Better places to live: Government, identity and the value of the historic and built environment

A response by RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust

April 23^rd 2005

Summary

RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust welcomes the publication of Better places to live by the Rt Hon. Tessa Jowell MP as an opportunity to debate a number of serious issues surrounding the Historic Environment and its relationship to wider society in 21^st century Britain.  RESCUE believes that the document raises many important issues, both explicitly and also implicitly.  RESCUE is particularly concerned that the author appears to overlook the significance of archaeology both in relation to our understanding of the historic environment and in relation to the very considerable public interest in and support for archaeology.  Our response to the essay seeks to address the potential offered by archaeology as a vital component of many spheres of contemporary life.  It outlines the very real threats to the historic environment generally and archaeology in particular as a result of government policies which are based upon a misunderstanding of the scope of the discipline and the interest that it generates.

The principal points made in the response can be summarised as follows;

• The Government does not appear to recognise the importance of archaeology as a central component in the understanding and appreciation of the Historic Environment. This is in spite of the vital role that Government plays in ensuring that the fragile resource that is the historic environment is respected and handed on to future generations.

• Britain leads the world in both archaeological techniques and theoretical approaches to the archaeological record.  In large part this is because archaeology in Britain has a history of over 150 years which incorporates contributions from academics, professional archaeologists, enthusiasts and amateurs working alone, in local, regional and national societies and in English Heritage and its predecessors.  This tradition of broadly based involvement still exists but is threatened by Government cuts to English Heritage, uncertainty over the future of Lottery funding and Government’s unqualified support for the development industry.

• Archaeology is the most direct means by which people have access to their past.  It deals with the material traces that human beings have left behind them, irrespective of whether they were rich or poor, old or young, indigenous or immigrant.  It deals with the material aspects of life often absent from conventional history and spans traditional disciplinary boundaries in the techniques it employs and in the social and political issues that it tackles.

• Archaeology is a discipline in which the volunteer or amateur can still contribute in a direct fashion to cutting edge research and can work alongside professionals to both learn and teach.  Millions of people find that their lives are enhanced by learning about their archaeological heritage through visiting archaeological sites and monuments, participating in excavations and surveys, watching television, visiting museums, using the internet, subscribing to magazines and journals or becoming active in a local, regional or national society.

• RESCUE calls for a much greater Government engagement with, and support for, archaeology as a central element in the nation’s cultural life.  Our historic environment and all that it consists of should be celebrated as a national asset and not treated as an embarrassment to be disposed of as quickly and quietly as possible.

Better places to live: Government, identity and the value of the historic and built environment

A response by RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust

Introduction

RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust welcomes the appearance of Better places to live and, in particular, the endorsement of the wide social and cultural importance of the historic environment, as set out in the preface.  RESCUE agrees with this assessment and has, since its foundation in 1971, been an active advocate of the importance of archaeology, the discipline most closely associated with the preservation, interpretation and presentation of the historic environment, to society as a whole.  RESCUE is pleased to see an implicit acknowledgement, albeit a somewhat limited one, of the complexity of the historic environment in terms of the many factors that come together in its constitution.  In spite of this general welcome for the document, RESCUE regrets that the opportunity to engage with the historic environment in its widest sense has been missed and that the Minister remains sadly ill-informed about the initiatives currently taking place within archaeology many of which address directly the issues that she has chosen to highlight.  In this, the document replicates many of the failings of current DCMS policy with regard to the place of archaeology within the wider historic environment.

This response to Better places to live is intended to contribute in a positive fashion to the debate which Ms Jowell calls for in the final paragraph of the preface to her essay and specific responses to the seven questions posed at the end of the essay form the final section of this response.  At the outset, however, RESCUE feels that it is important to establish some parameters for the debate and to question a number of the assumptions that lie behind the opinions set out in the essay.  As with the earlier essay Government and the value of culture, RESCUE welcomes the opportunity to debate the many issues that surround ‘culture’ in general and issues related to the historic environment in particular.  We welcome and support the efforts made by the DCMS to widen access to the arts in general and particularly initiatives such as free admittance to museums and galleries and the commissioning of reports such as Power of place which have clearly demonstrated the importance of the past in the present and its central place in the lives of millions of citizens of this country.  Having said this, we have profound concerns about the directions being taken by the DCMS under Ms Jowell’s leadership and about wider government commitment to the historic environment as a whole.  Some of these concerns come from the lack of action by the DCMS in respect of issues which we and others have highlighted over the past decade.  Others are the result of the attitudes which are embodied in Government and the value of culture and in Better places to live. In the following essay we intend to set out the reasons for these concerns through an exploration of the nature of archaeology and examples of situations in which a more informed understanding of the nature of the historic environment could lead to other, better, outcomes than those which are in prospect.

The past in the present

There can be little doubt that the past is an important personal and community resource for huge numbers of people.  This resource is as diverse in its nature as are the responses to it by the numerous constituencies which comprise ‘the public’.  In Better places to live the emphasis is placed firmly on the built environment, in part, it seems, in order to justify the contribution being made by contemporary architects to the creation of buildings that will one day form part of the past in their own right.  While RESCUE acknowledges this point of view and celebrates the creation of new iconic buildings, we are also aware that for every Humber Bridge or ‘London Gherkin’ (as 30 St Mary Axe is better known), there are many thousands of poorly designed, cheaply constructed and aesthetically repellent buildings erected for short term use and designed to reap rapid financial rewards for the owners who appear to have little or no thought for those who have to work in them and less for those who are condemned to live in their shadow.  Where standing buildings of historical and architectural significance are concerned, RESCUE acknowledges their importance as significant parts of the historic environment and has been actively engaged in campaigning for their retention and sympathetic reuse.  But such buildings form only a tiny proportion of the historic environment.  Far more lies buried and other visible features such as hedgerows, ancient woodlands and peat bogs, while not part of the built environment, are certainly part of the historic environment.  The buried part of our historic environment, if it is to be uncovered and the remains interpreted and presented in a meaningful manner, requires the application of a range of particular skills and techniques.  These skills and techniques, taken together, constitute archaeology, a discipline in which, in both practical and philosophical terms, Britain leads the world and to which British practitioners have made a unique global contribution over the last 150 years.

