in Greater London.

You will find a lot in this newsletter about consultations by the Greater London Authority and by central Government, and about initiatives by English Heritage and the Museum of London. You will also find articles about Merton Priory, Time Team's Big Dig, and the latest Birkbeck Training Excavation. We hope you will find all these interesting and informative. Please look out later in the year for publicity on the SCOLA Archaeological Award.

In January we bade farewell to Martin Millett, now the Laurence Professor of Classical Archaeology at Cambridge, and welcomed Ian Longworth, lately Keeper of the Department of Prehistoric and Romano-British Antiquities at the British Museum, as our Chairman. He has written for the Newsletter a heartfelt note about the Museum, which deserves the support of us all.

The revised constitution adopted at the Annual General Meeting in January has received the necessary approval from the Charity Commissioners. 2004 will therefore be the first year in which we do not have to rush the AGM in so soon after the end of the year to which it relates. We expect it will be held on a convenient date in March. We also hope SCOLA will be strengthened by a closer association with the Essex and Kent county societies, and perhaps with the Mid-Anglia and South-East CBA groups.

CHANGES IN LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT

SCOLA members will be aware that the Government is proposing a raft of changes to the planning system, and that these changes are not proceeding as fast as many expected (or perhaps rather, feared). The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in 2002 and passed through an accelerated and far from thorough Committee Stage in January this year, but has since then been becalmed. It is understood that it will go back into Committee in September, and that Ministers hope it will receive Royal Assent in March 2004. Although the features of the original White Paper that caused us most concern did not appear in the Bill, the re-introduced ones may provide for Business Planning Zones and Urban Development Corporations; and if so there is a danger that some of the protections for the heritage and for archaeology that some perceive as impediments to economic development may be watered down. Vigilance is necessary.

The revision to PPGs 15 and 16, confidently expected for the past year, has also stalled. The Government decided to have a comprehensive look at the system of designating ancient monuments, listed buildings, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, World Heritage Sites and conservation areas, and how the land-use planning system protects the historic environment. A consultation document appeared in July and the consultation period will close at the end of October. Only after decisions have been taken on that will the consultation begin (early next year) on a draft Planning Policy Statement 15 to replace the existing PPGs. At the same time the Government is reviewing the scope for integrating the present array of planning controls into a single consent regime, and standardising the existing administrative procedures relating to applications for planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent.

So there will be a lot for SCOLA to keep a watch over during the coming year. Updating the present regimes is certainly sensible, and some streamlining may be desirable, but there is a real danger that necessary controls, and proper involvement of the public and experts outside local planning authorities, will be discarded in a rush to remove barriers to development.

Another, related, consultation exercise is on the future of the Historic Environment Records (alias Sites and Monuments Records — SMR); this exercise is an opportunity for all of us to let the Government know how useful we find these and how important it is for there to be proper resources to develop them.

THE GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY

1. London Plan

SCOLA has been involved over the past year in commenting on the Draft London Plan produced by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, in June 2002. We made a number of representations designed to strengthen what it said about archaeology, and were the only organisation with so precise a focus, since English Heritage were dealing with the historic environment as a whole, and criticising in particular the Mayor's policies on tall buildings and on historic views.

We pressed for a number of changes: we sought a requirement to recognise and mitigate the consequence for the archaeological resource of aggregate extraction, and to record and in some cases preserve archaeologically and historically important relics of past industry when contaminated land is brought back into beneficial use. We also sought a provision that in reviewing their Unitary Development Plans boroughs should 'identify features of the historic environment and make them accessible to the public at large'.

Most importantly, we pressed for a general provision like that which the Draft Plan had for the 'Blue Ribbon Network' (that is, London's waterways and waterspaces and the land alongside them). We suggested 'Boroughs in conjunction with English Heritage should identify, protect and display archaeological remains and where these cannot be protected in situ consider how best to allow for their excavation and recording, and for publication of the results', with at the end 'The Mayor will support the case for greater resources for the Boroughs and English Heritage to perform these functions.'

