Don’t forget the public!

Your article on the APPAG report (Digger 27) was very informative. I was pleased to see the comments on community involvement in archaeology. Professionals would be unwise to dismiss public enthusiasm for heritage.

The report states that: ‘The Government’s priorities are expressed in terms of broadening access to and developing the educational potential of the cultural sector. These aims, while worthy in themselves, force Government-funded bodies with responsibilities for archaeology to divert attention away from what should be their core aims, to identify, protect and sustain the historic environment, towards these other goals. ... Without the preservation of this fundamental resource, there will be nothing left to provide access to or to educate people about.’ (p 6).

I think that we would all agree with that. But without the support of the public for archaeology as a community service which helps to give a sense of place and personal and community identity, there is no pressure for local and national government to give a damn when it comes to axing public services. It should not be an ‘either/or’ question. What is the point of digging all this stuff up if it is not shared with the community whose heritage it is? We must not allow lack of funds to force us to make a choice between the resource and the involvement of the community.

Professional archaeologists (and I am one) and administrators should look to the future of community participation in archaeology; this will lead to the survival of their jobs in the long term. Public involvement should be at the heart of the job not the periphery. It will never be so whilst competitive tendering exists and this is why all archaeologists should be concerned with the restructuring of the profession.

- Chris Tripp

BAJR’s view of APPAG

Over the past 3 years of running BAJR, I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly reality of archaeology in the UK. Poor pay, poor working practice and our fragmented, disorganised and toothless ‘profession’. Whether as a digger in the field or a specialist in a museum we have all seen heritage becoming more popular while funding is cut and jobs lost! The APPAG report is just what is needed; I agree with 95% of it. However, there are points that I am concerned over:

Amateurs working on watching briefs and evaluations. Not so much a problem of them working with us, rather them working instead of us. The whole point of our work is to involve and inform the public, not to shut them out from our secret world. Free watching briefs may sound enticing to developers, but where is the experience of an archaeologist who does this for a living, not to mention problems of public liability. Money should be made available for professionals to work with local groups, this not only creates a bridge between us, but allows the concept of research excavations/surveys to actually exist.

Franchises? Get real! It is unclear whether a single company will receive a 5 year franchise for a region or not. If so, many of us will be out on our ear. There are small consultancies that work well in an area, so there is no reason to squeeze them out. Pay rates vary greatly now, and there is a (rather fuzzy) realisation that pay and conditions must go up, however has anyone noticed that small companies with less overheads often pay more? I would like to see a system combining the Irish version of the Licensed Archaeologist and a multi-franchise system. With these in place, the policing of archaeology becomes much simpler. If an archaeologist or unit fails to meets recognised standards in the course of the 5 year period, then they are banned from that area for 5 years until they can prove the standards have improved: harsh but damned fair!

Chartered status. This is the only way to go, though the suggestion that the IFA, CBA etc merge is bizarre. A fresh new organisation is needed, started from scratch. I see no problem in using the IFA as a template as it is the largest organisation in UK archaeology (though with only c. 25% of the heritage workers involved, it is not exactly fully representative).

I fully agree with the polluter pays policy of a tax levy on developers depending on the size of the company. Balfour Beatty can afford to place £large amounts£ into a general kitty, while Tiny Builders Ltd need only pay £small amounts£. This is as fair for the developer as it means if Tiny Builder Ltd finds a Saxon Graveyard in the area of a house extension they are not forced to close down the project because they cannot afford to pay for the archaeology.

People should read the report (or the synopsis), understand the consequences and react. Burying your head and hoping it all passes by is to ignore the change that is coming. I want to be seen as the professional that I am. This report has begun that. But not all that glistens in this report is gold, some of it is pure s**t
But at least it is a start.

- David Connolly.