The statistics and other data gathered as part of the preparation for the publication of Power of Place, the audiences attracted by television programmes dealing with history and archaeology, the increased numbers of people visiting museums and the continuing popularity of these subjects in lifelong learning programmes are evidence of the importance which people from all backgrounds attach to their past.  In particular they attest to the unique interest which archaeology arouses in millions of people.  Local history and archaeology societies are thriving and, with the assistance of the Heritage Lottery Fund, a number are undertaking new, research-orientated excavations and surveys, often in association with professional archaeologists.  Far from being middle class in character or aspiration, such projects draw on a widespread interest in both the object of archaeological investigation and in the wide variety of techniques employed in these investigations. Projects such as those listed in the appendix have engaged the interest and commitment of individuals of all ages from a variety of ethnic groups and social backgrounds.  And yet, in spite of all the evidence for its popularity and significance, archaeology receives hardly any acknowledgement in Better places to live.

David Lowenthal and Raphael Samuel have documented the diversity of approaches to the past from different perspectives in their books The past is a foreign country and Theatres of memory.  These and similar books leave little doubt that, to appropriate phrases used in relation to culture in both of Ms Jowell’s recent essays, the past is both a hinterland, a personal resource that people draw on during their everyday lives and also a heartland; something that people turn to in order to give their lives focus and meaning, particularly in a world that appears increasingly hostile and fraught with peril and moral ambiguity.

As noted above, while the built environment undoubtedly has all the importance ascribed to it by Ms Jowell in both essays, it does not constitute all, or even a substantial part, of the historic environment, however this is defined.  The British landscape as a whole is an artefact which owes its present form to human interaction with the natural environment.  Whether one is walking through the heart of Brighton, Bradford or Berwick-upon-Tweed or across the windswept uplands of Dartmoor or Derbyshire, one is experiencing and interacting with landscapes created largely by human actions.  These have been continuous since the earliest settlement of this part of the Eurasian continent following the end of the last ice age.  The nature of this interaction has itself been shaped by the beliefs, social practices, economic practices and technologies employed by human beings who have lived in this corner of what is now called north-western Europe.  The lives of human beings consist of a vast range of practices and actions which together comprise ‘life’; social, political, spiritual and economic life.  Sociologists and anthropologists, including Anthony Giddens and Pierre Bourdieu, have analysed and described in considerable detail the ways in which people live their lives within individual and diverse societies.  For disciplinary reasons, these writers (and others within the same academic tradition) have concentrated on their observations of specific living communities in order to develop explanations which they believe have general applicability throughout the world.  There are, however, two disciplines which have sought to look at similar phenomena over time and with reference to both temporal and geographical diversity.  These are history and archaeology.  The distinctions between the two are not particularly relevant to this essay; the critical issue is that it is the subject matter and the techniques employed by these two very broad disciplines which not only engages the attention of millions of people but also underlies many of our attitudes to contemporary society and the challenges which we face today.

In order to understand the archaeological perspective on the historic environment, something of the nature of the subject must be understood.  It is necessary to outline some of the main features of archaeology as it is far from clear that these are understood by Ms Jowell or within the DCMS generally.

What is archaeology?

Archaeology deals with the material traces of past human societies which survive into the present.  All material artefacts, whether these are written documents, standing buildings, cemeteries, the rubbish discarded after a royal feast or an 18^th century labourer’s lunch break are the raw material of archaeology.  As archaeologists we approach our raw materials impartially, whether we are dealing with a royal burial such as Sutton Hoo, the ephemeral traces of a battle such as Towton, the remains of a medieval castle such as Pontefract or the foundations of an Iron Age farmstead in the Cheviot Hills.  Standing buildings which still form part of the social and economic fabric of our towns and villages are an important component of the archaeological record, but they remain one component, part of a much wider assemblage of parts which we refer to collectively as the archaeological record.   Elsewhere, what appear to be intensively farmed contemporary rural landscapes incorporate patterns of roads, field boundaries and water courses which attest to their medieval or post-medieval origins.  ‘Natural’ landscapes, often upland ones, retain traces of their prehistoric inhabitants in the form of settlements, land boundaries, field systems, funerary monuments and those enigmatic monuments, stone circles, henges, stone rows and carved stones which are presumed to have some religious or ritual function.  The extent of the survival of such evidence of past human lives varies widely across the country and the ways in which it survives profoundly affects the ways in which we, as human being alive in the 21^st century, respond to it.  It is a fragile legacy and one which a number of surveys and assessments have demonstrated is being eroded at an alarming and increasing rate.

The archaeological record of past human activity is not a simple text from which we read off ‘what happened’ at a given point in time, rather it is a complex accumulation of a diverse range of pieces of evidence attesting to human actions within the natural and cultural worlds and interaction within and between societies.  These pieces of evidence do not speak for themselves.  One cannot stand in front of a building or an archaeological site and expect to understand it immediately, even if its immediate visual and emotional impact is profound.   The techniques which we use to extract the information which forms the basis for our interpretations of past human life and activity are extremely diverse; the physical sciences allow us to date small fragments of bone or charcoal (and, by association, the contexts in which they are found), to determine the contents of a prehistoric cooking pot or the place of origin of a stone tool.  The natural sciences allow us to take a core from a peat bog and reconstruct the changing environment and the human impact on the landscape through the identification of insect remains, pollen spores and other microscopic plant and animal remains.  Techniques drawn from the social sciences allow us to interrogate written texts in order to draw out the many meanings that these had in the past and may have in the present.  The smallest archaeological excavation brings to light a complex and diverse narrative constructed out of the lives of many different people and preserved in the form of disparate fragments of human life and human action.  For many people, within and outside the formal discipline of archaeology, the ways in which these techniques come together and contribute to a broader appreciation of the past constitutes something of the fascination of the subject in a way which goes far beyond the sterile aesthetic response to a single object, removed from its human context and its place in the wider picture of human life.