From March 2003 to late April the Draft Plan was subject to an Examination-in-Public. The Inspectors who took it received a large number of submissions, including one from SCOLA expressing concern that the Draft Plan failed to recognise the importance of archaeology, not only in itself but also as an essential element contributing to both Londoners' and visitors' total experience of London. The procedure was less adversarial than a traditional Public Inquiry, but was searching and thorough. The Inspectors presided over round table discussions of all the significant aspects of the Plan. SCOLA did not succeed in getting a place at the table, but points about archaeology were made by others, including the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies, and the Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group.

The Panel Report appeared at the end of July. We are gratified that among its recommendations is

The Mayor, in partnership with English Heritage, the Museum of London and Boroughs, will support the identification, protection, interpretation and presentation of London's archaeological resources. Boroughs in conjunction with English Heritage and the Museum of London should include appropriate policies in their UDPs for protecting scheduled ancient monuments and archaeological assets within their area, in accordance with Government guidance in PPG16.

We now wait to see whether Mr Livingstone will accept this recommendation. There is no requirement that he should, but there have been encouraging signs.

It will be for the boroughs to include the appropriate policies in their Unitary Development Plans (or whatever succeeds them when the new Planning Bill, for which see above, becomes law.) Local Archaeological Societies should ensure that they are aware of the process of drawing up plans in their boroughs, and influence their Councils to give archaeology its rightful place.

2 The Cultural Strategy

The draft cultural strategy appeared at the end of May. It is open for comment until 15th September. Despite the presence of someone from the Museum of London on the Mayor's Cultural Strategy Group, and the encouraging words of Baroness Hamwee to our PPG16 conference last year, the draft is silent on archaeology, and very reticent on the heritage generally. There are hints that the Mayor's Cultural Adviser, Lola Young, is aware of this weakness, and will be open to representations. SCOLA will make them forcefully. It is very disappointing that the Mayor seems to have a blind spot for archaeology.

LONDON ARCHAEOLOGICAL FORUM
by Hedley Swain

Our last two newsletters have described the replacement of the liaison committees and the Local Societies Meeting, which had been suffering declining attendances, by the London Archaeological Forum (LAF). LAF has been designed as a thrice-yearly discussion forum for the whole London archaeological community. It is attended be representatives of local societies, local authorities, museums, archaeological contractors, universities and English Heritage.

This innovation has proved successful, and it has been gratifying to find that the journey to the venue (the Museum of London's London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC) near Old Street) has not been a deterrent. Meetings normally include written and spoken reports on recent fieldwork in Greater London, items of general interest relating to archaeology in London and special items for discussion. Recent meetings have included a presentation from the All Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group and a discussion on the role of local archaeological societies in London.

Three meetings are held per year, in the early evening. Further details can be obtained from the Forum secretary Laura Schaaf on 020 7410 2272. The next meeting will be in September.

A RESEARCH FRAMEWORK FOR LONDON ARCHAEOLOGY
by Hedley Swain

Long anticipated, and perhaps long overdue, this new publication was launched at the Greater London Authorities headquarters on 29th July. Appropriately, speeches were made by Rupert Hambro, chair of the Museum of London's board of governors, and Simon Thurley, Chief Executive of English Heritage and previous Director of the Museum. English Heritage has been encouraging and financially supporting the creation of regional research frameworks throughout the country, and it was under Simon's guidance that the London research framework was developed, with much consultation, at the Museum.

The 120 page document seeks to identify the major research themes for London archaeology in the next few years; as such it should act as an essential working tool for all London's archaeologists, and also hopefully one that will quickly become redundant and need replacing as archaeological research is progressed and new questions pose themselves. The research framework follows the publication of the three archive gazetteers that summarise the holdings at the Museum's London Archaeological Archive and R. [There is some text which has been corrupted here] universities, local societies, museums and organisations. They can also be obtained from MoLAS at £4.95 per copy.

GLAAS — PLANS FOR THE FUTURE
by Rob Whytehead

The Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) are currently preparing the first stage of a bid, in conjunction with the Museum of London, to enhance the Greater London Sites and Monuments Records (GLSMR) and the Museum datasets, so as to present them in an inclusive and accessible way to a broad public. Called 'London Past Places', we envisage people looking up where they live, or work, or go to school, to find out what it was like in the past.

