We are all of course familiar with the fact that, since the introduction of PPG16 in 1990, most excavations are done by commercial firms seeking to ‘mitigate’ the destruction of archaeological sites. The price of allowing the destruction of archaeological sites is that they are ‘preserved’ by the record of their excavation. The result has been an unprecedented growth in archaeology, but also a backlog of information that is locked into reports produced to fulfil planning conditions and which rarely otherwise see the light of day beyond so-called ‘grey literature’. Fortunately, there has been a welcome and increasing trend by some of the larger commercial archaeological units to publish the most significant of these reports. The most illuminating are synthetic reports drawing together sites within a particular landscape, period or site type. These reports, at their best, are revolutionary in bringing a wealth of new data to the subject and casting fresh light onto old topics through new approaches and theories.

This report, jointly publishing the excavations carried out by Gifford archaeologists in the 1990s, clearly seeks to emulate the trend in bringing to a wider audience the results of excavations on two well-known sites in the northern West Midlands linked by an arterial road leading to Carlisle. Sadly, it comes nowhere near the standard set by reports from other archaeological units. This is despite the attempt in both reports to draw together what is known of the sites and make sense of the earlier discoveries in the light of what was found in these excavations. Elements of these discussions demonstrate keen awareness of the differences in methods, approaches and interpretations of past research on these sites and come to sensible (if untestable) conclusions about what was, or was not found by previous excavators. And there’s the rub: so little data is presented both from past excavations and, more importantly, from those being reported on, that the reader is not able to make sense of what was found. How can we as readers understand the structural evidence and phasing of a site without the basic building blocks of information? We are told of houses and back lanes and structures in enclosures and methods of building, such as post-in-trench construction, but since there is not a single plan or section or photo of any structural features in either report it is impossible to understand what is being presented. No doubt all this detail resides in the archive, but if so, we are not told where or how we might access it.

On the evidence presented here this reader was left sadly not much wiser about what exactly had been found at Wilderspool, even though he dug on the site. Plenty is asserted about the life of the settlement (Flavian to late third century as an industrial complex and then a more tenuous existence as an agricultural settlement). There is intense discussion of the crossing of the River Mersey, of the putative fort underneath Warrington and of the preceding Iron Age settlement, although apparently it was not worth producing illustrations of the Iron Age pottery associated with the earliest features on site, nor even trying to find parallels for them. The fortunes of the settlement are concluded to have fluctuated in line with the ebb and flow of military operations in the North, and tied in ultimately with the ‘road north’ of the title, in what reads like a very traditional narrative. Despite the intelligent suggestions for further research and the welcome discussion of the elusive fifth- and sixth-century period, the report leaves one completely frustrated. The problems extend too to the finds report that reads suspiciously as though it was never taken beyond the assessment stage (pace Bill Manning’s discussion of the fine wood-plane found in one building). While there are clearly mitigating circumstances overall (the author of the Wilderspool report emigrated to Australia) this does not excuse the duty that Gifford, as the professional contracting organisation, had to report on the work in such as way as to make the findings intelligible and testable to the public.

Holditch admittedly fares much better. Even though the phase plans are tiny and one still does not get any detail of the sections and plans of features, there is a much stronger attempt at trying to describe and characterise the site. Again, one is left with more questions than answers. What happened to the large courtyard building (? mansio) that it was dismantled so swiftly and replaced with a large timber building? Can you really deduce a brothel from a clay phallus, erotic samian sherds and a back-street location? Indeed, doesn’t the placing of the clay phallus into a post-hole (117) suggest a religious / votive intent rather than a sexual interpretation? Overall, while one can welcome that these sites have been placed into the public domain, one feels that there must be more to mitigation by record than is offered here. To my mind at least this report does not absolve Gifford from their professional duty of reporting the excavations at Wilderspool.