AUTHORSHIP IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND FROM THE FIRST WORLD WAR TO VOLUME 150: A PERSPECTIVE ON SCOTTISH HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY

The evolution of the pattern of authorship of articles in Proc Soc Antiq Scot between volumes 51 and 150 is examined. Various trends are charted across a series of approximately decadal time-segments, including increasing professionalization, the proportional rise of female authorship through time, variations in the geographical distribution of authors in and beyond Scotland, innovations in the scope of reporting and discourse, the balance between archaeological and other contributions, and the changing nature of archaeological employment and practice.

to make such assessments, and decades of living on the shadowy periphery of UK Research Assessment Exercises and, latterly, Research Excellence Frameworks, have convinced him that such undertakings may provide a qualitative measure of some aspects of research, but not others.In any event, the destruction of the data at the end of these exercises, which means that no subsequent audit or evaluation is ever possible, rather intimates a serious lack of conviction with regard to the robustness and repeatability of the results on recently-published work that were obtained in the event of later audit.Similar issues would pervade any evaluation of very-recent literature, and it is notable that other comparable archaeological studies (e.g.Collis 2013) are quite circumspect in regard to recently published articles.The present exercise thus continues, but is distinctly different in scope from, the more evaluative exercise on contributions to the Proceedings and its forerunners undertaken by Angus Graham (1970).Graham did indeed offer comment on the topics and values of the papers within his purview: but the most recent decade he reviewed (1921( -1930( : Graham 1970, 277-280) , 277-280) ended some forty years before he compiled his analysis.
It is also the case that editorial and refereeing decisions by the Editor, members of the Editorial or Publications Committees and latterly the Editorial (Advisory) Board as well as invited external assessors will have been of significance in determining the papers that were published, but recovering such detail (still less discovering what was rejected) is likely at best to be very incomplete: it is not attempted here.Over the hundred volumes under consideration, the editors -whose 'visibility' in the Proceedings is very different -may by grouped into four broad sets.It is plain from this that the degree of editorial control will too have varied.First the role seems to have been identified with the Directorship of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland (NMAS), with Alexander O Curle taking over on the death of Joseph Anderson for Volume 51, and then being succeeded in turn by JG Callander, AJH Edwards and Gordon Childe until Volume 80. Henceforth, the Proceedings were edited by two individuals, who fulfilled dual Society roles as Assistant Secretary and Editor starting with the historian Henry M Paton, followed by Miss EMC Thompson.In 1961, Council accepted Robert Stevenson's advice and separated these two tasks, with an editor 'of high academic standing' sought thereafter.From Volume 94, a succession of archaeologists acted in that capacity; including named assistants they total about a score.Among the longestserving have been Anna Ritchie and the late Ian Shepherd.They, and several others including David Clarke and Gordon Barclay, have also authored numerous papers contained in these pages.The fourth phase, fully in place from Volume 136, has seen the appointment successively of four professional managing editors.If at the outset the editors were always men, the first woman to take on the role was Miss Thompson for Volume 88 and then Dr Ritchie at Volume 103; by Volume 150, at least 30 issues of the journal, by the writer's calculations, had been edited by women.
It must also be acknowledged that the styles and contents of printed papers have changed considerably, as have the methods of production (e.g.Shepherd 1983;1989).The exercise conducted here, however, is simply about frequency of authorial appearancesquantity, then, not quality.All published articles are included; the sole exception is obituaries which are not taken into account because the conventions by which authorship of such pieces is acknowledged in the Proceedings have varied quite markedly down the years.Appreciations, however, rare and always signed conventionally for their time, are included.
For the analysis, the period of just over a century considered has been sub-divided into approximately tenyear segments.This was not undertaken by assigning articles to standard calendar decades, always somewhat contentious when volumes of the Proceedings are frequently attributed to a Society session, often spilling over two calendar years; furthermore, the publication of the volume may be recorded as having occurred in a third, later, year.The simplification adopted here is to operate by volume numbers, so that the ten 'time-segments' (hereafter abbreviated to 'segments') used for analyses extend from Volumes 51-60 through to Volumes 141-150.Overall, the period concerned is slightly longer than one hundred years, with Volume 51, nominally covering the Great War years of 1916-17, actually appearing in the latter year, whereas Volume 150 was published at the end of 2021, the date printed both on its spine and in its copyright statement.Volume 51 is the third in the Fifth Series, so that almost all the familiar blue hardback Proceedings volumes are considered.There is thus some 'slippage' relative to standard chronological decades, but this disadvantage is offset by the clarity resulting from ordering this exercise unambiguously by volume numbers.Over this period, there is only one printed Proceedings which actually carries two volume numbers; but in more recent times there have been a number of volumes (considered as such in the analysis here) which are actually represented by two physical books.These latter are treated as single volumes; contrastingly the combined Volume 80/81 in fact contains two readily identifiable separately-numbered issues.The underpinning aim is to allow readers who so wish to calibrate developments apparent in the archaeological microcosm considered here with wider changes in Scottish society (e.g.Cameron 2010, ch. 5 ff).
Discovering further information about individual writers is sometimes not straightforward.The Proceedings have not been designed such that the status, gender, professional affiliation or other attributes of its authors are always readily classifiable.In some periods, postnominals are included, such that it is immediately clear who was writing as a Fellow of the Society and what their other qualifications were.In more recent times, postnominals have been excluded, including even the FSAScot designation, so that it is not immediately apparent whether writers are (or were at the time of their contributions) members of the Society.Only a few years ago (e.g.Vol.145), the sole contact information provided in print for some authors was an e-mail address; consequently the physical address (professional or private) of the author is unknown without searching either the online Fellowship database (and of course that only records their current address) or engaging with other external resources.This manifestly renders difficult answering questions such as 'What proportion of Proceedings' authors are Fellows and resident in Scotland and how have these numbers evolved over the last century?'Other studies, to pursue a different line, have highlighted the increasing importance of female scholars in the study of Scottish history and archaeology during the period considered here (e.g.Breeze et al. 2019), but again it must be admitted that it is exceedingly difficult rigorously to quantify such currents over the last century in the case of numbers of the authors whose papers feature in the Proceedings.One unhelpful characteristic, for example, is the widespread usage of the initials-plus-surname format for names, which can be carried through to the Lists of Fellows that appeared in earlier volumes.The use of first names is more helpful but is admitted to be far from a secure method of attribution to gender.For more recent times in particular, such tentative indications can be supplemented by personal knowledge and/or advice from colleagues, but it is frankly acknowledged that these methods have limitations.Analysing the entire authorship database that has been assembled by gender, or by whether the writer had a professional post in archaeology, in history or in a cognate field, or whether they were based in Scotland, the rest of the UK, or overseas is thus not readily feasible, although it is far more so for more recent segments.In general, for the volumes considered here, the accessible, printed information about Proceedings authors varies through time and not always in the direction of fuller citation.
