Constructive thoughts on the effect of cuts to archaeology and heritage

[kevin wooldridge]

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

I am not saying that any of those suggestions should not be part of a wide based campaign - but every aspect of those three suggestions screams 'Hobby, hobby, hobby'.....and surely what we need is to put across that archaeology is more than just a hobby; for many of us it is a profession, a university study option, a research field.

The vast majority of working archaeologists embrace hobbyists - sure, but the spending cuts are more likely to affect our abilities to work professionally within archaeology rather than our abilities to follow the subject as a hobby. But of course, this also affects the pursuit of archaeology as a hobby, though the closure of museums and archives, the withdrawal of educational resources, the lack of development of archaeology as an academic discipline, less books, less magazines, less articles, less specialisms, less access for hobbyists to verify their interest etc etc

[destroyingangel]

A TT special would be good for us (highlighting the plight and all), but it wouldn't necessarily be good TV. As for contacting a royal with historical and environmental pretentions... surely he's a bit busy organising a wedding at the moment.

Maybe we should contact our MP's (like it says on 38 Degrees), but as to what response we'll get I don't know. Better still, get a vanguard MP who actually is concerned about the environment and heritage... Caroline Lucas?

[P Prentice]

I am not saying that any of those suggestions should not be part of a wide based campaign - but every aspect of those three suggestions screams 'Hobby, hobby, hobby'.....and surely what we need is to put across that archaeology is more than just a hobby; for many of us it is a profession, a university study option, a research field.

The vast majority of working archaeologists embrace hobbyists - sure, but the spending cuts are more likely to affect our abilities to work professionally within archaeology rather than our abilities to follow the subject as a hobby. But of course, this also affects the pursuit of archaeology as a hobby, though the closure of museums and archives, the withdrawal of educational resources, the lack of development of archaeology as an academic discipline, less books, less magazines, less articles, less specialisms, less access for hobbyists to verify their interest etc etc

they reach our core constituency - many of whom sit on councils, send off letters to elected members and generally make a fuss

in advertising the perilous state of our industry - dont we need to first reach and persuade the audience who has the most empathy - there are far more hobbyist than there are professionals

[the invisible man]

Unfortunately the "hobbyists", or amateur archaeologists, or the public simply interested in archaeology/heritage etc, are actually encouraged to be opposed to professionals and commercial archaeology and to somewhat demonize them as "the enemy" - by the very periodical under discussion. The editor in chief may well welcome cuts and the reduction of the commercial sector in the (misguided) belief that this will allow oppurtunities for the amateur.

[GPStone]

Sadly, I believe you are quite accurate in that assumption, InvisibleMan!

That aside, I think we have to look beyond the specific definition of what we do and link archaeology (commercial and 'amateur' alike) up to the broader heritage community. As commercial archaeologists, we seem to have a general tendency to become myopically focused on our own little world including function and purpose and not realise both the potential service we could provide beyond the boundaries of our commercial paradigm and the isolation we engender as a result, contrary to the interests of our 'cause'. We're needless doing ourselves out of our own argument and its bloody infuriating (not to mention a little arrogant).

We need to look at what we do, consider what we could do and get on with doing it. With regard to the 38 Degrees woodland campaign, all those arguments in favour of woodland apply almost equally to 'heritage' (not necessarily archaeology, which is why it is essential to intrinsically entwine one into the other and boost the community appeal).

If archaeology can be used in all the ways we have come up with, why are we not (largely) using it in all those ways and what's stopping us starting now?

[diggingthedirt]

Unfortunately the "hobbyists", or amateur archaeologists, or the public simply interested in archaeology/heritage etc, are actually encouraged to be opposed to professionals and commercial archaeology and to somewhat demonize them as "the enemy" - by the very periodical under discussion. The editor in chief may well welcome cuts and the reduction of the commercial sector in the (misguided) belief that this will allow oppurtunities for the amateur.

Sirs,

You do the very periodical under discussion a disservice. Whilst the Editor-in-Chief’s views could be described as uncompromising in the extreme (particularly his libertarian principles in relation to commercially funded excavations) this by no means reflects the current editorial stance. Let us not forget, this debate was itself stimulated by the CA ‘Archaeology after the Cuts’ special, followed up by the special debate at the British Museum.

Yours recalcitrantly,

Diggingthedirt (Tunbridge Wells).

[P Prentice]

here's the thingy

if the 38 campaign showed anything it was that the environment is treasured and that environmental concerns are acceptabe to the public

therefore archaeology is an environmental issue

we are thus in the business of environmental mitigation, training, policing, explaining (add on your specialty here.............)

cutting archaeology is therefore environmentally destructive and who wants to be seen to be doing that?

those of you who want to wage class war, uphold a closed-shop, bury your heads in the sand or refuse to see the writing on the wall should probably hope to inherit the earth

[vulpes]

Sirs,

You do the very periodical under discussion a disservice. Whilst the Editor-in-Chief’s views could be described as uncompromising in the extreme (particularly his libertarian principles in relation to commercially funded excavations) this by no means reflects the current editorial stance. Let us not forget, this debate was itself stimulated by the CA ‘Archaeology after the Cuts’ special, followed up by the special debate at the British Museum.

Yours recalcitrantly,

Diggingthedirt (Tunbridge Wells).

CA? What's CA? Is it a bit like British Archaeology magazine?
Special debate at The British Museum.... no, sorry missed that, selling tickets were they? Best not to bite the hand that feeds eh? :face-stir:

[moreno]

Maybe we should contact our MP's (like it says on 38 Degrees), but as to what response we'll get I don't know. Better still, get a vanguard MP who actually is concerned about the environment and heritage... Caroline Lucas?

Ed Vaizey (MP Wantage & Didcot, Minister for Culture) has been a big advocate of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Lord Renfrew is the Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Archaeological Group, their purpose is to further the understanding of archaeology and to promote archaeology and archaeological education.

[Boxoffrogs]

Duh! It's all our past init?