We would hope to include local descriptions of what people imagine their area was like. We could then present the 'official' data from the SMR alongside the local archaeological society's description of their area, and also, say, that of local schoolchildren as the result of a school project. Such a resource, particularly delivered over the internet, could be to an extent interactive, and certainly regularly updated.

The project would deliver educational tools for teachers, resource packs and the like. It would provide clear descriptions of archaeological periods, site and artefact types. It would enable access to objects in the Museum's collections, and encourage direct use of the LAARC and the SMR.

At this stage we are seeking an initial 'Audience Development Plan' funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund, to establish the nature and [Some text has been corrupted] and that this information is used to help plan the sustainable communities that the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking. The three English Heritage Regional Offices that cover the Thames Gateway area are sponsoring a rapid characterisation of the historic environment which is intended to inform and inspire in-depth studies within it. The hope is that these will be produced before the newly announced Urban Development Corporation for East London starts next spring.

HERITAGE LINK

SCOLA is associated with this new organisation, which was launched in December. It is an umbrella group formed by non-governmental organisations in the heritage sector. Its fortnightly e-mailed newsletter is a very good source of the latest news on what is happening in the heritage sector broadly defined.It also holds occasional sandwich lunches, in different regions, which are very useful for networking.

THE ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY ARCHAEOLOGY GROUP (APPAG)

The APPAG report appeared in January under the title 'The Current State of Archaeology in the United Kingdom'. It contained 48 recommendations, ten of which were selected as 'Key Recommendations'. SCOLA had made contact with all London MPs and encouraged them to join the group and support its recommendations; and in particular we pressed Mr Charles Clarke, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, to boost the teaching of archaeology in schools. The Group themselves are believed to have as their own first priority the need for a single non-governmental organisation to lobby for archaeology; when Parliament resumes in the autumn we expect to see them take this and other recommendations forward. We also expect the work of the Group to inform debate, especially in the House of Lords, on legislation, including the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Richard Allen, the Liberal Democrat member of the Group, has already managed to get his Private Member's 'Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill' through the House of Commons; it is a matter of regret that Mr Allen does not intend to stand for Parliament at the next election.

TIME TEAM BIG DIG in LONDON
by Vanessa Bunton

Sometime in early March Time Team started advertising at the end of their regular Sunday afternoon programmes that they were running a public archaeology exercise to have people around the country excavate 10,000 test pits in their back yards. In response to that the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service and the Museum of London got together and requested that they oversee and support the event in the Greater London area.

The final number of test pits carried out in London, under the guidelines and after SMR checks, was 40. To get to this stage was not without some difficulties for participants, and indeed more people might have enrolled if the date of closure for enrolment had been well publicised. Many of these participants attended a briefing day at the London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre on 7th June. The purpose of this was to introduce the participants to further research options, show them the sorts of objects they could expect to uncover, and let them know how to treat the objects as the first phase of post excavation processing. In addition, participants were shown how archaeological material is preserved for the future and how the information from their excavations will be integrated into the databases and collections for all of London. This also gave participants an opportunity to ask questions before they excavated.

There were a few excavations run over the week preceding the 28th/29th of June and two of these were in London. Both had film crews present and archaeologists on hand to identify objects and were televised as part of the run of programmes in the lead-up to the weekend event. There were also several small, locally run, community events based around school groups or societies. Added to this Birkbeck College graciously opened its doors to allow people who were unable to excavate in their own backyards, or wanted full professional support throughout their experience, on to their training excavation site in Bellingham.

The recording method was through a downloadable file from the Channel 4 website that contained instructions and context sheets. This, however, was the second hiccup as many people had difficulty in downloading the sheets and we thank all of those advisers who gave away their copies or obtained photocopies to allow people to continue. The sheets contained a small gridded box for planning, a limited munsell colour chart, tick boxes for finds and inclusions and space for descriptions. There was also a sheet to draw sections as part of the kit. For ease of recording for those who had not excavated previously Time Team opted for 10 cm spit recording as a context, which meant that 6 context sheets would be needed to achieve the set depth of 0.6m to complete the trench.