For these reasons, the objectives considered in relation to categorising the evolving authorship represented in the Proceedings have necessarily been restricted.These include: comparing the total number of authors contributing by ten-volume segments; some comments on the longevity of individual authors' engagement with the Proceedings as measured by their appearance in successive ten-year segments (although marriage or other status changes impacting on surnames may have undermined some results); as well as commenting on proportional changes in the assumed gender of authors.Furthermore, in an effort to discern broad patterns while being as confident as possible about the individual authors who are assessed, it was decided to rank authors by the number of appearances in a given segment, and to focus on the top ten, including those authors obtaining the same numerical score as the tenth candidate.The results presented below are thus based on comparisons of the most prolific authors, generally including those best-known, represented in the Proceedings for each decadal segment.They are referred to hereafter as 'principal authors', their names distinguished by underlining in the relevant paragraph.The importance of the principal authors by segment is then assessed.
A more detailed evaluation is offered of the first volume (Vols 51, 61 etc) in each segment order to construct another perspective on authorship within the Proceedings.For more recent decades, where such information is accessible in the printed journal, affiliations are considered for the last two volumes in each segment.Finally, by way of caveats, the rankings and analyses only consider the Proceedings, as the premier national archaeological and antiquarian journal produced within Scotland.It has long been recognized in some quarters as the key journal of record (Shepherd 1989) for Scottish archaeology in particular, and this factor undoubtedly contributes to the emphasis some institutionsperhaps most particularly NMAS and its successorshave placed on bringing forward papers for inclusion.
These rankings are however not a measure of each writer's total output, since authorship of monographs and papers in all other journals is excluded.In the case of archaeological papers, this therefore excludes regional journals such as the Dumfries and Galloway Society's Transactions, journals such as Glasgow (now Scottish) Archaeological Journal, British journals such as the Archaeological Journal, as well as other, shorter-lived, national Scottish journals, including Scottish Archaeological Forum and Scottish Archaeological Review.All of these do, or did, provide authors with options as to where to place their papers; and of course, lists of alternative outlets could also be produced for history, or numismatics or heraldry -and so on.The analysis is purely of papers offered toin some instances perhaps solicited by -and accepted for the Proceedings; whether the traits and currents identified here in those aspects of authorship that have been examined are matched in other contemporary publications remains to be tested.Patterns discernible in this microhistory (in Meheux's sense: 2022) may not be replicated elsewhere, but at the very least they demonstrate interesting directions in the evolution of scholarship and reporting in the fields representedwhether constantly or intermittently -within the Proceedings.

Volumes 51-60
This first ten-volume segment extends from 1917 to Volume 60, which appeared in 1927 and covered the Society's 1925-6 session.During this segment, some 96 authors in total are represented in the Proceedings: they were overwhelmingly men, although five women (usually designated Miss; in one case Mrs) are identifiable, all of whom contributed a single paper.Given the modest representation of female authors, it is interesting to note that the first female Honorary Fellow of the Society was elected in 1926.This was Mrs Arthur Strong (née Eugenie Sellers: 1860 -1943), Life-Fellow of Girton College, Cambridge and Assistant Director of the British School at Rome.An Honorary Fellow of St Andrews University, she had given the Rhind Lectures in 1920 (Myres 1943;Toynbee 1943).In this context, however, it is worth noting that by 1917, as well as five Lady Associates and a Corresponding Member, the Society had at least 14 female Fellows in total (S Halliday pers comm).
All the principal authors were male, with 11 authoring, or contributing to, five or more papers (Table 1).With 23 entries spanning all ten volumes, J(ohn) Graham Callander (1873-1938: elected 1898) waswith almost double the second score -the most-frequent author: Stevenson records that he spent much of his time writing for, and editing, the Proceedings (1981,190), providing descriptions of many Scottish artefact types.
Prior to this period, he had been the RCAHMS archaeologist (Geddes 2016, 302 fn 2) but he never returned to RCAHMS after it was closed during the final years of the Great War (S Halliday pers comm).In 1919, aged 46 (Stevenson 1981, 147) he was appointed Director of the National Museum of Antiquities and an RCAHMS Commissioner (Graham 1981, 220-1).W Douglas Simpson (1896-1968: elected 1919), ranked second, was for most of this period Assistant then Lecturer in British History at Aberdeen University, before becoming University Librarian at the age of 30, a position he held for much of the remainder of his life.Alexander O Curle (1866-1955;elected 1893), was one of the principal figures within Scottish archaeology from Edwardian times into the 1930s (Geddes 2016;Graham 1981).As the first Secretary of RCAHMS (from 1908), he had been active in its initial fieldwork and had taken over as Director of the National Museum of Antiquities in 1913.During the First World War he was Director of both NMAS and the Royal Scottish Museum (RSM) (Swinney 2013, 219) but for most of the period considered here he was solely Director of the latter institution (Ritchie 2002).In 1919, in his early fifties, he directed (with James Cree) the excavations at Traprain Law (East Lothian) when the celebrated silver treasure (Hunter and Painter 2013) was unearthed.Following his retirement in 1931, he continued to excavate, most notably at Jarlshof (Shetland).In 1938 he married Cecil Mowbray, in due course a significant contributor to the Proceedings in her own right (Ritchie 2002).As with Curle, George MacDonald (1862MacDonald ( -1940MacDonald ( : elected 1900) ) signed ten articles during this segment.Like Callander and Simpson, he was born in North-East Scotland, but moved to Ayrshire where his father, who also had archaeological interests, became rector of Ayr Academy.After a peripatetic student career, he graduated from Oxford in 1887.He was appointed Assistant in Greek at Glasgow University in 1892.By the period under consideration, he had left the University's employment (albeit he remained an honorary curator of the Hunterian Museum) in 1904 for a distinguished civil service career in the Scottish Education Directorate (from 1918: Department), which he led as Secretary from 1922to 1928(KCB 1927).He was also Chairman of RCAHMS from 1923 until 1940.James Ritchie (8 articles) is one of two contributors considered in this segment to be listed as a 'Corresponding Fellow'.He had died by the time Volume 60, which contained his last paper, was published.The Reverend Robert SG Anderson (1867-1939) contributed six articles and was a cleric who pursued archaeological interests in his locality.From 1919 he was based in Wigtownshire, at the United Free Churches in Isle of Whithorn and Castle Kennedy.He also served as President of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society and left his artefact collection principally to the local authority, Wigtownshire.It forms the nucleus of Stranraer Museum (Anon 2022).Five authors produced five articles each during this segment, in four cases with their first contributions printed in Volume 52.They were (Captain: at the outset) Angus Graham, D Hay Fleming, Ludovic McLellan Mann and Joseph Storer Clouston, James Hewat Craw's first paper appeared some three years later.Angus Graham (1892Graham ( -1979Graham ( : elected 1913) ) is considered further below.David Hay Fleming LLD (1849-1931: elected 1884).sold the family china business in 1883 and devoted himself to history and antiquities as an independent scholar: he had a particular interest in the ecclesiastical history of Scotland.His voluminous library and papers were bequeathed to St Andrews University in 1932 (Anon 2022a). Storer Clouston (1870-1944: elected 1917) of Smoogro House, Orkney, was a well-established writer of fiction by the time he joined the Society in his late forties.His A History of Orkney was published in 1932. Ludovic McLellan Mann (1869-1955: elected 1901), a Glasgow accountant and major amateur contributor to west-central Scottish archaeology, had a reputation as a maverick.Brophy and Mearns (2020) provide the introduction to the proceedings of a conference on his contributions and impact.James Hewat Craw (1880-1933: elected 1911) initially a gentleman farmer from Foulden, Berwickshire, followed his father (who had assisted David Christison on field survey in the Lammermuirs) into the Fellowship.He excavated widely across Scotland from the Borders, to Dunadd (Argyll) and the Broch of Gurness (Orkney) before his untimely death at the age of 53.
