www.salisbury.gov.uk/planning/development-control/planning-applications/2009/1527/application-documentation.htm

In summary, the scheme proposals are for closure of the A344/A303 junction at Stonehenge Bottom and greening of the A344 up to the Henge; removal of parking and other facilities from the present location to Airman’s Corner, at the junction of the A344 with the A360 on the western edge of the WHS; retention of a small, partly underground facility for security etc. on the present site; and use of the A344 as a visitor-transit route between the Henge and new visitor-facilities at Airman’s Corner.

The Stonehenge Alliance, of which RESCUE is a member organisation, objected to the planning application (see Alliance letter on the website link, above, at ‘Consultee Response’: 1 December 2009). Although we welcomed proposals to close the A344 to general traffic and removal of the visitor-facilities from the vicinity of the Henge, we objected to the extensive new car and coach parks to be set in the open countryside of the World Heritage Site, and the departure from planning policies for the WHS; and we raised a considerable number of questions about matters on which insufficient information had been provided and on which we felt further consultation was needed before a planning decision could be made.

We also raised matters concerning the Appropriate Assessment of possible impacts of the development on nearby European Special Areas of Conservation. An Appropriate Assessment is required under European law and must be undertaken by the determining authority in advance of determination of the application.

The Alliance, being of the opinion that the application would be best considered at a Public Inquiry, wrote to the Government Office for the South West (GOSW), asking for a call-in to be recommended to the Secretary of State.

We learned that Natural England had apparently withdrawn its advice for additional work to be undertaken to inform the Appropriate Assessment shortly before the Officer’s Report to the Strategic Planning Committee was made available to the public a week before its meeting on 20 January. The Alliance still had concerns about the Appropriate Assessment that had then been undertaken and asked its solicitor to write to the Council (see application web link, ‘Representation Letters’: Letter from Earth Rights, 25 January 2009). It also had concerns about the Officer’s Report to Committee (see cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=145&MId=618&Ver=4) and wrote again to the GOSW, detailing those concerns at some length (see below), and again asked for a call-in to be recommended. We learned shortly before the planning meeting that the Secretary of State was considering whether or not to call in the application.

Stonehenge Alliance – Letter to GOSW

Download

On 20 January, the Strategic Planning Committee’s principal concerns about the application appeared to relate to traffic congestion and rat-running through local villages to avoid traffic jams on the A303; the need to take the funding on offer for the development now, before it might suddenly be withdrawn; and, not surprisingly, a strong feeling that it was about time that a decision was made to put a new Stonehenge visitor centre somewhere and that you would never find everyone agreeing on where that should be. The adverse impacts of the proposed scheme on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site and the impact of the facilities on the landscape were hardly mentioned and no S.106 condition was sought to minimise those impacts by amendments to the building, and screening of it and the 500-space car park by vegetation, such as had been advised by ICOMOS-UK, Natural England, CABE, and Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society, (see planning application web link: ‘Consultee Response’: ‘preview unavailable, 1 December 2009’ (ICOMOS-UK and NE); ‘CABE, 22 December 2009’; and ‘26 November 2009’ (WANHS)), amongst others.

Committee Members appeared to approve the application as suggested in the Officer’s Report with two amendments to the proposed S.106 Conditions. The Alliance was afterwards informed verbally by a Council Officer that a decision on the application had been deferred and delegated to Officers pending consideration of legal issues raised by the legal representative of the Stonehenge Alliance and taking any associated procedural action arising; a decision was also subject to delegation of completion of the S.106 Agreement. We were not able to obtain the actual wording of the Committee’s decision and still await it (27 January). English Heritage has issued a press release indicating that planning approval for the development is in place and approval of the plans has been reported in the local press (see www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/salisbury/salisburynews/4866248.Stonehenge_visitor_centre_approved/). There remains confusion about what the Strategic Planning Committee actually resolved.

Meanwhile, we have not yet heard from the Government Office concerning a decision by the Secretary of State. It would not be too late for anyone who may be concerned to write to the GOSW, asking for the application to be called-in for a Public Inquiry by the Secretary of State. The person to write to is Ms Tracey Williams at Tracey.WILLIAMS@gosw.gsi.gov.uk.

We have tried to collate below as many links as possible to relevant responses. However, please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like a link to your response to be added.

These links open in a new window unless otherwise stated.

• Council for British Archaeology
• Institute for Archaeologists
• Heritage Link
• The National Trust
• English Heritage
• Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings
• Historic Houses Association
• Historic Towns Forum
• IHBC / RTPI joint response
• Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies
• The Archaeology Forum (pdf via Scribd)
• National Historic Ships
• Civic Society Initiative
• Banbury Civic Society (pdf via Scribd)
• Archaeological Archives Forum: response to PPS15 (pdf via Scribd) | response to Practice Guide (pdf via Scribd)
• FAME (pdf via Scribd)

The Department for Communities and Local Governement says “PPS15 reflects a more modern, integrated approach which defines the historic environment in terms of heritage assets to be conserved in accordance with a set of principles and in proportion to their significance.”

You can read Rescue’s response below.
PPS 15 Consultation Rescue Response

www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/improvingdevelopmentconsultation

You can read Rescue’s response below.
Communities & Local Government Improving Permitted Development Consultation Comments by RESCUE: the Briti…

You can find out more about the Practice Guide on the English Heritage website: www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.21136

You can read the RESCUE response below.

