Constructive thoughts on the effect of cuts to archaeology and heritage

[tinybitgreen]

My first shot at why value archaeology and what archaeologists do covers some of the same issue wesh andy has but he got in while Iwas thinking about posting.

We need to be careful about demonstrating the value of heritage only in instrumental terms otherwise we will have the problem of being compared over these values. For example archaeology can foster community involvement but so does funding X community group ? which one is better?

We need to demonstrate value that is unique to the discipline and resource - I don?t think this is impossible to do we just haven?t been very good at it so far. Archaeologists are attempting to answer some of the big questions (although it doesn?t feel like that often) with a unique and non renewable dataset. Questions like Why are we here? and How did we get here? I think we underestimate people?s appetite and curiosity to understand their place in the world (or as Brian Cox is currently demonstrating the universe). These questions are important, they are part of what makes us human ? if people don?t realise this then we need to be bolder (and better) at telling them.

These questions aren?t in the forefront of people?s minds now, I, like everyone else am more concerned about the immediate wellbeing of family friends in the recession ? But these questions wont go away, I can envisage human societies in the future also being curious about these questions and these questions will be important to them, in fact I can?t envisage a human society which isn?t. We have all seen thousands of years of mostly religious artefacts reflecting this part of human nature.

This means taking a break has significnat ramifications, we can?t say that we will stop taking care now and when the recession is over we can pick it up again. Without archaeologists working with planners, sites and landscapes will be destroyed unexamined and unrecorded. We deny not just ourselves the opportunity to answer these questions but also everyone in the future.

[tinybitgreen]

Unfortunately this is exactly how "ordinary" people like my parents think. They DO compare archaeology with lollipop ladies. There's no point saying they shouldn't - they do, and we have to try and find a way to address that approach. To do otherwise is like sitting on the deck of the Titanic, pointing out that it really shouldn't have hit an iceberg in the first place.

Yes some people do think that – but there is every point in challenging people’s ideas if you think they are wrong. . . Although admittedly I haven’t met your parents!

[Wax]

Support archaeology: Save the past for the future (where did I nick that from:face-huh

[BAJR]

It is hard isn't it? It is as if we actually don't know, and have just hoped that nobody will notice.

I found this... which is a quite good start as well, but even the full article [ The Value of Archaeology: 2003 ] itself falls into (IMHO) the same trap of demading that society sees our value, rather than we present it. This July, we have teh Festival of Britsh Archaeology ... we have in September the Scottish Archaeology month. the mission could be to show the value, to show the people enjoying themselves.. learning.. looking happy. But thats a different story for another time.

Here is the first part of the article, which I suggest you read... as it does help.

Archaeology as a discipline is often considered to be a past-time, the desire of
some people to obtain useless details on human evolution or long-vanished civilisations
and archaeologists must shoulder, at least, part of the blame for the present situation as
they have failed to adequately explain and disseminate their findings in a way which is
accessible and attractive to the public in general. Archaeologists have themselves created
the ‘cultural consumer’ referred to by Tilley (Tilley 1989), that is, a public whose
contribution is passive in nature, a helpless spectator being shown selected ‘treasures’ in
a museum.
It is, or it should be, the main task of the archaeologist to change this mercenary
view and ensure that the public recognises the importance of archaeology and the past in
modern society. The advantages of opening up the world of archaeology could be even
greater than we can imagine. Long term it has the potential to expand knowledge by
looking at the data from a previously unexplored point of view. Short term, it might be
the only way to preserve our cultural heritage. (Knoop 1993:442) The public, ranging
from the youngest child to the elderly, from the college professor to the workman, has to
be made aware of the value archaeology has in its everyday life.

Am I right in thinking there are three main serious 'issues' just now.?

Loss of Aggregate Levy..
Loss of funding (on already starved) Council Heritage Services
Loss of Heritage Protection Bill

Many other issues indeed..like
Loss of Direction for archaeologists themselves and a general connection with the whole of the public.