At the outset of this segment (authors represented in Vol.51 are considered here) Reverend Anderson (then living on the Isle of Man) and James Ritchie (of Port Elphinstone, Inverurie) were identified as Corresponding Members.With the exception of two female contributors -Miss Hanna and Miss Dennison -the latter of whom was awarded the Chalmers-Jervise Prize in 1916 for work on Midlothianalmost all the contributors were Fellows, identifiable by their postnominals or by their roles within the Society.Neither of the females was listed as a Lady Associate, a list then of only five names, of whom only two -the more recent having been admitted in 1890were resident in Scotland.Volume 51 only includes one paper where the male lead author was not a Fellow, but in this case the associated report-writers both were.

Volumes 61-70
The second segment comprises volumes published between 1927 and 1936.It was marked by a marginal rise (to 98) in the total number of named authors, of whom 25 had published or contributed to papers in the previous segment.
At least seven were women.Most are explicitly designated as 'Miss' or 'Mrs', Margaret Crichton Mitchell (see below) being a conspicuous exception.None of this group had been included in the previous decade as a principal author.One, the specialist, Miss Margery I Platt MSc, who was employed by the Royal Scottish Museum, was more frequently represented in the Proceedings but usually in a subsidiary role, and so scores only one contribution (Volume 70: on reindeer antlers from Orkney) by the method used here.Several of the women are identified as Fellows, including Margaret E Crichton Mitchell (later Mrs Margaret Stewart), who has five contributions from Volume 64, just falling below the threshold (6) needed to be considered amongst the principal authors in this segment.Four contributions are listed for Mrs L Duff Dunbar, 'of Ackergill' (Caithness).Others have only a single contribution, but they include significant reports such as that by Miss Sylvia Benton in Volume 65 on excavations at the Sculptor's Cave, Covesea, Moray, that by Miss Hilda Leslie Paterson (with A D Lacaille) on Mesolithic flints from Banchory (Kincardineshire: Volume 70) and a note in the same volume on an excavation at the Ness of Burgi, Shetland by Miss Cecil L Mowbray (later Mrs AO Curle) undertaken on behalf of this Society and with permission of the Office of Works.Mrs FS Oliver (also a single contribution) was the landowner of the fort at Edgerston in Roxburghshire which was dug over several years at this time.It is also worth noting that this segment is marked too by the election (in 1931) of the second female Honorary Fellow of the Society, Mrs Maud Cunnington of Devizes, Wiltshire.
The highest scoring authors during this segment, all male, made six or more single or joint contributions.Of this group of 11, seven had figured in the previous segment, although several had fewer contributions in that period.Three of these authors (all represented in the previous segment) were however represented by at least one contribution in each volume.They were J Graham Callander (a total of 21 contributions written from NMAS), followed by W Douglas Simpson (then Librarian of Aberdeen University) with 14 papers andwith 12 -Armand Lacaille , elected in 1922 and during this period the archaeologist of the Wellcome Historical Medical Museum in Wembley, Middlesex.Other principal contributors who had already appeared in the previous segment were Alexander Curle (11) and George MacDonald (8): the latter, by then employed in the Scottish Education Department, was knighted during this span and in 1934 was appointed chairman of RCAHMS.Given the focus on artefact papers it is unsurprising that another author (10 contributions) who had first appeared in the previous segment was Arthur JH Edwards, Assistant Keeper of NMAS.The last of this group died relatively young: the final paper by James Hewat Craw appeared posthumously in Volume 68.
Dominating the 'new men' in this segment is Professor Gordon Childe (1892-1957), who took up the Abercromby Chair of Archaeology at Edinburgh in 1927 and whose first paper appeared in Volume 63.In all, he made 13 contributions before the end of this segment.The others (all scoring 6) included HE Kilbride-Jones, one of Childe's first archaeology students (along with Margaret E Crichton Mitchell, noted above) actively to work in the field: both were prominent figures in the Edinburgh League of Prehistorians (Ralston 2009a, appendix).Professor Alexander Low (1868-1950) assistant, lecturer then Regius Professor of Anatomy (1929Anatomy ( -1939) ) at Aberdeen University represented a strong tradition of anatomical study notably of short-cist skeletons (his St Andrews counterpart, Professor David Waterston, also published in the Proceedings during this segment).Walter Gordon Grant of Trumland House, Rousay, Orkney (1886-1947) is the remaining six-paper author: elected as a Fellow in 1930, his first paper appeared in Volume 67 (Reynolds and Ritchie 1985).With business interests in whisky distilling, he was, in partnership with Callander and latterly Childe, the most important excavator of Neolithic and Iron Age sites on that island.
During this period other traits begin to be more noticeable.These include contributions from senior academics based elsewhere in Britain andIreland -Cyril Daryll Forde (1902-1973), back from his anthropological fellowship at the University of California at Berkeley, was Gregynog Professor of Geography at Aberystwyth and about to undertake fieldwork at nearby Pen Dinas hillfort when he excavated with Childe at Earn's Heugh, Berwickshire (report in Volume 66).Professor RA Stewart Macalister (1870-1950) Professor of Celtic Archaeology at University College Dublin (1909( -1943( : Fagan 2004) and formerly a biblical archaeologist, considered the Kirkmadrine and other cognate southern Scottish early medieval inscriptions in Volume 70.Another innovation during this segment is the appearance of multi-author papers in the scientific style e.g.JG Callander et al. (1927) on the finds from the Inchnadamph caves, Sutherland.A few years later this was followed by a study incorporating some archaeological material but primarily geomorphological in focus on caves and the twenty-five foot raised beach in western Galloway.This was written by a distinguished group of geologists, none of whom seems to have been a Fellow of this Society (Gregory et al. 1930).
At the outset of this segment (Volume 61), only one of over twenty contributors to the journal issue was not a Fellow of the Society.This was by Professor Waterston, Bute Professor of Anatomy at St Andrews, who was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.None of the authors listed for Volume 61 was identifiably female.