PPS 15 – Practice Guides: Rescue Comments

Despite a statement suggesting the Government is “…100% committed to preserving and protecting our precious historic environment” the failure to pursue the Bill at this time sends out a poor message about the importance the Government attaches to our historic environment – particularly to the Heritage profession which has generally supported the need for reforms in the sector and actively engaged in the process of discussion and consultation about constructive ways forward.

Despite its shortcomings, this proposed Bill was an attempt to provide some measure of coherence to the many strands of historic environment legislation currently in place. The Bill also addressed some areas of definite need – the provision of statutory status for Historic Environment Records across England and Wales is perhaps chief amongst these, but there was also for the first time formal protection of the country’s World Heritage Sites, Historic Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields, and sites of early human occupation. As it stands, these sites still have no formal protection regimes, and Rescue is now calling on the Government to urgently implement these particular aspects of the proposed legislation as soon as possible, whether or not the Heritage reform package survives in its current form in the future.

Considerable resources have been expended by a number of Heritage organisations in attempting to further this process, valuable resources which it now appears may have been wasted, and which could have been better utilised in protecting the heritage of the country itself. Rescue recognises that these are exceptionally challenging times, and that the Government must make decisions to ensure the economic outlook improves. Rescue does not believe that this is incompatible with robust and effective protection for the historic environment in general and for archaeology in particular. We would urge the government to ensure that the decisions about our future are not made without considering the urgent need to protect and conserve the remains of our past.

Notes:

For the Government quotes see the statement from ministers on DCMS website at:

www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/historic_environment/5644.aspx

The statement can also be found on the English Heritage website:

www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.20038

with links to further pages about what can and cannot be achieved without legislation.

In 2005 the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) issued a consultation paper entitled Understanding the Future: Museums and 21 st century life. RESCUE has been involved in campaigning to support local and regional museums in the face of continual threats to staff jobs, funding and opening hours and welcomed the opportunity to put the case for museums to the DCMS. Our response to the consultation paper is reproduced here in full. The DCMS document is available on the Departments website at the following address:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/31419198-35C1-4A00-8C12-CB0572EC9B57/0/UnderstandingtheFuture.pdf

Understanding the future: museums and 21 st century life

The value of museums

A response by RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust

June 2005

Summary

RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust welcomes the publication of Understanding the Future: Museums and 21 st century life as an opportunity to debate the role of museums at the beginning of the 21 st century. We are particularly pleased to see commitments to the museums sector being made by ministers and look for these to be carried forward into practical policies which will reverse the chronic underfunding which has plagued the museum sector, and particularly the local and regional component of that sector, over the next few years.

In our response to the discussion document we have sought to highlight a series of issues which affect the effectiveness of museums in carrying out their various tasks. Our concerns are focussed specifically on archaeology, but our comments may also have more general applicability. Our principal concerns lie in the following areas:

• We argue for investment in research and in the facilities required for effective research which will enhance the value of collections and increase public understanding of the significance of collections (specific proposals are made in the response to Question 4);

• We suggest that closer links between museums and the Higher and Further Educations sectors would allow research to be focussed on existing and new collections of material which are, at present, underused for research purposes, with appropriate changes to the Research Assessment Exercise to bring British collections within the scope of university-based research;

• We argue for a revised funding structure that will ensure that museums are not the first targets of local authorities seeking to reduce their expenditure;

• We urge the establishment of effective career structures and better pay and conditions within the museum sector as a way of attracting individuals from a wider range of social backgrounds into the sector, bringing careers in museums into line with other public services such as education and health;

• We suggest that the authors of the document have failed to appreciate the extent to which museums (and archaeology generally) are already engaged with the public through a variety of initiatives based upon formal educational structures and also less formally through clubs for children and young people (notably the Young Archaeologists Clubs) and through the close association between local history and archaeological societies and local and regional museums;

• We draw attention to the diversity within the museum sector (mirroring the diversity within the heritage sector as a whole) and suggest that this should be seen as a source of strength, rather than a drawback, as it appears to be viewed by the DCMS.

The value of museums

Introduction

RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the debate over the future of museums and the development of their role in the 21 st century. Our comments in this response to the document are intended to be a positive contribution to the debate even where these are critical of present and past national and local government policies towards museums.

We particularly pleased to note Ms Jowell’s statement that scholarship and research are central to the role of museums in the 21 st century (page 3). We also welcome Estelle Morris’ acknowledgement of the fact that museums lie at the heart of our cultural heritage (page 5). We look forward to seeing these statements followed up by positive support for museums at times of crisis, support which has rarely been forthcoming from the DCMS in the past few years.

Before addressing the questions posed in the annex to the document we believe that it is important to engage in some discussion of the content of the document in general.

As RESCUE is an organisation primarily concerned with archaeology, the comments in this contribution will deal specifically with that subject, although some of our observations may also be applicable in other areas. RESCUE is concerned that archaeology, which constitutes an important part of the museums sector, is under-represented in the document, as evidenced by the limited inclusion of archaeological projects amongst the case studies selected to illustrate the document. This, we feel, reflects the generally low priority given to archaeology by the DCMS generally, a point that we have made elsewhere, notably in our response to the Minister’s essay Better places to live . We look forward to a more inclusive approach to the issues raised once the consultation exercise is complete.

With reference to the issue of diversity within the museum sector (which is raised a number of times in the document), we would point out that museums, which often incorporate art galleries, are institutions with an unusually wide remit. It is perhaps time that the DCMS recognised that diversity (which the Department appears to read purely as ‘fragmentation’) is a characteristic of the heritage sector in general and that there are good practical and historical reasons for this diversity. In the case of local and regional museums their collections may cover palaeontology, archaeology (including Egyptology), anthropology, technology, social and economic history, political history, natural history, fine art and other areas within their collections and exhibitions.