But, put it this way... the way its going, I am wondering why we matter as well. :0

[Wax]

I sometimes think the biggest threat is internal, with the lack of joined up thinking across the profession . lack of respect for each others different disciplines back biting, commercial rivalry, and with the competition for jobs an all out self-centredness (very understandable and I am as guilty of this as anyone else)

What we need is a strong central guidance (charted status) not Eh not the CBA or IFA as all in their current forms do not serve. A central policy and direction that all practicing archaeologists professional and amateur subscribe to. A licence to practice?
If we are not consistent and presenting a united front then how on earth can we expect the public to respect us as a profession. In fact even now most non archaeologists I meet and talk to regard archaeology as a hobby not a profession:face-crying:

[kevin wooldridge]

One of the most depressing aspects of the current recession is the lack of opportunities for newly graduated archaeologists to enter the profession. I don't really have any solution as to how this problem can be addressed, but combined with the potential double whammy of increased tuition fees and withdrawal of direct funding for humanities courses, I can only see the situation getting worse.

I would be the first to admit that the profession has been slow to pick-up on this problem and perhaps underestimates the future difficulties it is storing up, by in effect allowing the 'wiping out' a whole generation of archaeological graduates. But maybe there is time for minds to be applied towards some initiative on this issue, that might help to demonstrate how archaeology is putting its own house in order as well as reminding the wider world of our worth.....

[GPStone]

Actually, I like this a lot. We're all talking fairly constructively and tackling the core issues, which is great.


The reason I wanted to get this thread going is because, we all have a view and its evident that most of us often struggle to define, not why WE do archaeology, but why archaeology should be done or why other people would want us to do it. This is the distinction that needs to be teased out for us to go forwards. I was hoping that by getting everyone to put down their views and experience we can each draw on that and begin to fill in the gaps in our own arguments. I also think Kel has hit the nail on the head - go and ask people what they think. Not whether they think it is more important than doctors or policemen, but whether they care if archaeology and heritage are done and why that is.


For me, archaeology is important because it allows us to achieve a holistic view of ourselves. It gives the people of our communities the ability to place themselves and others, to understand where ideas come from and validate or question them both in their source and against past events. Beyond that, it offers a myriad of individual aspects people can approach, tap into and be inspired by, and its unique multi-disciplined approach offers something beyond anything like a community group (I've always wondered why people don't set up more community groups around archaeology clubs ? I suspect its because we as archaeologists often don't bother with such things, with obvious exceptions).


It can also act as a wonderful teaching tool - you can teach and demonstrate almost all other subjects through archaeology and, if its presented in the right way it can offer an inspiring all-round learning experience in which almost all subjects can be applied and hypothetical, theoretical or abstract concepts bought to life and made understandable. So it can be used to bond, develop and understand. There aren't many subjects which offer those possibilities. Its because of these aspects that I believe archaeology (and its wider range of complimentary subjects and disciplines) are socially valuable even if their contribution to the purist's economic argument may be minimal.


Unfortunately, what I'm talking about is, in so many instances, potential. If we aren't doing this we need to start and where we are we need to learn and develop. As has been said, the biggest problem we have is with our own vision ? our ability to see beyond our own noses. We shouldn't need to be led or need to tie each other into pseudo-contracts to achieve good practise. Its quite right to say that the IfA has singularly failed in its aim of representing everyone. But then again, we won't let ourselves be represented by people we don't trust.


Let the IfA do what they do best: lobby and talk politics and attempt to give a visage of professionalism. Let the CBA hand out grants if they can still afford it and let FAME attempt to talk to each other and direct the commercial sector ? there are bad directors and good directors and directors just trying to keep companies afloat. If we back the good ones on mass wherever possible they can pin back the bad ones (overly simplistic, I know). Commercialism is what it is and we might just have to live with the fact that if we want to be a part of it we'll have to take the good with the bad. Unions/Prospect can begin now to get to grips with the pay, terms and conditions and take a more unified and united position on it. If we can let all of those organisations focus on their single purposes we can get on with leading ourselves with a bit of self respect and dealing with the bigger issues ? who we are, what we do and why we do it.


Everyone can play there part ? raise awareness and begin to take some of these ideas out beyond our own traditional comfort zones. Lets all start selling archaeology and heritage and lets all start doing it better in amongst our own communities, our families and friends. Have dinner with your parents mates and pass on some of the selling points, functions and social uses of archaeology, tell your neighbours and your mates. Learn how to sell it and learn how to frame it in a way that doesn't cause all those people who normally glaze over at the first mention of prehistory or landscape surveys to switch off.


