1.1 Post-excavation policy

Since the 1970s the organisation of post-excavation work in Britain has undergone changes. The original ideal for research projects was to analyse and publish all excavation records and finds. With the advent of rescue excavations the amount of records grew, and analysis and publication fell further and further behind. Choices had to be made. Firstly a working party of archaeologists set up by the government recommended analysing all records and justifying interpretation in an archive report, followed by a summarised publication (DoE, Frere 1975).

Further growth of the record backlog resulted in a more selective approach distinguishing between primary and secondary research questions, leaving the rest of records in the site archive (Cunliffe 1983).

During the early 1990s, based on the Cunliffe report, English Heritage, the body now responsible for 'The Heritage' above and below ground, issued new guidelines for the management of archaeological projects (MAP1 1989, MAP2 1991). Whereas previously the emphasis was on rescuing as much as possible archaeology, a written project design now balances funding with the production of records, analysis and publication. Evaluation and assessments at several stages throughout the project decide how many of the collected finds and samples should be processed further. Since then, however, much of the record backlog of the 1980s has been written up in joint publications with the help of English Heritage funding.

After the integration of Archaeological Contract Services into the planning process of new site developments (PPG16), the aim is to excavate as little as possible and leave the important archaeology in the ground. The analytical report has become a part of the funding application, stating to state the academic potential, research questions, leading to the results of analysis, and eventually to publish the results.

However, apart from the managerial guidance, MAP2 does not elaborate on methods as to how site records should be analysed and structured before publication, emphasising neither the need for explicit, coherent nor consistent application. As the majority of British sites consists of shallow strata there was a tendency to allow little time for stratigraphic analysis, to be completed preferably already on site, leaving only the dating, finds and sample analysis as major post-excavation tasks. Deep and complicated stratigraphy, however, relies heavily on stratigraphic relationships, and a systematic step-by-step procedure of interpretation (not jumping to conclusions), to keep track of the chronological development. This manual intends to fill the gap.