A distinct group of museums are devoted to single subjects (military history, transport or social history for example) and these are equally a significant part of the part of the sector, offering a different but equally valuable experience to the visitor and a range of specialised resources to the student or researcher.

Collections of national and international importance are held both in our major national museums and also in the more specialised regional museums (such as the Potteries Museum in Stoke-on-Trent ).

There is no reason to suppose that this diversity within individual institutions and between different institutions is not a valued part of museums in general. RESCUE would suggest that many visitors enjoy the wide range of material housed in our museums and value the different parts for different reasons and perhaps differently at different times in their lives. Given this, it is inevitable that there will be a variety of concerns and issues raised within the museum sector and the onus is on the DCMS to come to terms with this rather than seeing it as purely as a problem.

This high degree of diversity in all areas of the museum sector requires a flexible response from government and an acknowledgement that there may be no single policy that will cover all museums or all aspects of individual museums. Ministers and civil servants must understand the nature of the museum sector before attempting to impose policies and practices upon it and must ensure that proposals take the existence of diversity into account.

In terms of the care of collections the responsibilities of museums are also wide and encompass the management and curation of diverse types of material, the provision of research facilities and of services to the education sector. RESCUE suggests that diversity should be seen as a source of strength in that it enables the museum sector to reach out to a wide variety of constituencies within the population at large and to provide facilities which appeal broadly within society.

The following discussion deals with general points drawn from each section of the document in turn before turning to the questions posed in the annex. We deal first with the issues discussed in the introduction.

Museums and the public realm

RESCUE agrees with the substance of this section, but notes that recent government policy has failed to support local and regional museums by insisting that they are purely the responsibility of local authorities. RESCUE believes that this has lead directly to the closure of a number of important museums and the curtailment of facilities at others. We look for a commitment to supporting the museum sector as a whole and a change in the system of funding so that local authorities no longer have the power to close local and regional museums. This point is discussed at greater length below.

Museums, identity and citizenship

RESCUE welcomes the moderate tone of the section covering museums and identity and in particular the avoidance of the term ‘Britishness’ which has featured in other documents from the DCMS. Nationalism and sectarianism are powerful and destructive forces within contemporary society and as the history of archaeology has shown, require careful and considered handling. RESCUE welcomes the acknowledgement that

Museums can provide a tolerant space where difficult contemporary issues can be explored in safety and in the spirit of debate (Paragraph 10)

Archaeology is a discipline which deals with the realities of human interaction through trade, migration and inter-cultural and inter-communal contact as well as with the myths and legends that human beings create around issues of nationalism, sectarianism and group identity. Archaeology emerged from the 18 th century Enlightenment and, at its best, embodies many of the principles of this philosophical movement, combining these constructively with aspects of critical social theory developed during the later 19 th and 20 th centuries. This having been said, archaeology is a social practice and, like other disciplines, has been implicated in a number of shameful passages in recent human history including the creation of explicitly racist, imperialistic and class-biased accounts of the past. Through the often painful process of facing up to this heritage, the modern discipline of archaeology has developed a high degree of self-consciousness and an ability to engage in auto-critique that should, we believe, be reflected in museum practice, particularly in respect of public presentation. There is a place in contemporary museums for the presentation of disruptive and unsettling displays and educational initiatives which challenge established perspectives on human society, religion, ethnicity and sectarianism and we suggest that such initiatives should be encouraged as a way of challenging entrenched and divisive social, political and religious attitudes. As will be emphasised elsewhere in this document, such initiatives require the support of high quality research input. The potential for undertaking such research has been badly damaged by recent local and national government policy in respect of museum funding and structure. RESCUE makes a number of suggestions as to ways in which this trend can be reversed in the discussion which follows this introduction.

RESCUE acknowledges the need for museums to respond appropriately in terms of their role in society (see paragraphs 11 – 14) as society itself changes, but would point out the dangers inherent in institutions such as museums attempting to follow social trends rather than using their broad geographical and chronological perspective to comment on such changes from an informed and critical perspective. This should not conflict with positive and innovative schemes such as that outlined in Box 1 but ought to allow museums to work free of any suspicion that they are being forced to respond to the perceived ‘needs’ of a ‘market’ or of ‘customers’. Such a ‘market-led’ orientation is wholly inappropriate for museums but appears to have been fostered in recent years by the requirement to generate income and increase visitor numbers in order to fulfil goals set by managers and marketers whose principle area of interest is not always that which many users of museums would see as their primary role.

As an aside RESCUE notes that archaeology has contributed in a major way to collaborative outreach projects designed to foster social inclusion, one example being the ‘I dig Moston’ project in Greater Manchester; http://www.idigmoston.co.uk/ ).

Issue 1: Collections and their uses

Before addressing the two specific questions posed at the end of this section, RESCUE has a number of more general issues which arise from statements made in the text.