But archaeology offers more than a snapshot of human lives in one place and at one time.  With its emphasis on time and change it is able to document and explain the variety of human responses to changing conditions of life whether these are related to natural events such as the end of the Ice Age or humanly inspired changes such as the Industrial Revolution or the transformation in society’s world view occasioned by exploration and the encounter with people of other races and cultures.  The responses of migrant communities to their new homes and the reactions of indigenous communities to newcomers may be encapsulated in burial rites, in the transformation of space within existing buildings, in the construction of new buildings, in patterns of rubbish disposal, the use of particular items or the inception of new crafts and industries.  The results of human actions may appal us or may inspire us, but they rarely leave us unmoved. It is archaeology that is uniquely placed to uncover the diverse traces of these events through its broadly based, investigative nature and the wide variety of techniques that it brings to bear on the material traces of past human lives and actions.

A better place to live?

Disappointingly, Ms Jowell seems never to have listened to archaeologists, still less participated in an archaeological project, although in the paragraph describing Hadrian’s Wall (now suffering the effects of a poorly planned and under-resourced footpath scheme) she does appear to have some intuitive feeling for the nature of the encounter with the past.  Empathy alone, however, is an insufficient response to the needs of the historic environment, particularly from a government minister.  We look for a response which is both more informed by an understanding of the nature of the historic environment and by an understanding of the disciplines which allow us to interpret and understand it.  We also look for a greater knowledge of the initiatives which are unlocking the mysteries of the historic environment and making that environment accessible to people from many different backgrounds throughout the country (some of which are listed in the appendix).  Without this knowledge and an appreciation of the scope of the archaeological response to the diversity of the historic environment, it is unlikely that anyone, government minister or otherwise, can hope to gain any real understanding of the nature and significance of that historic environment and the variety of responses to it from the many groups which make up British society.

In the central section of the essay (The human dimension, pages 12 – 19), Ms Jowell mentions many individual schemes and initiatives which are engaging the interest and commitment of various groups within society and which, together, make a good case for the importance of the historic environment.  It is unfortunate that here again we find a concentration on the existing built environment rather than on the broader historic environment as a whole.  Ms Jowell notes that visitors to National Trust and English Heritage managed properties, while abundant (combined membership of both organisations is over four million), are not wholly representative of the composition of the wider society.  This is scarcely surprising, given the relatively restricted profile of the types of building which are in National Trust or English Heritage care.  While the great houses and elite buildings continue to enjoy considerable popularity, some of the most popular buildings are those of vernacular type which have only recently been added to the stock of the two bodies.  Even where the traditional types of heritage property are concerned, it is often the lives of servants and staff which attract most interest – precisely the people whose lives and experiences are most often revealed by archaeology!  And yet the many initiatives around the country which involve people in archaeological excavation and survey are virtually ignored by Ms Jowell.  Such projects disrupt the ‘top down’ interpretations which have traditionally been the standard fare of most visitor attractions and the increasing archaeological literacy of the population allows them to question the sort of work being carried out on a particular site or landscape.  Fifteen years ago, all archaeologists were familiar with (and bored by) the standard question from visitors ‘Have you found any gold then?’.  Today, thanks largely to television, the question is more likely to be along the lines of ‘What did the geophysics show?’.  Evidence, albeit anecdotal, from such conversations indicates that process and practice of excavation is as interesting as the occasional find of a gold coin or piece of decorated metalwork.

When speaking to non-professional audiences, archaeologists are continually confronted with enquiries as to how people can take part in archaeological research, particularly excavation.  All too often we have to point out that the majority of excavations take place in advance of the destructive redevelopment of an urban area and that the dictates of insurance, safety and tight (often unreasonably tight) deadlines precludes the involvement of volunteers or trainees.  It is in response to this demand that many local societies and some commercial contracting units have established research-led excavations on sites which are not under immediate threat and where conditions do not require the type of insurance cover needed on an urban development site.  Here, professional archaeologists can work with volunteers and the skills and interpretative abilities learned by the former can be communicated to the latter.  Sadly, the savage budget cuts imposed on English Heritage by successive governments virtually preclude the organisation’s involvement in such activities and the dwindling resources have to be focussed on basic care and maintenance of the properties in care.  RESCUE is committed to calling for the reversal of these cuts and to the restoration of English Heritage’s role in the promotion of archaeology and of archaeological research through excavation and survey.  It is notable that Ms Jowell entirely ignores this aspect in the second major section of the essay The role of government (pages 19 – 21).

Protecting the historic environment

In the penultimate section of her essay (pages 21-23) Ms Jowell discusses ways in which the protection of the built and historic environment may change in the future.  From an archaeological perspective there is little of value here and a considerable amount that causes deep unease.  As elsewhere in the essay, the emphasis is firmly on the built environment, with the occasional mention of ‘sites’, which might, charitably, be hoped to include archaeological sites, being fairly clearly ‘tacked on’ to a discussion of the built environment.  Naturally, RESCUE supports the proposals to involve local communities in decisions regarding the care and preservation of the built environment, but beyond this, the section fails to address most of the major issues facing the historic environment and those concerned with its future.  The proposal to preserve historic buildings by digital record is one that draws on the established practice of ‘preservation by record’ within archaeology and as such is something that archaeologists may fairly be said to have both experience of and considered opinions about.

