|
Background
During the last decade, archaeology in England has
undergone a number of significant changes. In 1990 archaeological intervention
was established as an element in the planning process, enshrined in a
non-statutory advice note Planning Policy Guidance note 16 (PPG
16). As a result, the developer was deemed liable to ensure that due consideration
was given to the archaeological potential of a site, prior to its redevelopment
or exploitation (Biddle 1994). This initiative led to the emergence of
a system of competitive tendering and the proliferation of project-funded
independent archaeological units. Some are based on units formerly funded
by local authorities, while others operate from universities or museums.
Many of the smaller ones are newly established ‘independents’.
There are a considerable number of these organizations, with the largest
employing scores of archaeologists. Some restrict themselves to geographical
territories, while others will work anywhere within the United Kingdom.
Some have tendered for, and won, contracts in Europe, and others have
acted in at least a consultancy capacity in the Caribbean and Asia. More
specialized organizations, in areas such as geophysics, have also been
established. At the lowest level are individual consultants, particularly
artefact analysts.
Parallel to this, the responsibilities formerly held
by the government were handed over to a quasi-autonomous government agency,
English Heritage, in 1984. This organisation has a wide range of responsibilities,
only one of which is archaeology. Space precludes a full discussion of
the role of English Heritage and details can be obtained from the organisation's
website (www.eng-h.gov.uk).
From the point of view of archaeology, one critical role is the provision
of a series of standards documents and guidance notes which have come
to form an important part of the structure of British archaeology. These
include Management of Archaeological Projects, second edition (English
Heritage 1991a), better known as MAP 2, Exploring our Past (English
Heritage 1991b), Frameworks for our past (Olivier 1996) and the
Draft Research Agenda (English Heritage 1997).
As a result of these innovations, most field archaeology
is now driven by the requirements of the construction industry, with the
vast majority of projects carried out in response to the threat of destruction
by building work, mining and quarrying or road construction. In practical
terms the system works as follows (with minor regional and institutional
variations).
The possible impact of a planning application on the
archaeology of a region is monitored by archaeologists employed (mostly)
by local authority planning departments to maintain a database of known
archaeological remains, usually within a county, called the Sites and
Monuments Records (SMR). Under PPG 16, these archaeologists can place
conditions on planning applications whereby the developer must undertake
to make provision to deal with any archaeology in accordance with a brief
issued by the development control archaeologist. At this point, the developer
requests tenders from archaeological contractors, with their final choice
of contractor being made without reference to the planning authorities.
Before the work is undertaken, a written brief is issued
by the development control officer specifying the extent of the work.
This can range from the monitoring the development through to full excavation
and publication, depending upon the perceived significance of any remains.
Figure 1 below represents an attempt to summarise a typical sequence of
events. To some extent this over-simplifies the situation and other arrangements,
involving ongoing fieldwork in advance of progressive destruction (in
advance of long-term quarrying and mining for example) are possible.
Excavation is not the only solution possible under PPG
16. So-called ‘mitigation’ strategies are sometimes employed,
where buildings are constructed upon piles or rafts which, it is claimed,
preserves the archaeology for future investigation. At present both of
these alternatives, together with other strategies, are of unproven reliability
and very little data exists to assess the effects of them on the archaeological
strata.
Planning application
Brief issued by curatorial archaeologist
Response by developer: issuing of request for tenders to
archaeological contractors
Evaluation excavation, survey or other archaeological response
in line with brief and tender agreement
Report including assessment by relevant specialists
No further work
Report submitted to client and curatorial archaeologists
with assessment of the archaeological potential
Brief for further work
Tenders for further work issued by developers in line with
the brief
Excavation, survey, recording according to brief and tender
agreement
Report submitted to developers and curatorial archaeologists.
Deposited in County Sites and Monuments Record
Deposition of excavation archive (records, finds, site report)
in local museum
Figure 1. The process.
This necessarily brief sketch of the situation perhaps
conceals some of the problems which have arisen as a result of the system.
Some specific areas of concern have been already discussed, both in prints
and, less formally, at conferences and on the internet (eg. Biddle 1994,
Chadwick 1998, in prep., Carrington 1993, Cumberpatch and Thorpe, in prep.,
Blinkhorn and Cumberpatch 1997, Cumberpatch and Blinkhorn 1997), as have
broader criticisms of the mechanistic mode of many commercial operations
and the lack of opportunities for contributions by fieldworkers and specialists
(Cumberpatch and Blinkhorn 1997, Blinkhorn and Cumberpatch 1997, Challands
et al. 1998). Examples of the ongoing nature of the debate can be found
in the journals Rescue News, British Archaeology and the
Bulletin published by the Institute of Field Archaeologists.
