The Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group Survey
I have been asked by the above group to participate in a region-based English-Heritage-funded survey of later prehistoric pottery assemblages held in museums, active or part-time units, and private collections. My responsibility is to ensure as comprehensive coverage of Kent collections as possible.
It should be stressed from the outset that this survey is totally apolitical in intention; ongoing or intended, private or unit-based studies or synthetic research programs will not be affected.
The intention is to provide an up-to-date bibliography of all previously published material and, particularly, a gazetteer of finds and assemblages of later prehistoric pottery (i.e. c.1000 BC-50 AD). The resulting database and an assessment of it will be published, as it is felt that it would be of particular interest to funding bodies, curators, researchers, university lecturers, and students.
Why is this being done?
It is a practical approach to a difficult problem. Nineteenth century, earlier twentieth century, and sometimes later, published or unpublished, assemblages have quite often been moved from one place to another, or are now stored differently from the original published location. Loss of archival linkage is a consequence. In addition, the quantity of material recovered in the last 2-3 decades has increased dramatically, to such an extent that much of it lies dormant and its academic contribution unused. To quote from the original proposal:
'We do not know how many collections of later prehistoric pottery there are in the country or how large they are, where they are located, and in what curated condition they currently exist. If any of these or any other topics for research into later prehistoric pottery are to be judged or attempted, it is imperative that we are fully cognizant of that resource base. We feel that English Heritage and other funding bodies need this information in order to provide a baseline from which to judge future excavation proposals, or museum and laboratory projects, whether these are proposed by individuals, groups such as ours, universities, or units.'
Again: "Only with the presence of an accessible record of basic information... can decisions about future research be made wisely." This point applies as much to those who find or excavate material or who house private collections, as it does to researchers. Each assemblage, whether excavated or recovered during field-walking, private construction work, gardening, or simply passed on from parents to children, represents a contribution to regional or national studies - but how best to ensure that its relative academic value is not wasted? Answering this question will be greatly facilitated by the production of an available database and its conclusions; mutual benefit is the automatic by-product of surveys such as these.
This letter is aimed at any group or body who feels they have information to share. The survey will last from April to November 1996; most museums and active units will be contacted during March to ensure that an early start is made. However, Kent is a large county, and this letter is particularly aimed at established or recently formed active local groups, or individuals who hold or know of private collections. Any group or individual who feels they have information to share will be personally visited and a proforma completed of the material they hold. If anyone would like to know more about this survey, contribute, or kindly advise me of anyone who might be interested in supplying information, I would be grateful if they could contact me as early as possible.
Nigel Macpherson-Grant.