RESCUE is perturbed that research is barely acknowledged amongst the uses of collections; this matter is addressed in the response to question 1, but it may be noted here that this separation appears to imply a divorce of the issue of research from the issue of collections. Collections of archaeological material held throughout the country in museums of all types (local, regional, national, generalist and specialist) constitute a primary resource for archaeologists, both professional and amateur. The discipline of archaeology is essentially an investigative and research-based one which depends upon an accumulative and aggregative model of knowledge founded upon principles of interpretation and re-interpretation undertaken on the basis of bodies of material which are susceptible to multiple readings and interpretations. To the archaeologist, seeking to interpret past society and to present his or her results to the wider contemporary society through a variety of appropriate media, museum collections are the raw material upon which they depend. Understandings of collections expand and diversify as methodologies and perspectives on human societies change and to this end the curation and maintenance of collections (as well as additions to them) must be orientated in significant part to the needs of researchers. This has implications for the facilities which museums require in order to undertake this important aspect of their multiple roles. It is unfortunate that no account of this aspect, with its resource implications, is included in this section of the document.

Paragraph 24 outlines the nature of the ‘national collection’ envisaged as the totality of museum holdings, spread throughout diverse institutions. RESCUE agrees with this conception of collections and has mentioned it previously in correspondence with the former minister Lord McIntosh (letter dated 24 th June 2004 ). The principle carries the implication that central government bears a responsibility for the curation and maintenance of museum collections. RESCUE regrets that the DCMS has hitherto refused to face up to its responsibilities in this matter, preferring to place the responsibility entirely on the shoulders of local authorities. It is to be hoped that in addressing the issues raised in this document, the DCMS will revisit this issue and seek alternative funding arrangements which will guarantee museums a secure funding stream which will enable them to fulfil their responsibilities towards their collections as well as to their audiences.

Connected to the previous point, RESCUE notes that paragraph 25 acknowledges the issue of limited storage space for collections. This matter is particularly acute in terms of archaeological collections which continue to grow rapidly as a consequence of the rapid pace of economic growth resulting in a building boom in many areas of the country and the associated need for archaeological excavation under the terms of PPG 16. RESCUE knows of numerous cases in which museums have run out of storage space with the result that uniquely valuable archaeological archives are held in temporary and often unsuitable conditions by archaeological contractors. It is to be regretted that the lottery-funded expansion of museums and their facilities has not generally included the provision of high-quality storage and research facilities which would lead directly to the enhancement of displays and access to the material by researchers and by members of the public.

In paragraph 27 the issue of ‘disposal’ is raised. RESCUE vehemently opposes any policy which involves the destruction, dispersal or discard of archaeological material. Archaeological archives represent the sole surviving traces of many thousands of archaeological sites (enshrined in PPG 16 as ‘preservation by record’) and as such are unique and irreplaceable. While the costs of storage may be considered high, they are reasonable in view of the importance of the collections involved. RESCUE would suggest that innovative solutions to storage and archiving issues should be sought, perhaps with the involvement of the private retail and distribution sector which may have much to offer in the way of cost-effective technological solutions to storage problems, based upon their commercial experience.

Q1: How should museums develop and utilise their collections to serve the concerns and interests of the whole of the population most effectively?

RESCUE asserts that the archaeological collections which constitute a substantial part of the holdings of many of our museums represent a uniquely valuable cultural asset, held by a diverse range of institutions on behalf of the population and society at large. We believe that high-quality research, undertaken by knowledgeable and experienced scholars from both the professional and amateur sectors should be at the heart of any policy or policies which seek to serve the interests of the wider society. It is such research which underlies the interpretations upon which presentation to the public is based. In recent years the scholarly basis of the work undertaken within our museums has been degraded by cost-cutting in terms of staff numbers and working hours and by the failure to invest in adequate facilities for research, conservation and the curation of collections. RESCUE argues that the move away from research and the increased emphasis on the presentation of traditional and stereotypical accounts of past human life and experience fails to do justice either the richness of the collections or to the requirements of a significant part of the audience. RESCUE suggests the following steps to address these issues:

• Programmes of staff training and professional development with the emphasis on research and scholarship, possibly undertaken in co-operation with the university sector and with independent researchers from the emerging commercial archaeological sector;

• Positive discrimination in favour of potential recruits to the museum sector with a background in relevant research and scholarship;

• Closer liaison with higher educational funding bodies to encourage the use of existing museum collections in post-graduate and post-doctoral research programmes, tied into a reform of the University Research Assessment Exercise to replace the focus on foreign research with a one more equally balanced between the possibilities offered by home and overseas research;

• The creation of usable and adequate research space within museums to allow the potential of existing and growing collections to be realised. It should perhaps become a requirement that the creation of new museums and the extensive refurbishment of existing museums (such as is currently being undertaken with Lottery funding) should include both storage and research space; to date many opportunities to do this has been missed, to the future detriment of the institutions involved;

• Development of travelling exhibitions suitable for installation both in other museums but also in other public institutions (art galleries, concert halls, community centres etc) based upon the results of recent excavations and surveys undertaken under the PPG 15 / 16 regime (and equivalents in other parts of the UK). Such exhibitions might in part be funded by the private sector through an extension of the planning rules covered by PPG 15 and 16 (see the following section for more on this)

Should this include releasing parts of their collections to others, including outside the museum?

RESCUE would welcome the opportunity for parts of collections to be made available to researchers within the university sector (as outlined below) for the purposes of academic study. While safeguards designed to protect the integrity of collections will always be necessary, there are many collections which are of great potential value to post-graduate and doctoral students as well as to many highly competent researchers based in the amateur/voluntary and professional sectors of archaeology. The outcome of such study would benefit not only the academic world but also visitors who would be able to benefit from contemporary interpretations based upon the latest research techniques and theoretical perspectives. As facilities in many museums are entirely unsuited for the types of study required to unlock the information contained within collections, release to universities and similar institutions is essential in order for this to take place.