Over the weekend of the 28th/29th a network of advisers visited participants. The advisers came from backgrounds ranging from full-time professionals in English Heritage and the Museum of London, through Commercial Archaeologists and members of Local Archaeological Societies. They gave advice on excavating and filling out the forms, with a few getting very involved and helping to get through the sun-baked London Clay. Many of the participants have since expressed their appreciation of the cheerful and helpful visits that they received, especially in boosting confidence that they were tackling the task in the right way.

A small group of test pits in West London were visited on Sunday 29th by Jane Sidell and a camera crew to catch the general feeling of the event and we look forward to seeing that televised near Christmas.

To round off the experience a debrief was held over National Archaeology Days, where participants were invited to bring in their artefacts for identification and their reports if they would like help with them. Many did come in, with a few more due to visit in early September. The most overwhelming aspect for those identifying the objects was the sheer volume of material that was collected in a 1x1x0.6m test pit. Of interest though was the variety of material with everything from flint tools to 20th century toys appearing. The participants were impressed to find that what they thought was a stone was indeed a prehistoric tool, that a spot of green glaze on an otherwise unremarkable pottery sherd dated it to the medieval period, and that a piece of window glass might be part of a 17th century glasshouse, or a rusty metal box a 19th century deed box. This experience has helped to flesh out the story of the location they excavated and has aided greatly in report writing.

While on-hand and with support the participants filled out SMR forms to be added to the database and almost all have agreed to deposit their material with the LAARC to allow it to be studied, either individually or as part of the collection in the future.

There was a wide range of people represented who are currently outside the usual archaeological communities and it is hoped that from this event more will become actively involved in different ways. Many found new ways to become interested in their neighbourhood and discovered a great deal about their local area through their research. It may be that those children who participated, either with their parents or through schools are the future champions for archaeology.

LONDON HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT FORUM (LHEF)
by Mike Hammerson

We reported in the last Newsletter that English Heritage, under its new Chief Executive Simon Thurley, proposed an initiative to counter the devaluation and denigration of our historic environment being put forward by those, too often in positions of influence, who argue that conservation is an obstacle to economic renewal, and that those of us who promote it are 'nimbys' and against new development. It formed a series of Historic Environment Forums, and SCOLA was asked to sit on the London group, alongside the Museum of London, the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies, the Historic Royal Palaces, Royal Parks Agency, Association of London Government, the National Trust, London Tourist Board, the Greater London Authority, and the Historic Gardens Trust. (Disappointingly, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) declined to join).

The group's primary objective was to promote understanding and appreciation of London's historic environment, to demonstrate its vital social, economic and tourism role, and to focus the interest of Londoners — English Heritage's 2000 MORI poll on what the historic environment means to the public showed that the great majority believe it to be important to them and their children; support at grass-roots level is vital if local and national policy is to be influenced. The voluntary sector, represented by SCOLA and the London Forum, are regarded by English Heritage as particularly useful in putting over this message because of their large grass-roots constituency.

The immediate aims were

The bulk of the Forum's work so far has focussed on formulating and refining the consultants' brief for this report, currently titled Valuing London's Historic Environment. This was aimed at:

Our view was that it must not fall into the trap, which we so often do, of 'preaching to the converted.' It must be aimed at the sceptics and those who are hostile or who have yet to make up their mind, and must anticipate the stereotyped criticisms, misconceptions and false assumptions which we encounter all the time — 'living in the past', 'wanting to preserve everything,' 'standing in the way of progress', 'hindering good modern architecture', 'just preserve a few of the best examples', 'obsession with conservation', 'too many listed buildings', and all the other mindless statements born of ignorance or indifference.

Following a call for tenders and subsequent interviews, the well-known planning consultants Lichfields have been appointed to produce the report, which is currently scheduled to be completed by November 2003. Their research will include interviewing the members of the LHEF. The brief is detailed and complex, and £50,000 has been allocated for it (exclusive of publication costs.) English Heritage are contributing £20,000, and LHEF members are also contributing whatever they can, according to their ability — which, in SCOLA's case, is unfortunately only a token amount — £300; however, we felt it important to contribute what we could to this initiative, which is fully within SCOLA's remit of promoting the recognition and proper management of London's historic environment.