Archaeology is, above all, a discipline which involves the excavation of three-dimensional deposits, created through a combination of human and natural processes over time, and their translation into two dimensional written and visual records.  The techniques employed to do this are sophisticated and increasingly involve the application of digital technologies (as, indeed do methods of disseminating the results).  The principles behind the processes are well established and are the subject of continued debate within the discipline as new refinements are added and old assumptions are questioned.  Standing building recording has certainly benefited from the application of digital technology and, as Ms Jowell outlines, digital models of buildings are relatively straightforward to create and to interrogate.  But archaeology goes far beyond the question of individual standing buildings.  When faced with the threat of quarrying which will destroy the landscape context of sites such as the Thornborough Henges in North Yorkshire, Crownhill Down or Shaugh Moor on Dartmoor, the suggestion of the creation of a ‘perfect’ virtual moving image is fatuous beyond belief.  No one but the most blinkered technophile could ever believe that there is an effective digital substitute for the actual encounter with the archaeology of the Thornborough Henges in their landscape setting any more than a laser reproduction of the Mona Lisa approximates to the real thing or the playing of Wagner’s Ring cycle on 78rpm gramophone records is an effective substitute for hearing the operas performed in the theatre.

Preservation by record is appropriate in certain sets of circumstances and necessary in others; we need to undertake such operations in order to recover information vital to the interpretation and understanding of particular sites (as Dr Jan Harding’s work around the Thornborough Henges has demonstrated) or where extensive areas of archaeological deposits are threatened by necessary building work or the impact of agricultural practices (as is common throughout Britain on sites investigated since the implementation of the PPG 16 regime).  Archaeologists have been undertaking such work for over 150 years, with increasing skill and refinement.  This valuable work needs to continue and it requires the backing of an institution such as English Heritage where new techniques can be developed, refined and tested by skilled practitioners, supported by adequate government funding.  Excavation is an effective research tool and can be appropriately employed in situations where there is no alternative to the destruction of sites, but it is wholly inappropriate as a general substitute for the preservation of individual monuments and landscapes with priceless archaeological and historic significance.

Seven questions

In the conclusion to the essay the author poses seven practical questions which deserve consideration, although the manner in which they are framed appears to deliberately set out to denigrate and undermine the excellent work which has been done and is being done by heritage organisations, notably English Heritage.  RESCUE regrets the tone of the questions which seems designed to further demoralise a profession which has always sought to maximise the potential of the past in the present.

(a) How should heritage organisations give leadership to and contribute to national debate on identity and Britishness?

Archaeology, from its emergence as a coherent discipline, has been concerned with issues of identity and nationalism and particularly the role of material culture in the creation and expression of identities, whether national, sectarian, regional or local.  The varied and sometimes shameful history of the engagement with these issues serves as a warning to us all that such matters must be approached with extreme care.  Racist and extreme nationalist ideologues have frequently and selectively employed archaeological data in the creation of fraudulent and fictional pasts designed to legitimise racist and nationalist political systems.  Throughout history, the destruction of symbols of national or sectional identity has been a tool employed by all sides in wars and civil conflicts.  Research is ongoing into the destruction of cultural assets as a means of attempting to destroy a group’s claim to land or to an independent identity.  A recent example is the destruction of archives, libraries and buildings in the former Yugoslavia which was undertaken in parallel to campaigns of mass rape, murder and the expropriation of property as an extensions of conventional acts of war.

As a result of such atrocities, archaeologists know as well as anyone and better than many that the past is a powerful weapon and one that must be handled with care and treated with respect.  The majority of archaeologists are highly sceptical of claims to exclusive national identities and understand that the nation state as an institution, and particularly as an entity through which people may express a sense of exclusive identity, is a relatively recent one.  In common with many archaeologists, RESCUE would dismiss many of the assumptions and claims of nationalism as gross distortions of the archaeological evidence.  In our view, heritage organisations should be ever vigilant for the misuse of archaeological and historical data for nationalist ends and should treat as suspicious any suggestion that archaeological data supports claims based upon nationalist rhetoric.

A large number of books and articles have been published dealing with these aspects of the discipline.  These include excellent textbooks (such as Sian Jones’ The archaeology of ethnicity) and detailed critiques of particular approaches to this issue (such as Mark Pluciennik’s excellent discussion in the journal Archaeological Dialogues).

RESCUE is somewhat disturbed to discover that this extensive literature is apparently unknown to the Minister and her advisors.  We would advise the closest co-operation with scholars well-versed in this literature before attempts are made to enlist archaeology in support of nationalistic agendas.

(b) Is my analysis of the value of the historic and built environment as I have defined it here correct?

For the reasons set out above, RESCUE would set a higher value on the historic environment than is presented in Better places to live.  We suggest that the Minister and her advisors underestimate the importance of archaeology as a component of the Historic Environment.  The past is a resource of great value and extreme fragility.  Once an archaeological  site or a building is lost it is lost for ever.  Unlike a musical performance or a theatrical presentation it cannot be recreated from a score or text.  The most careful record is inevitably a product of its time and of the available technology and will date within a matter of years.  As outlined above, preservation by record is an essential tool of archaeology and perhaps the defining archaeological image is of excavators at work excavating and recording an ancient site.  The paradox that the creation of archaeological knowledge depends upon the destruction of the raw data is one that archaeologists are all too aware of and which they address on a daily basis.  This explains our focus as a profession on detailed recording and the recovery of a wide variety of types of data during the process of excavation and also explains the concern with which we view attempts to impose poorly-conceived sampling strategies as a way of limiting the financial responsibility of developers during programmes of destructive development, redevelopment, mining and quarrying.