There may be considerable scope for loans from collections to institutions and organisations outside museums, notably in the form of travelling exhibitions, as outlined above. Most museums now maintain loan and teaching collections and there may well be some potential to expand this, but it must be understood that a proportion of museum collections are unique and relatively fragile. In the absence of in-house conservation staff and facilities, such loan policies must be carefully judged and closely and effectively monitored in order to maintain the quality and integrity of collections.

Q2. How can the sector ensure that the opportunities offered by ICT, electronic access and digitisation are fully utilised for the benefit of users and to reach out to non-users?

The use of digital and other new technologies certainly offers the opportunity for much larger audiences to view the collections held in museums. Such technologies are to be welcomed as a valuable tool for broadening access to the collections held in museums, but they are not equally applicable to all collections. Documentary and text-based collections, where the principal interest might be the content of the documents are certainly highly suitable for dissemination in this manner (as the example of the British Library clearly demonstrates), but archaeological material is generally less suitable for such treatment. On-line catalogues, amply illustrated are certainly a valuable research and educational tool and should be made available as widely as possible, but for the purpose of both serious study and a full appreciation of the materiality of archaeological collections, there is no substitute for the study of the real objects and for this adequate research facilities are required within museums.

Issue 2: Learning and Research

Before embarking on the discussion of this important section of the document it is necessary to establish some basic definitions in order to facilitate discussion.

The term ‘learning’ is used throughout the document where RESCUE would consider ‘teaching’ to be more appropriate. Teaching, we suggest, involves the dissemination of knowledge where one party, in possession of knowledge, seeks to impart this to a second party through the application of appropriate pedagogical methods. Learning is the process in which individuals or groups undertake a quest for knowledge and this may be facilitated by a teacher or a lecturer or may take place through the study of texts (conventional or digital) on an individual basis. The use of ‘learning’ in the document where a choice of either ‘teaching’ or ‘learning’ as appropriate does nothing to improve the clarity of the text and in places actually detracts from it.

RESCUE welcomes the acknowledgement, in paragraphs 33, 41 and 42, of the essential place of scholarship and research within museums. We look to the government to take positive steps to put this into practice through the provision of appropriate funds, a requirement for museums to provide adequate research facilities (and to provide the funding to allow the creation of such facilities) and the necessary changes to structures within the higher education sector which, in archaeology, currently discriminate against research based upon British material, as outlined above. The latter measure would have little or no impact on resources as it would involve nothing more than a shift of emphasis within higher education. It will, however, require liaison between government departments and the long-overdue application of the principles of ‘joined-up government’.

RESCUE agrees with the statement in paragraph 43, that a strong research base leads to an overall increase in the quality of museum functions at all levels. Britain has a strong and well-deserved reputation for high quality research in archaeology (a subject in which we lead the world in terms of both methodology and theory) and funding initiatives (parallel to those highlighted at the Natural History Museum) would certainly contribute enormously to a transformation in the quantity and quality of information available relating to the archaeology and history of our towns, cities and rural areas. The ongoing Regional Research Frameworks being currently funded by English Heritage (e.g. http://www.le.ac.uk/archaeology/research/projects/eastmidsfw/index.html ) may well be of great value in highlighting areas where research may be targeted. Liaison between museum staff, local archaeological curators and specialists with knowledge of the material offers a way forward in identifying projects that might involve researchers, museum staff and members of local communities in collaborative projects based around hitherto unpublished and underused archives within museums.

RESCUE does not agree with the statement in paragraph 44 ‘ The field of academic research is competitive, and that is as it ought to be’ . Academic research is too important for trivial considerations such as competitive advantage to play a part. At its best, research is (and should always be) a collaborative effort with individuals using their abilities in different fields to tackle problems, whether intellectual or methodological. RESCUE would wish to see structures put in place that would draw together individuals with compatible and complementary skills and knowledge from a variety of fields and institutions who could work together to undertake specific programmes of research. Such programmes should involve museums, universities, archaeological contractors and independent specialists and they should, in the first instance, tackle the backlog of unpublished archaeological sites, the legacy of the inadequate funding initiatives of the 1960s, 70s and 80s, which are to be found in virtually all museums throughout Britain . Such programmes, formerly funded by English Heritage, have been largely abandoned in recent years as the cuts to English Heritage budgets have forced the organisation to restrict its activities. Changes to the criteria employed in the University Research Assessment Exercise, which appears to structure the scope of research within universities, are essential if such programmes of research are to be possible. In this, RESCUE agrees with the points made in paragraph 46 regarding links between museums and the further and higher education sectors. RESCUE would also note the increasingly important role of scholars working outside the educational and museum framework, within the world of commercial archaeology. Such individuals now play a significant role in pushing forward methodological and theoretical advances within archaeology and are responsible for the much of the work which creates the archives from excavation and survey projects which are deposited in museums.

RESCUE endorses the sentiments expressed in paragraph 47 and the acknowledgement that museums have a vital role to play in research and would advocate wider collaboration. We note, however, that such work will be severely handicapped, or even rendered impossible if local authorities are to be allowed to continue running down and closing local and regional museums, sacking staff and disposing of collections. Halting the current tendencies in this direction is imperative as a preliminary to revitalising the research sector within the museum sector as a whole.

RESCUE would draw attention, by way of an example of what can be achieved in a particular area, to the very positive results from the collaboration in the field of 18 th and 19 th century ceramics between members of the staff of Doncaster Museum, Temple Newsam Museum and a variety of other institutions and an independent researcher, Mr John Griffin, as an example highly successful collaboration (Griffin 2002, 2005) resulting in the publication of new and exciting work.