Any members, therefore, who feel as strongly as we do that this report will be essential to our ability to aggressively promote London's Historic Environment against its all-too-many detractors, are very welcome to send whatever contributions they wish — on the basis that 'every mickle maks a muckle', if every member sent £10, for example, it would result in a valuable further £1,000 towards the project, and would greatly enhance the standing of SCOLA — and, importantly, its membership of individual Londoners, the people whose interest the report is particularly anxious to demonstrate.

SCOLA's modest subscriptions have not been increased since we were founded in 1993 — or perhaps we would be in a position to donate more! — and this would be a powerful and practical way for members to be able to demonstrate their commitment to, and interest in, the project. Please send any contributions to the Treasurer, 4 Bramalea Close, London N6 4QD; cheques should be made payable to English Heritage.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM
by Ian Longworth

2003 is, or should have been, an important year for London, for it marks the 250th anniversary of the founding of the British Museum. The Museum began life in 'a fine but decaying mansion', Montague House, in what was then semi-rural Bloomsbury. This home soon proved inadequate and was demolished making way for the present building whose construction began in 1823 to a design by Sir Robert Smirke. This building too was to see much expansion and modification over the years with the covering of the inner courtyard only the latest in these developments. One of only a small handful of museums to offer a world view, it was founded as a museum of universal knowledge embracing the wonders of the natural world alongside those of human achievements both written and in three dimensional form.

It was inevitable with the increasing pace of new discovery and the ever expanding boundaries of scholarship that even this accommodation would one day become too cramped. First the natural history collections were transferred to South Kensington to be housed in a new purpose-built museum designed by Alfred Waterhouse opened in 1881. More recently, the British Library has moved into its new library building at St Pancras, designed by Colin St John Wilson. These have established separate and distinct institutions each pre-eminent in its own right. Yet what remains at Bloomsbury is still breathtaking.

The importance of the British Museum lies in the opportunity it provides to see the products of human endeavour through time and on a world scale, much of course the result of fieldwork and excavation. It is a showcase not only of historical events but also of artistic achievement and diversity of cultural expression. If one enters with the conviction that life has become more complex and ever more difficult to comprehend then one is quickly struck by the fact that some things have never been bettered — the symmetrical beauty of a ripple-flaked flint knife from Pre-Dynastic Egypt or the great Iron Age torque from Snettisham in Norfolk — a challenge to the craftsmanship of every goldsmith since.

The British Museum is one of the outstanding jewels in the cultural crown of London. Attracting more than six million visitors a year it offers the increasingly diverse population of the capital as well as visitors from farther afield the opportunity to compare aspects of their own cultures with those of others, not least those from Britain. To gain that experience in any other way would entail extensive travel, an expense few could realistically afford. Yet the danger is that the British Museum can be taken for granted. From its beginnings it has remained a free museum and has doggedly resisted all political pressures to charge for admission to see a collection which already belongs to the nation. It is now paying a heavy price. With insufficient funds to keep all its galleries open, forced to reduce its staff numbers and able to set aside only a derisory sum for acquisitions, the museum is threatened with becoming unable to sustain even its basic ongoing functions. As a national museum it derives its core funding from the government but this is now blatantly insufficient.

We study and practise archaeology in order to gain a better understanding of the past. Museums in turn provide the opportunity for the general public to see some of the more tangible products of those endeavours. Here one is talking not just of the visitors of today but of the need to ensure that future generations can still share in that experience. Let us hope that this and future governments do not lose sight of that duty and the obligation to fulfil it.

MoLAS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES SERIES 6 and 9
by Reviewed by Dennis Turner

Julian Ayre and Robin Wroe-Brown 2003 The London Millennium Bridge (MoLAS Archaeological Studies Series 6). 101 plus xii A4 pages, 113 figs; bibliography, index. PB. £9.95.

Barney Sloane and Stewart Hoad 2003 Early Modern Industry and Settlement (MoLAS Archaeological Studies Series 9). 91 plus xii A4 pages, 76 figs; bibliography, index. PB. £9.95

The volumes in the MoLAS Archaeological Studies Series fall between those of the MoLAS Monograph Series and the occasional 'popular' publications in price and thickness. A limited number are available for no more than the cost of postage to members of the Surrey Archaeological Society or the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society. They are well produced and attractive with clear and generous illustrations. There has been considerable editorial development since the first in the series in 1999 and the Studies Series volumes are now close to the Monographs in their academic standards. They present a large amount of information in readable English with the aid of (in the main) excellent and well-chosen illustrations.