In contrast, the kind of iconic monuments that Ms Jowell appears to be principally concerned with in the essay are of types which are likely to be the subject of attempts at preservation and renovation.  In these cases, RESCUE would argue that their value is higher than the values imposed by Ms Jowell and her ministerial colleagues.  An iconic building, an archaeological site or a historic landscape remains a resource which can be visited and revisited; the Thornborough Henges, for example, have outlasted hundreds of generations and exist today to be visited, experienced and interpreted by thousands of people from all backgrounds.  Are they to be destroyed for the sake of sand and gravel to be used to build identical housing estates that will be gone, unlamented, within a generation?  Similarly, are the fringes of the Dartmoor National Park to be disfigured by spoil heaps and slurry lagoons resulting from the mining of china clay destined to be used to coat white bathroom suites and the glossy pages of junk mailing shots advertising questionable offers of Mediterranean time-share apartments and low-budget car insurance?

(c) How can we best capture and present evidence for the value of that heritage?

Clearly there are times when the requirements of the present will necessitate the destruction of elements of the historic environment, but where possible the emphasis should be on retention and integration with the requirements of the modern world.  Where this is impossible, archaeology already has the techniques and professionalism to preserve by record – what it lacks above all is the political support and the money to do this effectively.

The commercialisation of archaeology since the start of the PPG 16  regime, while it has led to the welcome institutionalisation of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, has had a negative effect on investment in archaeological training and education.  There is an urgent need for the establishment of regional and national training excavations, projects which will allow a variety of people (new graduates, amateurs and individuals from the voluntary sector, professionals needing or wanting various forms of in-service training and so on) to participate in practical projects with a pedagogical and research-orientated element.  In spite of the recent savage cuts to its budget, English Heritage is still the best body to undertake this training, but it requires the restitution of recent cuts before this will be a practical proposition.

In short, we already have the techniques to capture, record and disseminate information about our heritage and our historic environment. What we lack is the political support to mobilise and implement these techniques effectively.  We look to the DCMS to provide this support through well managed institutions which have the interests of the historic environment at their heart.

(d-1) What can we do to create public engagement and widen the sense of ownership of the historic and built environment?

The framework for public engagement with the historic environment generally and archaeology specifically already exists in the network of local societies, amateur groups, lifetime learning and extra-mural courses and similar institutions.  The Local Heritage Initiative and similar lottery funded projects have been of enormous significance in this respect and RESCUE would argue strongly that such schemes need to be guaranteed into the future.  It would also be of assistance if rules regarding the eligibility of ‘research’ were relaxed to allow a broader range of such initiatives to be put in place to facilitate broader public participation in university training excavations and similar projects.  RESCUE believes that engagement is best fostered through encouraging active participation rather than the passive reception of information handed down from television and radio programmes or the internet, valuable though these are in their place.  A person who has worked on an archaeological excavation or a landscape survey will inevitably have a greater sense of ownership than one who has been the recipient of information doled out by a distinguished ‘talking head’ however amusing, engaging or charismatic.  Once again, the framework exists to achieve the goals which Ms Jowell outlines, but the effective political support and enthusiasm for them is notable by its absence.

(d-2) How in particular do we introduce true diversity in terms of engagement, workforce, and audience?

In terms of the workforce, surveys carried out by The Council for British Archaeology, English Heritage and The Institute of Field Archaeologists (Profiling the Profession 1999 and 2002/2003) have demonstrated that archaeology is amongst the lowest paid of professions, taking into account the generally high level of educational attainment and qualification amongst practitioners.  It is normal to find individuals with university degrees and post-graduate qualifications working as field technicians on wages below those of semi-skilled labourers.  The average archaeological wage in 2002/3 was £19,161, compared with a national average wage of £24,498 and an average professional wage of £32,577 (Figures taken from Profiling the Profession 2002/3).  Outside local government and English Heritage pay and conditions are generally poor, the length of rolling contracts is measured in weeks and the prospects for professional advancement are extremely limited.  The lack of a clear career structure and of professional in-service training makes it a profession that appeals principally to those for whom job satisfaction and vocation are more important than rewards in the shape of wages or advancement.  One inevitable consequence of this is that many people are put off a career in archaeology before or even after taking a first degree and it is probable that this factor is more persuasive amongst certain groups in society than others.  The inevitable result of this a narrower than desirable range of entrants to the profession.  With the ongoing cuts to English Heritage budgets and limited opportunities in museums (outside teaching support, administrative and marketing posts), there are few avenues for professional advancement in the sector.  Under present circumstances it is unlikely than any but the most highly motivated will enter the profession or remain in it once they have understood its character.  Without significant change in the terms and conditions of employment and long-term prospects there is little chance that the socio-economic profile of the profession will change in the short or even the long term.

Under these circumstances it is inevitable that many people are discouraged from entering the profession, particularly those for whom stability and prospects are seen to be important.  Government action is necessary to effect a change in these variables and the following measures might be a start:

Restitution of funding to English Heritage and the restoration of posts lost in the professional and scientific parts of the organisation;

Encouragement for English Heritage to market its skills in the heritage sector abroad, particularly in countries where diplomatic solutions to recent civil disorders have created the opportunity to undertake new archaeological research linked to the encouragement of tourism and travel;

Provision of adequate core-funding for local and regional museums and the recruitment of new scholars able to undertake innovative and dynamic research on existing collections and archives;

Restoration of the cuts already made to local and regional museums and heritage services with the aim of restoring access to archives and collections and the reopening of closed or mothballed museums and galleries;

Creation of a statutory requirement for local authorities to maintain Historic Environment Records (Sites and Monuments Records) and Conservation Officer posts offering the possibility of career choices and progression on a par with planning staff, architects and others;

Establishment of clear career structures within archaeology and the modification of the contract-tender system within commercial archaeology which, by making cost the over-riding determinant of who wins a tender (rather than quality of outcome), currently keeps wages low, contracts short and career prospects limited or non-existent.

As far as engagement and the audience are concerned, it is clear that there is enormous enthusiasm for archaeology and the historic environment amongst the many groups which make up the ‘general public’.  As outlined elsewhere in this document, there is a considerable level of commitment to and enthusiasm for engagement with the public within archaeology but funds and facilities are lacking, with funding in particular a major problem.  A guarantee of future Lottery funding for archaeological projects of all kinds is essential if this degree of enthusiasm and commitment is to be built upon in a positive manner.  At the same time it is essential that the recent cuts to English heritage funding are reversed in order that the sector has the backing of a well-funded, confident and competent partner.

