The archaeologist is in an unenviable position every time he or she plans a field project, since archaeological fieldwork destroys the subject of its study. This is true of a field survey almost as much as it is of an excavation, unless artefacts are examined where found on the ground and left in place. Almost all people working on sites previously investigated by an earlier generation of archaeologists have wished at some time that their predecessors had taken up some other profession. Those involved in an archaeological project therefore have a responsibility not only to carry out their stated aims but also to integrate their work into that of their predecessors and to ensure that their methods of recovery, analysis and recording are going to produce a usable archive for future workers. In some parts of the British Isles, for example, it is estimated that modern development, mineral extraction and agricultural practices will have brought field archaeology to an end within a few decades. If this should prove to be the case, then those lucky enough to be involved in fieldwork now will be creating the only research materials available to their successors. It has been suggested that the great archaeological discoveries of the future will be made in the archive, not in the field.

Nevertheless, the most important duty of any pottery researcher is to ensure that the recovery, analysis and recording of the pottery from a project is carried out smoothly and efficiently and within previously agreed limits of time and money. The practical steps should be: (1) to estimate the likely quantity of pottery which might be recovered during the project; (2) to read and absorb previous work in the study area and, where possible, to build upon this work; (3) to be aware of the best practice in the field and to adopt it, unless compelling arguments can be made for not doing so and (4) to produce and cost a strategy for allowing the estimated volume of pottery to be dealt with as part of an overall research design for the project (Fulford and Peacock 1984). In recent years, there has been a welcome trend to view sites not as free-standing entities in their own right, but as part of a regional or national pattern. This approach places greater emphasis than before on comparisons between assemblages and between sites, which in turn highlights the need for consistency in both terminology and methods. We shall return to this aspect later in the chapter.