Volumes 71-80
The third segment includes volumes published between 1937 and 1948.The impacts of the Second World War are readily discernible in the slim volumes that characterised much of wartime production.The last physical volume in this series includes both Volumes 80 and 81, only the first of which is considered here.There was a marginal decline in the total number of authors to 93, of whom 14 had first published or contributed to papers in the first segment, while fewer than a quarter -22 -had authored papers in that following.By 1945, the Society had 832 Ordinary Fellows, some way below the inter-War peak of 1075 which was noted in 1931.
At least 10 authors are identifiably female, thus taking the proportion of female authors over 1 in 10 for the first time.Still, none of these writers ranks amongst the principal authors for this segment: the tenth author made four appearances, a score shared by four others.Several of the female writers would go on to become more prominent in subsequent segments or in Scottish archaeological research more generally: they include (as they were styled) Miss Anne S Robertson, Alison Young, Mrs CM (Peggy) Piggott and both Dr Margaret Crichton Mitchell (later Stewart) and Miss Cecil L Mowbray (Mrs Curle) who had already been published in the previous decade.Contrastingly, Miss PAM (Phoebe) Keef's (1898Keef's ( -1978)), (the author of a single report on the excavations on a fort at Hundleshope, Peeblesshire) post-War fieldwork and excavations were largely in Sussex.By the end of this period, the Society's 17 Honorary Fellows, then substantially internationalwith only one resident in Scotlandstill only included a single female: Maud Cunnington, well-known from her Wessex excavations, who had been elected in 1931.
Unsurprisingly, the proportion of 'old hands' amongst the principal authors is high.Those in their third consecutive segment of having papers accepted include Douglas Simpson (12), Arthur JH Edwards (9), briefly Director of NMAS before his death in 1944, and Armand D Lacaille (1894-1975) (8).Reverend Robert Anderson (4) is also still represented, and Angus Graham, by then Secretary of RCAHMS, re-appears after his absence as a forester in Canada.The ranking for this decade is dominated by Gordon Childe (20) who, as well as his Edinburgh chair, held the Directorship of NMAS during the latter part of the war after Edwards' death, pending the return from active service of Captain Robert Stevenson.Childe's contributions include several wartime fieldwork interventions (Ralston 2009a map).Other prominent authors who had first published in the previous segment include Walter Grant, the Orcadian amateur, (6) and Charles ST Calder (1891-1972) (4: all early in this segment).He thereafter re-enlisted in the British Army at the age of nearly 50.Calder, appointed to RCAHMS as the architectural assistant following the death of Fred Macgibbon in 1915, developed a role bridging archaeological and architectural survey; he also conducted quasi-independent excavations, particularly on Orkney and Shetland, where inventory work was in progress.The anatomists Alexander Low (5) of Aberdeen and David Waterston (4) of St Andrews, also fall into this category.The new figures at this time are the aforementioned Robert BK Stevenson (12: 4 of which are in Volume 80), whose military service punctuated his early career as Keeper of NMAS, and Robert Kerr (4), Curator of Coins there.Authors external to Scotland are represented by Ian Richmond  (5), then lecturer at King's College, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and a Commissioner of RCAHMS by the end of this span.
Examination of the authors of Volume 71 in more detail shows them preponderantly to have been Fellows of the Society.Exceptions include contributors on geological, geomorphological or related topics ((e.g.William G McCallien (1902-1981) then lecturer in Geology at Glasgow University (McCallien 1937)); and by Donald Baden-Powell and Charles Elton respectively, as well as on Etruscan gold, and on medieval numismatics.Only one principal author in this volume was female: this was Miss Mary Johnstone who published on the gold jewellery from Pompeii in the NMAS collection.

Volumes 81 -90
This, fourth, segment takes us from Volume 81, for 1946-7, but published in 1949 through to Volume 90, for 1956-7, but equally late (1959) through the press.As has been noted elsewhere, this immediately post-War period is marked more generally by informed collaborative overviews of British archaeology, especially the CBA Survey published in 1948 and noted in the Proceedings by Kenneth Steer (Volume 81, p. 188).For the first time, at 110, the total of principal authors in this timespan exceeds one hundred, this for a Fellowship which stood at 867 in 1947 (Proc Soc Antiq Scot 81, 202).Throughout this period, a conspicuously higher proportion of the Fellowship contributed to the Proceedings than has subsequently been the case.Of these authors, some 80 first provided a paper during this segment.Only 8 -comprising AO Curle, Angus Graham, William Kirkness (Orkney antiquarian and excavator of Knap of Howar with landowner William Traill, who filmed at the site on Orkney (Kirkness 1937)), Armand Lacaille, Hugh Marwick, James Richardson, Ian Richmond and Douglas Simpson -had done so regularly since our first segment which began in the latter days of the Great War.
As in the previous segment, at least 10 of the authors are identifiably female, although compared to that span, they represent, proportionately, fewer contributors than before.This may be an echo of a more general reticence about accepting women in professional archaeology after the War that has been noted elsewhere (Pope 2011 and pers comm).Included, however, are Anne S Robertson  (1) and, following her appointment to the staff of NMAS, Audrey S Henshall (7: 1927Henshall (7: -2021)), the latter of whom makes her first appearance in this segment and is included, with her NMAS colleague Stuart Maxwell, amongst the principal writers in this span.There is, however, another woman amongst the top ten authors: Mrs Peggy Piggott (1912( -1994: later Mrs : later Mrs Margaret Guido: Pope and Davies 2023) (10), then notably engaged on her excavations of Iron Age sites in Roxburghshire and, more extensively, at the Milton Loch crannog in Galloway.This segment is the first during which individual female authors appear so prominently, even if total numbers of women contributing to the Proceedings remain modest.
Amongst the principal male authors, the sense of a 'changing of the guard' is manifest.Three new figures make up the lower half of the top ten, alongside the two women -Henshall and Mrs Piggott -just mentioned: they are Richard Feachem (1914-2005) (9) and Kenneth Steer (1913Steer ( -2007) (8)) (8), both of RCAHMS (Geddes 2013;Dunbar and Maxwell 2007), and Jack G Scott (8: 1913Scott (8: -1999) ) of Glasgow Museum and Art Gallery (Morrison 1999).Amongst the principal authors, Angus Graham (1892Graham ( -1979) (12)) (12), intermittently represented since the first segment, is present (Dunbar 1981 provides his bibliography).No author had however been continually represented amongst the most prolific authors for every segment under consideration, Douglas Simpson by this stage publishing fewer (5) papers.The other senior author represented was Charles Calder ( 14), then towards the end of his professional career in RCAHMS.Two further male authors both made their initial appearances in the previous segment: Professor Stuart Piggott , the second Abercromby Professor at Edinburgh, had ten papers (as did his wife), but that total is wholly eclipsed by Robert Stevenson's 32 contributions, made up of multiple submissions in almost every year of this segment.Overall, the list is now dominated by post-holding professional archaeologists, employed in RCAHMS, museumsprincipally NMAS -or Edinburgh University, the exception being Mrs Piggott, who was no longer directly involved in Scottish archaeology before the end of this segment.