It is clear that there is very little understanding within the DCMS of the strength of the commitment to public outreach of all types within archaeology.  To overcome this, it might be useful if direct consultations took place between officials within the DCMS and representatives of the various groups within archaeology.  Close liaison with Heritage Link might be a way of beginning this process, but its success will depend on Ministers and their advisors approaching archaeology with an open mind and a willingness to listen to the views of the profession.

(e) Does the sector have the necessary skills and structures?

At present the sector has a number of the necessary skills and structures required to take archaeology forward, but these are in danger of being lost as experienced practitioners retire or abandon the profession for others with better career opportunities.  English Heritage, for many years a centre of excellence within the profession, able to maintain an outreach and training role through the provision of professional development and other courses, is in danger of losing its best and brightest employees as the policy of ‘death by a thousand cuts’ takes effect.  A similar effect has been seen in the conservation sector with the loss of conservator’s jobs in local and regional museums.  It seems inevitable that, if present policies are maintained, English Heritage will cease to function effectively in a few years time and that there will be no institution or organisation capable of taking up its role in these areas.

Commercial archaeology, while relatively efficient at servicing the requirements of the development sector, exists almost solely in relation to this sector and as such is subject to the ebb and flow of the economic cycle.  It does not offer the kind of stability necessary for the long term investment in structures which will nurture new talent and encourage innovation and initiative.  A strong, centrally funded body is necessary to underpin the commercial arm of the profession, to provide long term stability and to manage such out-sourced research as is deemed necessary or appropriate.

(f) What in particular should DCMS get bodies such as English Heritage to do differently, to lead the wider sector into a true transformation by example?

The prime requirement with regard to the relationship between the DCMS and English Heritage is that the former should restore the cuts made to the budget of the latter in order that it can resume its programmes of research-led excavation and survey, the analysis and publication of backlog sites (many of which remain unpublished as a result of government actions in the past) and professional development services.  Such a restoration of funds will also allow the organisation to continue the excellent work it has been doing in opening up public access not only to sites and monuments but also in creating opportunities for people to participate in the archaeological process through survey and excavation and practical engagement in archaeology.

Other practical measures have been outlined in the response to question d-2, above.

RESCUE does not believe that there is any lack of will within the sector to undertake innovative outreach work or to work more closely with individuals or organisations from outside the sector.  Discussion of the relationship between archaeology and the wider public in continuous and ongoing within the discipline.  It is rare that a major multi-session conference does not include at least one session devoted to the relationship between archaeology and the public.  Entire conferences have been organised which are solely devoted to the subject.  Archaeology may not be alone in possessing a journal devoted exclusively to the subject (Public Archaeology, published by University College, London), but it is certainly unusual.  Can other disciplines claim the same?  History certainly can but where are ‘Public Geology’, ‘Public Economics’, ‘Public Sociology’ or ‘Public Philosophy’?

All such discussions are characterised by a high degree of interest in facilitating public access to archaeology, both through presentation to passive recipients (which has borne fruit in the many television and radio programmes and rapidly growing number of websites devoted to the subject) and through work with amateur and voluntary groups.  As noted above and in the appendix, many such projects are in operation at present and are proving popular with the public and with the education sector but there is room for further improvement and expansion.  Lottery or similar funding is essential (commercial sponsorship having proved unreliable at best or non-existent at worst) and it would be highly desirable if restrictions which prevent the funding of ‘research’ be relaxed.  Many projects exist which are primarily research-orientated in nature but which are eminently suitable for public participation.  Under existing rules however applications for funding are either impossible or have to be selectively worded in order to emphasise the ‘outreach’ element at the expense of the ‘research’ element when in fact the two are inextricably linked and the latter contributes to the value of the former.  As noted above, one of the attractions of archaeology is that very research element, the idea of discovery and the creation of new knowledge from unpromising raw material and the sense that one is participating in something that will change ideas and preconceptions about a place or region.  To exclude this on bureaucratic grounds is nothing more than absurd.

(g) How can we better define and deliver the role of Government in supporting it?

The heritage sector in general and archaeology in particular requires a far greater degree of confidence to be shown in it by government, both central and local.  Ms Jowell and the DCMS may have moved swiftly to dismiss rumours published in The Sunday Times that there are plans to close down English Heritage, but the widespread acceptance of the story within the profession demonstrates how little confidence it has in government pronouncements.  The progressive cuts to English Heritage budgets, the infinitesimally slow progress towards a statutory requirement for SMRs/HERs and towards the revision of PPG 15 / 16 all combine to confirm, in the minds of archaeologists, the government’s basic hostility towards their discipline and unqualified support for the development industry and its lobbyists.

As a first step, confidence building measures are required which will restore English Heritage funding to previous levels and will move the emphasis back from marketing and publicity towards research, outreach and professional development.

Figures compiled by Heritage Link, an umbrella organisation consisting of seventy-five organisations (including such diverse groups as Architectural Heritage Fund, The National Trust, The Council for British Archaeology, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, The Country Land and Business Association as well as RESCUE) show that whereas funding to Sport England has increased by 98.1% between 2000/01 and 2005/06, the grant-in-aid to English Heritage increased by only 3% and overall spending within DCMS on the historic environment as a whole increased by only 8%.  RESCUE has no view upon the sums of money devoted to sport in particular, but feels that such a gross inequity in the allocation of resources signals an almost total disregard for the importance of the heritage sector and for English Heritage in particular.  This would tend to suggest that the apparent support for Power of Place by the DCMS has had, and continues to have, very little actual impact in terms of funding or practical support for English Heritage.