There is much that is remarkable in the slim volumes under review. Volume 6 presents the results of archaeological work in advance of construction of the Millennium Bridge, the famous wobbly bridge (which, sadly, no longer wobbles). Excavations took place at both ends of the bridge and investigated important medieval waterfronts and associated structures. The site on the north bank had been the subject of partial excavation in 1974-6 (Trig Lane) and an aspect of the report of particular interest to SCOLA is the examination of mitigation strategies and of the impact of earlier attempts at archaeological preservation in situ on the Trig Lane site. The publication of the medieval waterfronts on the southern shore is, I think, the first time such a series has been described from Southwark.

There are one or two caveats to offer. There are numerous references to other sites, as might be expected: the site codes are given for these (a useful practice not always followed rigorously by other contractors) and there are the usual 'Harvard' system references to conventionally published material, but the so-called 'grey' literature of 'lodged' reports is hardly mentioned and the more widely published annual summaries not at all. There is a general reference to the 1998 gazetteer by Thompson et al, but this naturally cannot give information about subsequent changes in publication status. As a result, any reader wishing to delve further will almost certainly have to enquire via the London Archive after visiting the gazetteer. A similar problem exists with specialist material. For example, we are given the results of dendro dating of timbers but there is no information about the uncertainty of the dates (t-figures, estimates for missing sap wood, etc) and there are no references to laboratory report numbers, or similar, in which this information will have been given and by which the dates might have been substantiated. Pottery illustration is in the main restricted to photographs of decorated pieces.

Volume 9 presents 'important new evidence for early modern industry and settlement at two sites in the London Borough of Richmond, revealing the archaeological potential of north Surrey's small towns'. As one of the sites was in Mortlake, the expression 'small town' might be disputed but the potential is just as great. The joint project between archaeologist Barney Sloane and the well-known local historian John Cloak concentrated on a small area in Richmond (29-34 George Street, close to the church of St Mary Magdalene) and has demonstrated the way in which local documentation and archaeology can be woven together to produce a really detailed account. This project was completed some years ago and publication at long last is very welcome — both for its intrinsic interest and for its value as an exemplar of what can be achieved. Richmond is particularly rich in the right kind of documents, but something similar could probably be done for parts, at least, of several one-time villages or town centres in the vicinity of London.

The 'site' in Mortlake was, in fact four separately excavated areas in two contiguous pairs: all are located on the vital narrow strip between Mortlake High Street and the Thames. The publication of the MoLAS sites highlights one of the great drawbacks of the contractor system. Sandwiched between them are two more areas, adjacent to each other and excavated by PCA: it is understood that these are due to be published shortly. These six virtually contiguous areas are, effectively, just parts of a single site but this single site has been excavated by two different contractors over several years and is being published in two separate reports. The MoLAS report provides little evidence that the two contractors had contact with each other at a meaningful level. It is feared that some work will have been duplicated (e.g. historical and other background research) and that it will be left to readers to spot where the evidence from the two groups of sites support or contradict each other. PCA, by publishing second, may have an opportunity to refine or correct the conclusions of MoLAS.

The MoLAS Archaeological Studies Series is a valuable one. The reports are too long for the publishing societies to absorb and the sites have presumably been judged not to justify the full monograph treatment with detailed specialist reports. The pricing policy for the series and the free issue to county society members ensures that the dissemination of the information they contain is relatively free of market forces. It is to be hoped that referencing to 'grey literature' and specialist material can be improved.

MERTON PRIORY — UP-DATE
by Dennis Turner

The granting of outline planning permission for the redevelopment of that part of the priory site lying south of Meretun Way, an area known to the Council of the London Borough of Merton as 'site 2CW', included a proposal for a 'Heritage Centre' based on the remains of the priory chapter house. These have been preserved in a daunting concrete vault next to a subway beneath the highway. The council, in consultation with English Heritage and the developers, Countryside Properties, commissioned the Continuum Group as consultants to undertake a feasibility study.