Q3: How can museums strengthen their commitment to education as a core and strategic priority within the overall commitment to collections and users?

RESCUE has always been an advocate of the value of archaeology in education. The formation of Young RESCUE in 1972/73 was an innovative step designed to introduce children and young people to archaeology and the initiative gave a number of today’s leading archaeologists their first experience of the subject. The initiative continues today in the form of the network of Young Archaeologists Clubs co-ordinated by the Council for British Archaeology, many of which are closely involved with museums and museum staff, the latter often working on a voluntary basis. RESCUE believes that the activities undertaken by the Clubs give children invaluable experience outside the arena of formal education as archaeology in its broadest sense provides a wide range of activities and challenges both intellectual and practical. Lottery funding has proved invaluable for many groups and RESCUE would argue strongly for the continuation of this form of funding as a way of supporting such activities.

The majority of museums, whether national or local and regional have an important educational role and already provide a wide range of services for schools and colleges through outreach programmes and activities developed and run by education staff employed within museums. RESCUE supports these kinds of activities, but notes that a substantial part of their value derives from the collections which constitute the core of the museum sector. It is imperative, therefore that educational outreach work is supported by high-quality research based upon museum collections; there is little point having a sophisticated and extensive educational programme if the knowledge which is being imparted is incorrect, out-of-date or does not take account of the latest research. It is also essential that educational work is seen as a result of and dependent upon, the work of individuals who have the time and resources necessary to carry out fundamental research. As with so much else, funding lies at the heart of this issue and, as argued elsewhere in this document, the current funding of local and regional museums is entirely inadequate for them to fulfil their potential in this, or, indeed, in many other areas.

Q4: How can a strong research culture be built and sustained, as well as quality measured across the museums sector?

RESCUE advocates the following steps to rebuild and sustain a strong research culture:

• Provision of adequate facilities within museums to enable basic research work to be undertaken on collections;

• Provision of adequate and accessible storage facilities to facilitate access to collections;

• Recognition of research as a central component in the work of a museum through the creation of appropriate posts and clear demarcation between staff roles and responsibilities;

• Funding of research posts within museums, possibly in collaboration with universities;

• Facilitation of communication between staff in different institutions;

• Facilitation of communication and exchange of skills between the higher education, independent research and museum sectors;

• Make suitable adjustments to higher education regulations to encourage work on museum collections, specifically be revising RAE rules and regulations to ensure parity in ratings between research focussed on British and overseas research.

What role should Government play?

It is essential that central government takes responsibility for the funding of local and regional museums, either by funding them directly (and adequately) or by making their funding a statutory obligation for local authorities. RESCUE would argue against centralisation in terms of administration, but calls (and has been calling over a number of years) for reform of the current system of funding which has been failing museums (and thus the communities which they serve) for many years.

Q5: How could stronger links be created between the Higher and Further Education sectors and museums?

As noted elsewhere in this document, the current structure of archaeological research funding within universities places the emphasis upon work undertaken abroad. While this is valuable and appropriate in many instances, it is entirely unreasonable that work undertaken using British data, including collections held in British museums is not accorded parity in terms of academic research rating exercises. This must be tackled at the highest level within academic management and administration and existing funding should be redirected as appropriate.

At a more detailed level it is clear that there are research areas which are being identified through the English Heritage funded Regional Research Framework programmes and it might be useful if these could be reviewed with the aim of identifying specific areas where research is currently lacking and programmes drawn up which would be designed to address these areas specifically. As noted above, it is essential that appropriate facilities are made available within museums for the necessary work to be carried out and that the temporary transfer of archives to educational establishments be facilitated. It ought to be possible (as noted above) to create research positions in museums in partnership with universities so that individuals can undertake work on museum collections as a way of gaining post-graduate qualifications (M.Phil. / PhD) and at the same time contributing directly to the enhancement of collections held by museums and facilitating the communication of research outcomes with the communities served by those museums.

Issue 3: Careers, Training and Leadership

RESCUE has only a limited number of observations to offer on the subject of careers within the museum sector (but see the comments made above regarding the possibility of linking museums with the higher and Further Education sectors through research). In general we see a need for a greater emphasis on research ability and scholarship rather than on marketing, management and salesmanship within the museum sector, reversing the apparent trend of the last decade.

We note in particular the decline in the employment of qualified and experienced conservators within museums, able to devote themselves to the care and curation of the collections. Concerns have been expressed regarding this issue by both RESCUE and by the Archaeology Section of the United Kingdom Institute of Conservators (UKICAS) on a number of occasions in recent years and RESCUE fully supports the UKICAS in their campaign to reverse this decline.

Specific observations on this section include:

Paragraph 52: The heritage sector generally suffers from serious problems of career structure and progression and this is particularly acute in archaeology, inside and outside museums. Wages are low (amongst the lowest in any field of graduate employment), terms and conditions are poor and the individuals who enter the profession with a strong vocational commitment regularly find this commitment exploited. RESCUE has argued this case in greater detail in our response to Better places to live and, while the survival of local authority standards of remuneration and employment rights in the museum sector means that it is somewhat better off than is commercial archaeology, these standards are under constant attack and, as described elsewhere in this document, can be entirely removed when museums are transferred from the public to the trust sector.