Appendix

It is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of the many archaeological projects active throughout Britain which are either run by or run for the benefit of the wider community.  The examples highlighted here are intended to show the extent to which archaeologists are working with local communities at all levels in order to engage them with the past of their localities and also to teach them the techniques and skills employed by archaeologists in the investigation of the past.

Many of the projects described below and still more which are running throughout the country involve schools and colleges.  In terms of educational benefit, archaeology offers much in that it requires the application of many skills; mathematical (in survey and recording), creative (in the interpretation of the meaning of finds), practical (in learning how to excavate and to take decisions), artistic (in recording finds and the features uncovered on site), academic (in learning the history of the site and the influence of geographical and social factors in contributing to the archaeological and historical record) and so on.  Archaeology is also, above all, a team enterprise where different skills must be mobilised for a successful outcome.  It is also physical, as anyone who has spent a few hours digging and moving soil will testify.  The outcome of participation in an archaeological project is far more satisfying then the hollowness of a transient victory on the sports field.

It is projects such as these which are threatened by the ongoing cuts to English Heritage budgets, by cuts to local and regional museums and heritage services and by the government’s failure to recognise the important place that archaeology has within the historic environment.

The information presented here has been compiled by RESCUE from a raid trawl of press releases and websites created as part of the various projects.  Each one can be followed up using the links supplied or through a search using an appropriate internet search engine.  The English Heritage website www.helm.org.uk also contains much useful information on projects throughout England.

Dig Manchester

‘Dig Manchester’ began with an excavation at Moston Old Hall, a site dating back to the 13^th century (http://www.idigmoston.co.uk/) and brought together the University of Manchester’s Field Archaeology Centre, the city, the local community, schools and businesses in an exemplary partnership, as well as a local ‘champion’ in the form of Councillor Paul Murphy.  Robina McNeil, director of the Greater Manchester Archaeology Unit described the project in the following terms:

“The idea was to involve the local community from school children to senior citizens in a local dig, to not only uncover some history, but to bring about a sense of community and pride.  The results were far more positive than we could have imagined. Businesses gave goods in kind, like lunches for people on the dig, tools and electronic equipment to download images.  The whole community became involved in the dig and archaeological inquiry was seen to be particularly beneficial. Moreover a sense of community pride emerged that was perhaps not there before. In fact, the crime rate for the area dropped by 45% whilst the dig was underway! Membership of the Moston & District Archaeology & Social History Group soared, so we hope that what Manchester does today, the world will follow tomorrow”.

The scheme has been so successful that the Heritage Lottery Fund has funded a three-year programme, which will involve similar projects in Northenden and Wythenshawe, as well as Moston, with all sites identified for their archaeological, education and regeneration potential. The HLF award of £500,000 will fund three new posts, all based at the University, which will enable the continuation of the project across Manchester. Their role will be to get as many local people and schools involved as possible and encourage them to learn about their local history via the digs.

Northenden Mill also dates back to the 13th century. Since its corn mill was demolished in 1966, no explorations of the site have been made. The mill holds strong memories for many members of the community and is likely to be a popular site.

The Wythenshawe site will be in the grounds of the Hall and will offer an interesting place to dig especially as the grounds are supposed to hold the remains of a moat.

Manchester City Council is leading the project in conjunction with The University of Manchester, Manchester Museum, North Manchester Regeneration Partnership, Wythenshawe Regeneration Partnership and Moston & District Archaeology & Social History Group (MADASH).

Commenting on the award, HLF’s regional manager Tony Jones said,

“This is a fantastic project which will allow hundreds of people to try their hand at something new and unusual. We’re committed to funding projects that every community can take pride in and learn about their local heritage. In this case, learning about history has never been such fun!”

For more information please contact Jo Grady, Media Relations Officer at The University of Manchester on 0161 275 2018, or at jo.grady@manchester.ac.uk

Cambridge Women and Homelessness Group

Members of the Cambridge Archaeological Unit in association with the Cambridge Women and Homelessness Group organised an excavation in the grounds of Fulbourn Hospital (16^th to 19^th October 1999) involving members of the Group, patients at the hospital and archaeologists.  The project does not have a website but accounts of the experiences of participants have been compiled by the Group and published in a volume edited by A.M. Chadwick.  The publication, by a mainstream archaeological publisher, indicates the extent to which such projects are seen by the profession as part of archaeology rather than as something ‘added on’ to the discipline.

Chadwick, A.M.  2004  Stories from the landscape; Archaeologies of inhabitation. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1238.

Gardom’s Edge, Derbyshire

A project organised jointly by Sheffield University and the Peak District National Park Authority focussed on the Neolithic to Iron Age landscape of Gardom’s Edge in the Peak District National Park and involving archaeology students, volunteers from local amateur/voluntary archaeology groups, twelve local schools and other volunteers.  Activities included excavation and survey, theatrical and artistic events and the recreation of activities which took place on the site in the past.  More details of the project are available on the project website: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~geap/

Kingsbury High School, Brent, London

An archaeology project organised jointly by University College London, the Museum of London Archaeology Service (MoLAS) and Kingsbury High School

The project website includes details of the project and photographs of students engaged in the excavation:  http://sidious.kingsbury.brent.sch.uk/history/index.htm

The Shovel Down project, Dartmoor

The Shovel Down Project (Dartmoor), a long term research project run jointly by University College, London, Sheffield University and University College Dublin involved a day’s experience of digging as part of a visit to Dartmoor for a group of teenagers from Camberwell, South London in 2004.  Future years will see the project expanded to include further outreach work involving archaeological survey and excavation and art projects related directly to the excavations.

Leiston Abbey, Suffolk

A project organised by LAYSER (Local Authority Youth Services in the Eastern Region) in conjunction with a local youth group, CYDS and the Suffolk County Council Archaeology Service with the assistance of English Heritage and Procorda, the present occupiers of the Abbey.  Fieldwork was conducted for five weeks during the school Easter and summer holidays. The project culminated in a live drama event run by Red Rose Chain at the abbey during a December evening.