Fellows of the Society wholly dominate the authorship of the papers in Volume 81, the exception being a co-author of Kenneth Steer on his Roxburghshire fieldwork project at Crock Cleuch.Even the Lord Lyon King of Arms, Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, and a former US consul in Dundee, Maurice Dunlap, writing on Viking markers in south-east Newfoundland, are designated as Fellows.Only one paper of eleven has a female author: this was by Miss EM Mein, but two of the twelve notesboth on Late Bronze Age metalworkwere by Mrs Piggott.

Volumes 91 -100
Volume 91, nominally covering the 1957-58 session but emerging from the press in 1960, is one of the slimmest in the entire run of the Proceedings.Volume 100, for 1967-68, was published in 1969.This segment is thus a 'short decade'.The total number of lead authors again falls back slightly, to 102.Of these, 72 published in the Proceedings for the first time during this segment, a similar proportion to that noted in the previous one.By this time, only three authors who had been published in the first segment were still active, most notably Angus Graham, whose 11 papers mark him as the top male author.With two papers each, Armand Lacaille and Douglas Simpson were also long-term survivors, albeit no longer principal authors as that term is used here.The other, by this stage senior, figure represented amongst major contributors was Robert Stevenson (8).In 1958, the Ordinary Fellowship stood at 902; by 1970 it had risen to 1366.
The use of initials only with surnames is widespread at this time, but the published authors none the less include at least 16 women, the most substantial proportion encountered to date.The number of papers required to qualify for 'top ten' status drops to 4 for this segment from 7 in the previous one and in total 16 authors achieved this 'principal author' threshold.Only two women are included -the distinguished amateur Marion Campbell of Kilberry (4) (1919( -2000( : Fisher 2000) ) but, with 13 contributions, Audrey Henshall was overall the principal contributing author for this segment; all her articles were published between Volumes 95 and 100.Other female writers with two or more appearances (and so not principal authors despite their important contributions) include Drs Margaret E Stewart (née Crichton Mitchell: 3), Isabel Henderson (2), and Isla McInnes (2), Miss Anne Robertson (2) and Alison Young (2).
Apart from the males considered above, there is a cluster, several of whom rose to prominence in the previous decade -Richard Feachem, Stuart Maxwell, Jack Scott and Kenneth Steer, as well as John Dunbar (also employed in RCAHMS) -who were all professional archaeologists or architectural historians; the last two would in due course occupy the Secretaryship of the Royal Commission.Ranald Clouston , contrastingly, was an engineer and later archivist with Babcock and Wilcox in Renfrew.One of his diligently-pursued hobbies was the archaeology of bells (Anon 2022b).The 'new men' of this decade included Iain C Walker (1938-1984: 8 papers), an Edinburgh University Archaeology graduate of 1961 who emigrated to Canada the following year initially to work as an archaeologist at the Fortress of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia, but who continued to publish on north-east Scottish archaeology in the Proceedings until the mid-1970s (Jones 1985 with bibliography).Contrastingly, John M Coles (1930Coles ( -2020) ) traversed the Atlantic in the opposite direction and was one of Stuart Piggott's early PhD students, in due course expanding his interests from the Scottish Late Bronze Age and in the 1960s appointed to a Cambridge lectureship (Sheridan 2021;Coles 2019).Other new professional archaeologists first represented as a principal author in this segment are Dr Euan MacKie of the Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow (1936( -2020( : Fojut 2022) ) and Alastair Maclaren, an Edinburgh graduate appointed as an investigator with RCAHMS.The list is completed by two amateurs.BHIH (Ian) Stewart (1935Stewart ( -2018) ) was a distinguished numismatist (FBA 1981), who wrote standard works on Scottish, Anglo-Saxon and English medieval coinage.He was a banker by profession before entering politics and becoming a peer as Lord Stewartby in 1992 (Bateson 2019).JC Wallace, an amateur who became President of CBA's Scottish Group in the early 1970s, was perhaps best-known for his fieldwork with Audrey Henshall at the Embo, Sutherland, chambered cairn (Henshall and Wallace 1965).He also undertook rescue excavations, on occasion with students from Workers' Educational Association classes (e.g.Wallace 1968).Almost all the lead authors of papers in volume 91 were identified as Fellows.The exceptions were the writers of two articles, one on a skeleton from Newstead by the Professor of Anatomy at the University of Cape Town, and the other by Gerald Dunning, Henry Hodges and Martyn Jope, on medieval finds from Kirkcudbright Castle (Dunning et al. 1968), this latter article continuing the trend noted earlier of established scholars from elsewhere in the United Kingdom contributing to the Proceedings.Both two (of ten) principal articles, and two (of ten) shorter notes, in this volume were by female authors, in the case of the former by Anne Ross  and Isabel Henderson.In volume 97, the tradition of including postnominals after author names was reduced to simply including the FSAScot designation, but with Volume 100 this practice too was abandoned in favour of excluding postnominals, so that henceforth retrospectively examining this aspect of Proceedings authorship becomes less than straightforward.

Volumes 101 -110
This segment takes us from 1971 to 1981, from Volume 101, nominally for 1968-69, through to Volume 110, spanningunusually -1978-80, but published in 1981.The total number of principal authors increased substantially to 159 (from 102) for a Fellowship which stood at 827down substantially from a decade earlier -in the 1968-9 Society year.In terms of the ratio between principal authors and overall Fellowship numbers, at approximately 1:5 this represents a proportion not otherwise matched over the century considered here.
The indomitable Douglas Simpson was now the only author from the initial segment still contributing articles, with Mrs Cecil Curle (née Mowbray), first published in the second segment, also represented.Some 119 principal authors were new (or occasionally making a reappearance after an absence of a decade or more), representing approximately three-quarters of the total and acting as a proxy for the increasing professionalization of archaeology -for by now contributions to the Proceedings were dominantly archaeological.Although the use of the initials-and-surname format for writers' names was still common, there are at least 33 identifiable female authors in this span.Representing nearly 21% of all authors, this continues the modest upward trend noted previously.Contrastingly, only one (of 16) contribution in the sample Volume ( 101) has an identifiably-female author, Audrey Henshall, writing on clothing found at Harray, Orkney.