Box 11 and paragraph 59: While RESCUE welcomes moves to make employment in the museum sector more inclusive and representative of the overall profile of contemporary British society, we are sceptical of the need for more middle and senior managers, unless these individuals have a strong research background and a commitment to the sector based upon a commitment to research, the enhancement of collections and the presentation of collections backed by the most thorough research. Management is only truly effective when it is based upon a strong background in the relevant field of endeavour; as an activity in its own right it has little or nothing to offer, being essentially parasitic on those who are actually able to deliver tangible results within a specific field. RESCUE will view with extreme scepticism moves which seek to introduce additional tiers of management into a field which requires investment in research ability and scholarship and not in management.

Q6: How can the sector achieve the right balance of pre- and post-entry training to build skills for the range of their workforce?

RESCUE has no specific views on this subject, beyond those covered elsewhere in this document.

Q7: What initiatives and targets would increase mobility, training and career progression for all types of museum professionals?

An improvement in collaboration between the museum sector and the Higher and Further Education sectors might be structured so as to allow museum staff to engage in collaborative research projects based upon the collections held by the museums within which they are working. The possibility of being able to base a post-graduate qualification or post-doctoral research upon a particular collection (or a group of related collections held in the same or different institutions) would yield benefits for the museums whose displays, websites and publications would be enhanced by the results of the research and for the educational institution through its research ranking. For the individual undertaking the research the gaining of a qualification and the authorship of resulting publications would have benefits in terms of their research profile and status within the profession. Research is, in addition to its inherent benefits in terms of qualification, is also a valuable experience in terms of enhancing an individual’s self-confidence and ability to undertake largely self-directed work towards a specific and defined goal. The nature of archaeological research in particular means that it involves the gaining of familiarity with diverse areas of practical and academic work.

Q 8: What must be done to secure a better representation of currently under-represented groups in the museum workforce, and in the sector’s governance?

The prime requirement in any sector’s professional development is a clear and obvious commitment to a satisfactory career structure together with adequate pay and conditions for employees. RESCUE has noted with alarm the tendency for local authorities to divest themselves of their responsibility towards local and regional museums by the creation of Trusts and the subsequent changing of terms and conditions of employment which are aimed at reducing costs through lower wages, reduced conditions of employment, enforced retirement and involuntary redundancy. In one case, known to members of the RESCUE Council, this process involved the appointment of a Trust director who instituted a programme of staff cuts which targeted individuals, (particularly women, a number of whom had hitherto been employed on a job-share basis), for ‘voluntary’ redundancy through changes to the terms and conditions of employment which made it all but impossible for them to continue in employment while at the same time meeting their family and other responsibilities. In this particular case a senior member of the museum staff described the regime instituted by the director as involving a ‘climate of fear’ in which staff were under constant threat of disciplinary action if they took any steps, however reasonable, to resist changes to terms and conditions of employment or redundancy. In other cases, museum staff have been threatened with disciplinary action if they attempted to argue against local authority plans to sack staff, reduce museum opening hours or close particular museums or galleries. For obvious reasons we are unable to provide details of these cases in a public document such as this, but the cases are well known within the heritage sector generally.

RESCUE believes that it is essential that adequate terms and conditions of employment are guaranteed for those working within museums and that they enjoy the benefits of a clear career structure, on a par with other public service employees (within, for example, the health service and the education sector). This will not only safeguard the jobs of those already employed, but will also create the conditions in which a career in museum work will be seen as an attractive option to people from a wide range of backgrounds and not only for those with a passion for the subject whose vocational commitment can be exploited by unscrupulous managers and administrators.

Issue 4: Coherence and Advocacy

This section begins with what has become a familiar complaint from the DCMS regarding the supposed fragmentation of the heritage sector in general and, in this case, the museum sector in particular (paragraph 62). As discussed in the introduction, RESCUE would suggest that such diversity within the sector is not an entirely negative aspect of the structures which constitute it. Museums typically cover an enormously wide range of human activity and human experience and the financial and administrative structures which support them need to be designed to reflect this. The would seem to be no case for attempting to remodel the sector itself in order to conform to rigid management structures; management and administration should exist to facilitate creativity, innovation and research rather than vice versa (see paragraphs 68, 77). Policies and structures should be designed and implemented with this as a first consideration.

Q 9: Would structural changes better support museums and provide effective means of ensuring a national strategy for museums?

A change in the way that museums, and particularly local and regional museums, are funded is essential if these institutions, which serve the interests of local people and local communities as well as the wider society, are not to be destroyed by the actions of local authorities who view them as a financial burden and are frequently either wilfully ignorant of, or blind to, their wider importance and significance. RESCUE has heard, albeit anecdotally, of councillors who are anxious to close museums and galleries for reasons more closely connected to their own personal prejudices against ‘culture’ than for the professed reasons of lack of money and the need for cuts to budgets. While RESCUE does not believe that such attitudes are general, they certainly seem to have played a part in some recent decisions to close museums and dispose of collections. The commonly expressed reasons for closures, staff redundancies and reductions in opening hours are financial and RESCUE believes that it is essential that the burden (as it is seen) of maintaining these unique cultural assets is removed from local authorities who have so clearly demonstrated their inability to either understand or appreciate the value of what the hold in trust for the nation. The creation of a funding agency or council, while it would inevitably bring with it its own share of problems and challenges, would perhaps be a step forward (depending on the precise arrangements and the levels of funding) in tackling this most pressing of problems. RESCUE regards it as essential, irrespective of the precise arrangements put in place, that funding is structured so that an adequate proportion is directed towards the provision of adequate storage space, conservation and research facilities within museums. There is a danger that these core functions will be overlooked in favour of the higher profile ‘front of house’ facilities.