And in the meantime, lets keep talking and take the opportunities that arise for standing up and making our claim to legitimacy or campaigning and supporting ourselves and colleagues in other disciplines that are in similar cirumstances.


P.s. Sorry that was so long, been off-line for a couple of days........

[Kel]

Had a (very brief) exchange with the parents about this subject. I started by asking them "Do you think archaeology is important?" Dad maintained a tactful silence. Mum's response was "Yes because it fires your imagination and makes you think more analytically." I'm not convinced they understood the reason for the question, but at that point the conversation moved to something else and that's all I got.

So my suggestion is to set the scene rather better than I did before asking the question, otherwise the answer is going to be less than illuminating. That's if you can keep their attention for longer than I managed.

Onwards and sideways...

[BuntyFlint]

Hello
I've been reading through this thread and the other (open letter) and have been thinking (and I apologise in advance, this wasn't meant to be so long).

I think the reason that the sell off of woodlands inspired so much active oppostition was because woodlands have distinctly tangible and personal benefits for people - you sell my local woodland and I won't be able to walk my dog, go bird watching, take my children for walks there, go blackberrying, go see the spring flowers. I'm sure there was also a feeling of the masses' right to roam v. rich landowners: Mass Trespass and Robin Hood, even if people didn't conciously think of that.

One of the 'problems' with archaeology is its benefits seem intangible - it does the things that people have said previously on this thread but can people SEE that? I have to say here that I left the UK seven years ago, so stuff has surely changed but I'm wondering how connected the public is with commercial archaeology? I know there been a lot written about community archaeology recently, but how much is there in practice?

How much collaboration is there with local museums to show the results of recent excavations, or even an annual round up? Is this even feasible with regards to funding (cuts), timing, the loss of 'local' units etc? Do archaeology units (is that term still current?) have 'open days'? To have some sort of 'this is what we dug up here and this is what it means for you - these are the stories', while the excavation is still fresh in people's minds, might help people SEE the benefits of archaeology, to enjoy it and so understand why archaeology is important.


I got into commercial archaeology through an unemployed project, part of the scheme was outreach work in schools. We took in handling collections, talked to children about field archaeology, did 'experimental' archaeology with them (pottery, weaving) and the kids were crazy for it - it was often hard to leave the school for them hanging off your arms begging you to stay. Maybe it was as much about having a day off normal lessons but the kids were massively enthused by archaeology. I've also worked in museum education, where our sessions were designed deliberately to include sections of the national curriculum (e.g. the hands on sessions cooking Tudor food involved maths, history, food science etc), again the kids loved it. The schools were also really happy as it meant they could pretty much tick off that part of the curriculum as done for their records, meaning less work for overworked teachers. As I understood it then, a fair part of museum income came from the schools sessions.


Advertising agents know well pester power works! If parents see how much archaeology inspires and excites their children then that will help. I don't know how work with schools can be fitted into the framework/funding for excavations (liasing with the local school, designing and delivering a teaching session and designing materials based around the excavation and the national curriculum) but it would be great if it was possible for units to offer this service. It was actually a really great education pack on the Tollund man at school which fired my love of archaeology and history. Maybe some units already do work with schools - I read that Oxford Archaeology have? As GPStone says a couple of posts up - archaeology is a great teaching tool, for a huge number of reasons.

This doesn't present any immediate solutions, and especially in the light of funding cuts anything that is 'extra' won't be possible. But in the long term if archaeologists can enthuse the next generation, can help make intangible benefits more tangible and even taken for granted as a benefit to society - in the way that the arts (though also suffering cuts) seem to be, then that can only help archaeology (okay, and selfishly, archaeologists) in the long run. I suppose I'm thinking as much along the lines of 'how can we start telling those stories?' as 'how we can convince people those stories are worth telling?' In telling those stories, people will begin to realise they are important, enjoyable, inspiring – and worth telling.

[P Prentice]

what we need is a timeteam special, an editorial in current archaeology and a royal interview (surely one must have done history?)