The principal authors (12 in number) during this segment produced at least five papers.Of these, two were female: Miss Dorothy N Marshall (5), first elected as a Fellow in 1945 (and latterly an Honorary Fellow) and a distinguished amateur with a particular engagement with the archaeology of the Isle of Bute (1900-1992: Scott 1992); and Dr Joanna Close-Brooks (15: and thus ranked second overall amongst principal authors), appointed to the staff of NMAS during this period.The most prolific author (18) during this segment was a newly-appointed RCAHMS Investigator, who completed his Edinburgh Archaeology PhD in 1966: JN Graham Ritchie (1941-2005: Ellis 2005) in due course became the President of this Society.His first publication in the Proceedings had been late in the previous segment, a pattern matched by another Edinburgh Archaeology graduate, Lloyd Laing (8 papers), then of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, before he took up a lectureship at the University of Liverpool; and the Inner Hebridean Mesolithic specialist amateur archaeologist, John Mercer (1934Mercer ( -1982: 5 papers): 5 papers), a man of many interests who early abandoned a career with Price Waterhouse in Paris (Anon 2022c).This segment also included more senior authors: the last papers of Angus Graham (6), who died towards the end of this period (1892( -1979( : Dunbar 1981)); and a series of contributions from W Norman Robertson (7 papers), a specialist conservator and model-maker who had initially trained as an artist and wood carver and was associated with the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments (Foster and Jones 2020, passim).Also with 7 papers is the architect and English Heritage Inspector, Harry Gordon Slade (b.1927), a Fellow from 1964, who published in particular on north-east Scottish castellated architecture: his papers are now in Aberdeen University Library Special Collections (https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb231-ms3127.)Three new authors, each with 6 papers in this time period, are Dr David Breeze of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, Dr David Caldwell who joined the staff of the National Museum of Antiquities and Ian Shepherd (1951-2009: Ralston 2009b), the Regional Archaeologist for the then Grampian Region, and one of the first archaeologists to be employed in Scotland by a local authority in a post with planning and related responsibilities.The other new figure with five papers was Dr John Hedges , who established North of Scotland Archaeological Services on Orkney as 'rescue archaeology' began to offer slightly less precarious employment than had earlier been the case (Ballin Smith 2022).Both of the last-mentioned authors occupied new types of paid roles in archaeological employment in Scotland, Hedges having set up what was in effect the prototype of the private sector companies which later were to come to prominence in applied archaeology.Both David Breeze and David Caldwell would become Presidents of this Society in due course.
Further information can be gleaned from cross-referencing other volumes in this segment.Volume 108 included a List of Honorary Fellows, a full list of the Fellowship with dates of election and addresses (and of the institutional libraries which subscribed to the journal).The list of Honorary Fellows shows that four of the 17 were newly-elected in 1977 including Stuart Piggott (elected to the Fellowship in 1938 and having retired south to England by the late seventies: Mercer 1997; Ralston and Megaw 2004).Only one, Angus Graham, elected to the Fellowship in 1913 andHonorary Fellowship in 1977, had a Scottish address.And there was still only a solitary woman -Dr Françoise Henry of Dublin, the scholar of early Irish art , elected in 1961, having been proposed by Robert Stevenson -amongst their number.In Volume 109like its predecessor edited by Anna Ritchiethere was another important innovation: the inclusion of the addresses and/or institutional affiliations of the principal authors became usual.
The practice of adding postnominals to authors' names having ceased during this segment, it is not immediately evident whether authors were Fellows.None the less, comparison of the author names on the Contents pages of volume 101 with the List of Fellows within Volume 108 (see above) strongly intimates that almost all were Fellows at that time.
The citation of the affiliation and/or address of principal authors of articles in Volumes 109 and 110 allows a new form of analysis to be undertaken (Table 1).Of the 59 addresses for individual papers cited in these two volumes, 9 are private and the remaining 50 institutional.Almost 75% of papers cite a Scottish address, with the remainder spread amongst England (10), the rest of the UK (4), with one from the Republic of Ireland.Half the Scottish tally is furnished by writers in Edinburgh-based government-funded institutions, extending not only to several contributions from members of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, but also to staff of the Central Excavation Unit, established at this time primarily to conduct rescue excavations in advance of development or natural threats.Universities are not only represented by staff of all four ancient Scottish universities (in Geography as well as Archaeology, but not in History) but by their former students by then established elsewhere (Belfast and Cardiff) Volumes 111 -120 By this segment, volumes of the Proceedings carried only a single year on their spines, in this case from 1981 to 1990; actual dates of publication spanned 1982 to 1991.The total number of principal authors during this span was 209, 50 (c.31%) more than for the previous ten issues.By the end of this segment, the Fellowship exceeded 2500.Albeit some principal authors remain identified only by initials, a minimum of 56 can be identified as female (a representation of nearly 27%).A substantial proportion of the principal authors (149: over 71%) were new during this segment or, in a small number of cases, made a reappearance after an absence of over ten years.If the rise of female authorship segment by segment appears distinctly slow, Volume 114 is the first in which the number of first-time female authors exceeded that for males.By this period, the authors with the longest continuous presence in the Proceedings are a dwindling band comprising John Dunbar, Angus Graham (d. 1979: posthumously), Audrey Henshall and Anne Robertson.It is interesting that this short list includes the two female archaeologists who had first achieved long-term professional careers in Scottish archaeology.The sampled volume (111) includes five women amongst the authors and co-authors of 22 contributions.There were also three females (of a total of 20 non-royal) Honorary Fellows of the Society at this stage; and all were resident in Scotland.They were Marion Campbell of Kilberry, Audrey Henshall and Dorothy Marshall, two of the three being amateur archaeologists.Only one male Honorary Fellow was a Scottish resident: Dr Ronald Cant of St Andrews University.
The principal authors in this segment produced at least five contributions to the Proceedings.The topranked author was again Graham Ritchie of RCAHMS (12 papers); and only one female author -Joanna Close-Brooks of NMAS -figured (5 papers).The relative decline of museum-based authors amongst the more prolific authors is in part attributable to the reduction in the number of 'Shorter Notes'so useful for the presentation of a variety of exceptional artefactsby now included within the Proceedings.Harry Gordon Slade (7 papers) the architectural historian who took what were in effect repeated 'busman's holidays' to write studies of the grand domestic architecture of Scotland's North-East, again stands out as exceptional.Several of the other high-scoring writers were professional archaeologists in the employment of the Scottish Development Department (SDD) as Inspectors of Ancient Monuments or field directors in the Central Excavation Unit.They comprise Gordon Barclay (10 papers), David Breeze (7 papers) and John Barber (6).The only university-based archaeologist to figure was James Graham-Campbell (5 papers), now Emeritus Professor of Medieval Archaeology at University College London.Local authority archaeology was again represented by Ian Shepherd (8 papers).All of the above had published previously in the Proceedings: the two new namesboth with 5 paperswere John Sherriff (RCAHMS) and Jonathan Wordsworth, then employed by SDD Historic Buildings and Monuments.The most significant change in this segment is the rise of the applied archaeological companies, by 2000 some operating as Trusts (Scottish Urban Archaeological Trust = SUAT: Perth; Cotswold Archaeological Trust), some already privatised (AOC Archaeology, CFA Archaeology, Headland) but others still within Universities (e.g.GUARD at Glasgow, ARCUS at Sheffield).Within Scotland, the context of their work was formalized by Scottish Office documentation issued in 1994 (NPPG 5;PAN 42).About one-third of principal authors were now associated with applied companies.Only three principal authors of two papers had an affiliation outside the UK: two coauthors from University Departments in Amsterdam and Baltimore respectively, and the formerand firstarchaeologist with Highland Regional Council, the late Robert Gourlay, by then resident in Austria.There remains no straightforward way to assess how many of the principal authors were Fellows of the Society.