Q 10: How best do we combine more coherent and efficient delivery of museum services with a service that is responsive to the needs of local communities and users?

While museum funding should be guaranteed by central government, the actual management of local and regional museums should remain local and regional in order that those close to the communities served were making decisions relating to specific museums. Having said this, it is important that broader issues are not neglected and, in terms of archaeological collections, some involvement of regionally based members of the English Heritage inspectorate and of local archaeological curators drawn from the collecting areas of the individual museum should certainly be considered. The role of commercial archaeological contractors is more problematic; in many areas these organisations are aware of, and responsive to, local issues and regional aspects of the archaeology. The larger, national contractors however have less investment in specific areas and in many cases also act as consultants to large national and multi-national firms. It is less clear that it would be appropriate to involve such bodies in the management of museums. RESCUE suggests that this is an area in which there are a significant number of issues to be considered and resolved before final conclusions can be arrived at. RESCUE notes, and appreciates the content of paragraph 75, although is sceptical of the value of European experience, given that, in archaeology at least, Britain has a unique structure with no close parallels in Europe, notably in terms of the involvement of the amateur/voluntary sector in archaeology generally and in museums in particular. RESCUE would like to see an expansion of this sector and does not believe that the adoption of a European model would necessarily facilitate this. European countries have some very fine museums, but also some extremely poor ones and it would be unwise to adopt a European model uncritically.

RESCUE is also profoundly sceptical of the value of Trust status when applied to museums. The example of Sheffield , cited in paragraph 74, is not one which inspires any great confidence. While it is true that the former Sheffield City Museum has attracted a significant sum in lottery funding, the degree of consultation on the form of the new facilities was entirely inadequate and has led to the views of many people who might be regarded as having a stake in the new museum being ignored, with the result that what is emerging from the process fails to address many important issues. RESCUE is aware that there is considerable disquiet amongst staff in other museums who see management enthusiasm for Trust status as being unrelated to the potential quality of service offered. There is also concern regarding the revised conditions of employment that may apply should Trust status be granted. Given the existing problems of recruiting from sections of the population not traditionally involved in the museum sector (as outlined in Section 3), RESCUE would advocate a very cautious approach to this model as a way forward.

Issue 5: Partnership and Measuring Value

RESCUE strongly supports the idea of partnership between individual museums and between museums and compatible institutions where these are designed to achieve enhancements in the quality and breadth of research, in the presentation of coherent and comprehensive exhibitions to the public and in enabling researchers from all sectors to gain access to collections and archives. Archaeology, with its long history of interdisciplinary collaboration, is eminently suited to providing a model of the way forward in this regard.

Q11: How can partnerships within the museums sector and with other sectors be better embedded?

The potential benefit of partnerships between the Higher and Further Education sector and museums in terms of facilitating research using museum collections have been outlined above, as have some of the changes to existing structures required. RESCUE would support the implementation of such schemes and notes that given the dispersed and complementary nature of many museum collections, a variety of institutions might be involved in a single scheme. This should be regarded as a positive aspect of such initiatives rather than as a drawback.

Q12: What systems or methods should be used to assess quality and success in the museums sector?

There are dangers in using simple indices such as visitor numbers and demographic profiles in assessing the success of a museum as an institution and RESCUE would wish to see the development of more sophisticated methods of measuring quality and success. Issues to be considered might include the following;

• The diversity and quality of research undertaken within a particular institution;
• The extent of collaborative programmes of research involving various elements of the heritage sector and the HE and FE sectors;
• The accessibility of research archives to bona fide scholars from the professional, educational and voluntary/amateur sectors;
• The level of publication in academic journals and monographs;
• Participation in research through the hosting of symposia, conferences and day schools on subjects relevant to the collections held in the museum;
• The nature and quality of links with local voluntary / amateur groups in fields such as local history, folk and social history, archaeology, natural history etc.

RESCUE notes that the criteria used in local authority Best Value assessments have not generally been appropriate to museums or to archaeology generally. To date the experience of the application of such measures is of schemes that have led to closures, staff redundancies and reductions in access and opening times under the guise of ‘Best Value’; Orwellian phraseology at its most potent. RESCUE would oppose any extension of such schemes within the heritage sector.

Q 13. What would need to happen to make international strategic alliances possible between museums?

RESCUE notes that the structures underlying the funding and legal basis of museums differs in Britain and many European countries and also in countries outside Europe . These different institutional arrangements often also involve rather different conceptions of the function, purpose and remit of museums, to the extent that British archaeological teams working abroad have sometimes found collaboration to be difficult (see, for example, Cumberpatch 1998, Cumberpatch and Thorpe 2003). While international collaboration is to be welcomed and encouraged, the existence of cultural and institutional differences needs to be acknowledged in order that negotiations can be undertaken on a realistic basis.

Bibliography

Cumberpatch, C.G 1998 Approaches to the archaeology of Beirut . National Museum News 7, 18-21.

Cumberpatch, C.G. and Thorpe, R. 2003 Encountering the ancestors: some reflections on archaeology in the Middle East . Paper presented at the 2003 CHAT Conference, University of Bristol

Griffin , J.D. 2001 The Don Pottery 1801 – 1893 Doncaster Museum Service

Griffin , J.D. 2005 The Leeds Pottery 1770 – 1881 Leeds Arts Collections Fund

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