The York-based Continuum Group are well-known through their work at Jorvik, Whitby Abbey, Coventry cathedral priory and elsewhere. The consultants made extensive local enquiries and reported to the local authority in April. They recommended that a 'small to medium sized' interpretation centre could be viably provided on the site but would require considerable ongoing volunteer involvement in its operation. They recommended the establishment of a charitable trust that was also a company limited by guarantee to spearhead the project and the council is undoubtedly enthusiastic about this aspect of the proposals. At the time of writing (July) two meetings of a steering group have been held. A number of issues remain to be resolved. The Council expect the trust to assume responsibility for the chapter house remains as well as the proposed interpretation centre but the legal, tenurial and physical relationship between the remains, their covering vault and the highway above have still to be clarified. It is also unclear whether the consultant's costings took account of work needed on the chapter house remains as well as of the construction of an interpretation centre.

The suitability of any site likely to be available for the interpretation centre has also yet to be resolved: there are many potential constraints. The Section 106 funds available for the work only amount to 30% of the consultant's costings and will be substantially diminished by moneys earmarked for improving the subway. There will thus be a major requirement for fund-raising.

BIRKBECK TRAINING EXCAVATION
by Harvey Sheldon

The 2003 Birkbeck Training Excavation took place in Bellingham close to the River Pool shortly before its junction with the Ravensbourne. In the midst of housing of the 1930s there is a large tract of open land, a sports ground disused since the demise of the Inner London Education Authority. Nature has reclaimed it, and filled it with wild flowers, insects and birds. There are now plans to return it to use for sports facilities. Through this land was thought to run the Roman road from Lewes to London; indeed Margary's seminal 'Roman Roads in Britain' says 'Then it crossed the Pool River close to the present footbridge from Perry Hill to Broad Mead, Bellingham.'

It was therefore an ideal, and almost idyllic (save for some vandalism) site for the training excavation, carried out by Birkbeck in conjunction with English Heritage, the London Borough of Lewisham and Pre-Construct Archaeology, with assistance from MoLAS. A project for primary schools in the borough was included.

A long trench was dug parallel with the railway line and roughly parallel with the River Pool. No trace of the Roman Road was found, and the conclusion seems unescapable that it did not exist. Indeed, there may well be no solid evidence of the road at all north of the North Downs, and any road from the iron-working area of the Weald may have connected it to river estuaries, for water transport, rather than to London.

A few prehistoric (mesolithic) flints were found, perhaps used by early hunting communities near the river. Moreover, the trench uncovered late Roman features, including a system of ditches perhaps demarcating a trackway or droveway between fields which ran roughly east-west towards the river. There was also late Roman pottery and building material in quantities which suggested that a substantial building lay not too far away. It is reasonable to think that the settlement pattern in the Ravensbourne/Pool valley was like that in other valleys, such as the Cray and the Darenth, and that the apparent absence of Roman settlement is because this area was developed for housing relatively early, and without the benefit of archaeological examination.

LONDON ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRIZE 2004

SCOLA and The London Archaeologist are planning to award a prize of £250 plus a certificate for the best publication relating to archaeology in London that appeared in 2002 or 2003. The publication must be in letterpress or digital form; broadcasts and the like will not be eligible. It must relate to archaeology in the area of Greater London. But those will be the only limitations. There is no restriction on the type of publication that will be eligible — it may be a book, a journal article or the proceedings of a conference. It may be a professional, commercial or amateur publication. Nor is there any restriction on the target audience — scholars, the general public, or children. The judges will be looking for quality and excellence; they will want to know how well the publication succeeds in its aims, whatever those aims may be. Entries will be assessed by a panel of judges appointed by the Executive Committee of the Standing Conference on London Archaeology in conjunction with the Publications Committee of The London Archaeologist.

This award will be formally launched at the end of 2003, and we intend to give it a lot of publicity. We believe it will be good for archaeology, will improve communication to the public, and will raise consciousness of SCOLA and of The London Archaeologist.

This page was last revised . Please report any errors or problems with these pages to the webmaster
For more information about SCOLA email the secretary
Terms & Conditions Copyright © 2007 SCOLA