Volumes 131 -140
These volumes nominally cover 2001 until 2010, Volume 140 appearing in 2011.Through this segment, the Ordinary Fellowship is reported to have exceeded 3000, standing at 3466 in 2001 (but see above), but falling back to 3096 in 2010.Without the additional publication capacity represented by the double volumes of the second half of the previous segment, there was a decline in the total number of principal authors represented to 170, or approximately 31%.These included 61 writers who were represented in previous segments, but the majority (109some 64%) were new contributors in this span.As was noted previously, continuing authors generally contributed on average more papers than did new ones -1.85, as opposed to 1.34 papers per author during this segment.Of the 165 authors for whom the evidence is reasonably clear, some 30% were female, the highest proportion to date and recovering from the 1990s' dip.In Volume 133, amongst the 'new' principal authors included there were as many females as males, still then a rare occurrence.
In this segment, there is a very marked change in the pattern of principal authorship.Only seven writers produced more than three papers as principal writers; a further 16 contributed three papers.Of the top seven, two are female and three were staff members of National Museums Scotland: Dr Alison Sheridan (5), and Nicholas Holmes and Dr Fraser Hunter (both with 4).Of those scoring highly in the previous segment, only Andrew Dunwell is present to represent the applied archaeological companies, whose products are otherwise spread amongst numerous authors elsewhere on the list, a reflection of the increasing scale of these organisations as employers of archaeologists.Of equal significance in depressing numbers of major excavation reports in print (major excavations by now generally involving the applied companies) in the Proceedings is the development during this span of another online series -Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports (O'Sullivan 2000).Specifically designed to make available major fieldwork contributions, the availability of SAIR as an outlet for the publication of major field projects henceforth impacts on the profile of contributions (and by extension of contributors) to the Proceedings.The other three principal authors represent academic archaeology.The most prolific author (6 papers) was Richard A Gregory, then engaged in producing final reports on field projects conducted by the late Professor Barri Jones and Dr Charles Daniels from sites around the inner Moray Firth and elsewhere.Then in the Department of Geography at the University of Manchester, he later joined Oxford Archaeology where he is a Senior Project Manager (Post-Excavation).Dr -now Professor -Eileen Murphy (5 papers) is a bioarchaeologist at the Department of Archaeology and Palaeoecology at Queen's University, Belfast who over this span contributed to papers ranging geographically from Kaimes Hillfort outside Edinburgh to Orkney, in collaboration with the late Professor Derek DA Simpson (also from Queen's; 4 papers) and others.Murphy was also involved with Sheridan and a wider team in the re-assessment of the discoveries from Quanterness chamber tomb on Orkney.It has been noted that, for some decades, it has not been possible straightforwardly to confirm whether principal authors in the Proceedings were Fellows of the Society at the time of their contributions.There is no obligation so to be.For Volume 150, author names were compared with the online Fellows Directory (on 25 th April 2022) and this demonstrated that some 70% of authors in that volume (23 of 33) are indeed Fellows (Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 2022).

Conclusions
Any survey such as this can only provide a very partial microcosm of the evolution of Scottish archaeologyand to a considerably lesser extent, of cognate disciplinessince the latter part of the Great War.It does, however, allow certain traits to be examined over a longish duration, against the background of a discipline which has changed profoundly in how it is practised over the period of a little over a century considered here.Over this span, too, the Society's membership has also changed significantly, both in its make-up and in its overall numbers.A histogram of the size of the Fellowship to 1993 was made available by Sharples (1996, fig.2) and, although detailed numerical information is no longer published with such regularity by the Society, it is apparent that numbers peaked at about 3500 some twenty years ago (although there are reservations as to the accuracy of this count) before falling back subsequently to approximately 2800 at present.
It has been noted above that the changing style of what is included in the Proceedings through time impacts on the data had that can readily be assembled about aspects such as those regarding authorship considered here.Our journal is, however, far from unique in this regard: Meheux (2022, 155), for example, notes that alterations to administrative and other information contained in the Annual Report of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of London and subsequently the Bulletin that succeeded it, has produced a '… resulting loss of local detail … to the detriment of our knowledge of the Institute and the history of late twentieth-century archaeology.' Over the ten segments considered here, the frequency of the volume has changed remarkably little: it is still published annually as a single entity, approximately a year after the closing date for submissions.Much of the ancillary material regarding the life of the Societyincluding Lists of Fellows and the report submitted to the Annual General Meeting no longer appears in the published volume, although the value of having it available online is diminished by the use of scanned PDFs, rather unreliable to search automatically.
Over the ten segments, there have undoubtedly been significant changes, for example in the representation of women as authors.In somewhat cognate fashion, the first recognition of female scholars as Honorary Fellows in the years following the Great War is noted above; in Volume 150, 8 of the 22 non-royal Honorary Fellows named -'persons eminent in any branch on antiquarian study' as Law 5 has itare female, most of them having pursued their careers primarily in Scotland.Consideration of Honorary Fellows is considered to provide a check on the gender of authors, for that of the former is often much more readily established from published sources.Over the chronological segments represented here, the prevalence of female authors in the Society's Proceedings has risen, albeit slowly and falteringly at times, with the proportional representation showing marked increases only over the last twenty or so years.
Otherwise, there have been some noteworthy variations through the period considered.One of the nearconstant elements has been a strong representation from staff of National Museums Scotland and its predecessor bodies, with their numerical scores in early years boosted by the inclusion of shorter notes which were often devoted to particularly interesting artefact finds.As in other domains, a significant change here has been from publications emanating from the Director or Keeper to ones written by their specialist staff.It is now hard to envisage Directors of national institutions having the time and capacity to undertake such research work alongside their other administrative responsibilities.The diminution over time of contributions from the Secretaries of RCAHMS, now incorporated within Historic Environment Scotland, probably also marked the end of this particular line.