A LAYSER press release described the project as follows:

The Diggers of Leiston: Young people have been undertaking a dig at Leiston Abbey in partnership with the youth group CYDS and the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service. One of their first finds was a skeleton up to 700 years old, probably of one of the monks of the Abbey. The young people will be presenting a display of their finds and a photographic record to the dig, but the skeleton will not be on view – he was re-interred at the end of the dig. The young people have already put on a display of the outcome of the first part of their dig, and are now considering how to make the outcome of the whole excavation, together with the history of the Abbey, come alive to a wider audience, through photography, video or drama.

Boltby Millennium Group
Region: Yorkshire
Local Authority: Ryedale
Owner Type: Private
Designation: 1-II*;2-
Funding Body: Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF)
Year of Intervention: 2002

Summary:  An HLF funded documentary research and archaeological fieldwork by Boltby Millennium Group (comprising most residents of the village), supported by English Heritage and the North York Moors National Park, allowed a small rural community to better understand and appreciate their local heritage.

Description: Boltby is a rural village on the fringe of a National Park, mostly comprising buildings of the 17th-19th centuries. Documentary research by the residents, supported by advice from the National Park Archaeologist, suggested that a previously unrecorded complex of earthworks in paddocks on the edge of the village might be a manorial complex, possible the original home of the locally powerful de Boltby family, who had left the village by 1281.

Issue: Inspired by Time Team, the Group had initially looked to geophysical survey to provide them with a conclusive answer as to whether the earthwork complex was indeed a manorial complex. Though they had successfully applied for funding to commission a geophysical survey by commercial contractors, this approach distanced the residents from the research process.

Strategy: Informal contact with English Heritage archaeologists based in the local Regional Office prompted the advice that the residents should carry out an investigation and analytical field survey of the earthworks in advance of the geophysical survey, under the supervision of English Heritage experts. Although this work had not been budgeted for within the Heritage Lottery Fund grant application, the opportunity to train members of the Group and demonstrate best practice, as well as to involve the community in research into their local heritage, justified the involvement of three members of the English Heritage Archaeological Investigation Team in a weekend-long training course.

Outcome: The analytical earthwork survey demonstrated that the complex is indeed a manorial complex, of schedulable quality, and the Sites and Monuments Record and the National Monuments Record have been upgraded accordingly. The position of the complex in the wider context of the village is better understood. Equally importantly, over the weekend, 30 members of the village, of all ages, participated in the investigation under the supervision of English Heritage experts, with unanimous enthusiasm and appreciation. Those who took part learned more about their local heritage and developed a better understanding of different survey techniques and the goals of landscape archaeology in the process.  English Heritage staff were responsible for writing the report on the field survey and the residents made use of the research and an interpretative version of the earthwork plan in a booklet written entirely by members of their Group, entitled Boltby: a history.

See: www.helm.org.uk (the source of this information) for details of this and other similar projects.

Flag Fen, Peterborough

It is difficult to summarise the range of activities organised at Flag Fen, one of the country’s most important Bronze Age sites, but all are orientated around the ongoing archaeological excavations and associated research at the site. Francis Pryor’s team are able to undertake archaeological investigation of the highest quality while providing a wide range of outreach activities for tourists and the local community, including local schools and colleges.  Full details can be found on the Flag Fen website http://www.flagfen.com/.

Cuts to local services

The projects outlined above are ones that have succeeded, often with funding from English Heritage or assistance in kind.  Heritage Lottery funding through various programmes has also been essential to many of these projects.  Elsewhere community archaeology projects and heritage services, including museums, archaeological, curatorial and conservation posts are in jeopardy.  RESCUE has featured many of these in its newspaper RESCUE NEWS.  This essay is not the place to provide a detailed review of the cuts which have been made to local and regional heritage services in recent years and the following examples have been plucked from RESCUE’s files on the subject.  They include:

South Kesteven, Lincolnshire:  Community archaeology projects closed down (2004)

Cambridgeshire: 25% cut in funding to heritage services in 2005/6 in response to government pressure to keep Council Tax rises down, irrespective of the damage that results to local services, 2004/5

Southampton: City archaeology museum (God’s House Tower) closed 2001

Leicester: Museums closed or mothballed, opening hours reduced, staff dismissed or not replaced, 2003/4

Northampton: Museum stores closed and centralised, curatorial staff reduced, opening hours reduced, archives reduced by dispersal to other collections or sold, 2003/4

Daventry: Daventry Museum closed 2004

Winchester: Archaeological field unit closed, 2003/4

Gloucester: Archaeological field unit closed, 2003/4, Transport Gallery closed, Folk Museum closed

Stoke-on-Trent:  Now four museum curators where there were previously ten to oversee collections of international importance related to the pottery industry

Notes for editors

RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust was founded in 1971 to promote the interests of archaeology in Britain.  We believe that archaeology is central to an understanding and appreciation of our historic environment and is a vital part of the nation’s cultural life.  Since 1971 we have been active in drawing attention to threats to archaeology in the field, to archaeological archives and collections held in our museums and to the heritage services which promote access to them and ensure their long term survival.  Our sixteen year campaign to end ploughing on the site of the Roman town of Verulamium was successful in 2003 with an agreement between the landowners and English Heritage which took the site out of cultivation.

We receive no financial support from central government or any other body and are entirely dependent upon the donations and subscriptions of our members and supporters who are drawn from both the professional and amateur/voluntary sector.  This gives us the freedom to campaign vigorously on behalf of archaeology and to respond directly to the concerns of our members.

Contact details:

RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust
15a Bull Plain
Hertford
Hertfordshire
SG14 1DX

Telephone: (01992) 553377

E-Mail: rescue@rescue-archaeology.freeserve.co.uk

Website: www.rescue-archaeology.freeserve.co.uk