Another major change has been the radical reduction in the numbers of academic papers in the Proceedings emanating from members of the professional staffs of Historic Environment Scotland compared to those of its antecedent bodies, Historic Scotland / Scottish Development Department (Ancient Monuments) etc and RCAHMS respectively.Policy shifts undoubtedly lie behind some of the declining figures for institutional representation.Numbers of the earlier contributions of RCAHMS staff were in the form of excavation reports, carried out within the framework of Inventory-led research, at times when small-scale interventions by their field staff (such as Richard Feachem and Kenneth Steer, mentioned above), were sanctioned.This came to a close effectively during the currency of the Argyll inventories with the publications of sites such as Ardnave (Islay: Ritchie and Welfare 1983) and Cul a' Bhaile, Jura (Stevenson 1984).Thereafter Inventory preparation was underscored solely by survey work in its various manifestations, and not by digging.Smaller-scale interventions, such as short cists disturbed during ploughing, once regularly tackled by Commission Investigators, were dealt with by other means.Similar pressures have impacted on the former Inspectors of Ancient Monuments within Historic Scotland.For many years, although Inspectors of Ancient Monuments no longer undertook excavation directly as part of their employment, help in kind, ranging from equipment loans to publication grants was provided by Historic Scotland for work actually undertaken during annual leave.The professional archaeological staff who have now replaced them have reshaped remits in which excavation and academic research do not feature prominently.
Artefacts, however, continue to surface not least through the upsurge in metal-detecting.Archaeologists on the curatorial staff of the NMS have maintained research agendas drawing directly on field evidence, some of it newly-recovered, in order to provide context for the material in their care; and for exhibitions.This was recently demonstrated by work on the Galloway hoard, for which external funding e.g. from the Arts and Humanities Research Council has been won to fund a programme of research undertaken largely within the Museum (Goldberg and Davis 2021).
Contrastingly, the substantial expansion of tertiary education institutions (both in size and number) has witnessed, in Scotland as elsewhere, very considerable increases in the numbers of research-active academic staff in a range of disciplines, including history, archaeology and the environmental sciences.Equally part of this expansion is the great increase in theses and dissertations prepared by doctoral and other postgraduate students, a proportion of the products of which appear, reworked, in due course in this journal.That said proportionately far fewer of the academic staffit is perhaps easiest to speak of those engaged in Scottish archaeologyseem to gravitate to the Proceedings as a preferred outlet for their research than was the case previously.
Another major underpinning of change, more especially although not uniquely for field archaeology has been the advent since the late 1980s of requirements placed on developers to mitigate the impacts of their developments on cultural heritage, from the Environmental Assessment Regulations of 1988 onwards.The extension of the 'polluter pays principle' into the safeguarding of cultural heritage sites has given rise to the applied archaeological companies, to the massive expansion of 'rescue archaeology' (Aitchison 2012), and with it to further research which needs disseminated.
All these trends may be mapped against the rising numbers of salaried and waged positions in history and archaeology in Scotland.Although not uncontentious, it is perhaps a more straightforward task to quantify the changing nature of archaeological employment in the country than that of historians.If open to challenge at the detailed level, this none the less offers numbers to set against the figures rehearsed above.
Fig. 2 suggests that, considered in terms of numbers of archaeological posts created over the last three quarters of a century, and meantime accepting the 2007 as being off-trend, there has been of the order of an 800% increase in the numbers of employed archaeologists in Scotland since the 1950s.Overall totals being so small, the changing numbers over the previous decades considered in this survey back to the end of the Great War are much less significant, albeit Wheeler (1957) reckoned there were only 22 posts across the entire UK in 1922.The fundamental point to extract from these numbers is that the proportion of professional archaeologists based in Scotland who publish in the Proceedings must have reduced significantly; and, behind this, the proportion of today's professional archaeologists who are Fellows of the Society is also in marked decline compared even to a generation ago.
Wider comparisons with the output of other primarily archaeological journals within Britain are not straightforwardly achievable from the published literature.John Collis (2013), for example, takes a distinctly different tack in examining the development of archaeological thought as evidenced in the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal from its mid-Victorian inception until its 150th anniversary year (and its Volume 85).Focused predominantly on prehistory and the Roman period, this looks selectively at Yorkshire contributions to, and impacts on, changing paradigms that have impacted British, particularly English, archaeology over the period.Collis isolates a number of intellectual currents and trends in practice, for example initially emanating from Scandinavia, and in the two generations after the 1930s from the University of Cambridge (including through its numerous graduates who conducted research in the county).His study is not, however, in any real sense a microhistory which builds up its perspective from a detailed study of the contents of the journal under consideration.
Indeed his extensive bibliography includes fewer than thirty papers from the journal itself.The approach taken is thus very different but, that said, the general conclusions reached in terms of the general direction of travel of archaeological activity in particular over the twentieth century (Collis 2013, 20-21) are substantially similar to those highlighted here.
The rise and extension of the professionalization of many of the disciplines represented in the pages of the Proceedings over several decades underpins the main currents in changing authorship noted above.That said, there remains however a place for Fellows and others who are independent, amateur scholars to bring forward their work, as has been the case since the earliest issues of the journal.Although undoubtedly reworked significantly through the century considered here, it is that admixture which, alongside the equally-changing representation of different disciplines, has contributed significantly to the particular distinction of the Society's Proceedings.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1 The proportions of identifiably male and female authors in the Society's Proceedings by ten-volume segment from 1917 to 2021

Table 1 Addresses and affiliations (59) of principal contributors in Volumes 109 and 110
. For the first time, local authority archaeology is represented by Grampian Region, by Orkney Heritage (as proxy for the Council) and by the Edinburgh City Archaeologist.Other new forms of professional archaeological organisation also appear: North of Scotland Archaeological Services (established by John Hedges) and York Archaeological Trust.The principal author of only one paper had an affiliation outside the UK: at University College, Dublin.
professional archaeologists working from home.In excess of 72% of papers still include an author with a Scottish address, with the remainder spread amongst England (12), Northern Ireland (1), and Wales (2).No longer are almost half the Scottish tally furnished by writers in Edinburgh government-funded institutions: that total is now 9 out of 53, with a conspicuous reduction in contributions from Historic Scotland; by this stage the CEU had been privatised as AOC Archaeology.University Departments are relatively little represented but include individuals from a range of Departments (including Biomedical Sciences and Scottish History)more from outside Scotland than within it.Orkney and Shetland Colleges of the University of the Highlands and Islands Project make a first appearance.Local Authority archaeology is represented both by Grampian Region and by further museumbased contributions from Peterhead and Falkirk.
Universities and cognate institutions dominatein England (6 universities), in Scotland itself, as well as (wholly) amongst European and North American contributors: 19 of these authors were based in Archaeology or similarly-titled Departments, with a further 12 representing a diversity of other disciplines.European representation came from France, Germany and the Netherlands.Edinburgh-based contributors (15 out of 56: c. 27%) continue to be numerically significant but, other than staff of the National Museum of Scotland including the Treasure Trove Unit with 10 contributions, the state sector remains little represented, although former state employees are noted amongst those contributing from University addresses.The applied archaeological companies are still prominent, mostly but not uniquely those based in Scotland: a new departure is the submission of papers from authors based in subsidiary offices of some of the larger companies.