The Problems
The current structure, outlined above and in Table 1,
attempts to offer both value for money to the developer and a degree of
protection for the archaeology. However, there are a number of problems,
some of which were unforeseen when PPG 16 was introduced in 1990.
Regionality
This stems from the varied nature of past human action.
Hitherto, county-based units were able to build up a detailed local knowledge
of the archaeology of their local areas, allowing a flexible, informed
response to most situations. The advent of units working impartially across
the country has tended to erode this local knowledge-base and, as a result,
responses have tended to become formulaic, with a rise in situations where
ignorance of local issues has led to erroneous conclusions. For example,
artefactually-poor Iron Age sites in Yorkshire can appear incomprehensible
to those more accustomed to working on sites of similar date in southern
England, where material culture played a major role in social activity.
Cuts in the museum service
Recently, it has become clear that museums are being
targeted for cost-cutting by the local authorities that fund them. Staff
have been sacked, facilities reduced or closed and the functions of many
museums progressively degraded. In Sheffield, for example, the local authority
handed control of the local museums and galleries to an unelected, democratically
unaccountable Trust who have shifted the emphasis from archaeology and
human history towards the art galleries, replacing three members of staff
with one. This kind of action has serious consequences as museums are
not only the 'first stop' for amateurs and enthusiasts seeking information
about the past in general and archaeology in particular, but are also
the final repositories for archaeological archives - the surviving traces
of sites destroyed during the process of excavation. The situation is
now so critical that a number of museums are refusing to accept finds
from developer-funded excavations as they do not have the time, space
or staff to deal with them.
Lack of specialist archaeological knowledge amongst curators
Many archaeological curators do not have a background
in either archaeological theory or fieldwork practice, nor are they able
to keep abreast with the latest developments in either area. This is not
due to laziness. Most have a crippling workload due to the fact that they
are often seen as dispensable by the same councils that are cutting museum
staff. Consequently, they are unable to afford the ‘luxury’
(in terms of time) of attending conferences which do not deal directly
with anything other than planning legislation, and the implementation
of it in an archaeological context. For example, the concept of the structured
deposition of artefacts on Iron Age sites is now well-established, yet
few curators seem aware of it and continue to set briefs where only 1
or 2% of ditches are excavated. This results in artefact assemblages which
are far too small to allow identification of anything other than the very
broadest chronology and preclude all meaningful insight into the social
or economic practices which led to the creation of the archaeological
record.
Lack of research opportunities
The institution of a contract-tender system has led to
a situation where 'research' has become a taboo subject, primarily due
to the fact that it is often seen by developers as being beyond their
remit. Indeed, as Richard Morris noted (1998), at least one contracting
unit advertises the fact that it will not undertake any sort of research
element during excavation work. This reluctance to acknowledge the importance
of research questions exists in spite of the fact that most excavations
inevitably entail a research element, in that artefact and ecofact-based
analysis is necessary to make sense of the results of archaeological interventions.
This has led to a split between commercial archaeology and 'pure research'
.
This situation has resulted many individual projects
having a somewhat 'unfinished' or incomplete nature. The requirement to
stick closely to a pre-defined brief, often written on the basis of a
limited evaluative exercise, largely precludes the investigation of remains
which were not defined in advance (Blinkhorn and Cumberpatch 1997). While
the provision of contingency clauses can alleviate this situation, in
practice this is rarely (in the authors’ experience) satisfactory
and sites are often completed to a degree which fulfils the brief, but
does little to resolve archaeological problems (Cumberpatch 1998:32, 62).
In an effort to conform to an artificial model of practice dictated by
the market and market forces, the essentially investigative nature of
the archaeological enterprise has been overlooked, with the result that
information has been lost and opportunities for the significant enhancement
of knowledge have been squandered.
This is inadequate. A failure to acknowledge the fact
that the complexity of the archaeological record requires a broad, research-based
approach leads inevitably to a tendency to tackle only the immediate problems
and a neglect of the wider implications for a town or region, which themselves
can affect the prioritization of investigative options at a specific site.
The context of a particular site is of critical importance at all stages
of a project, from excavation to publication.
This has wider effects, particularly amongst those employed
‘at the coal-face’, who perceive that they are engaged in nothing
more than a continuous damage limitation exercise. The adoption of modern
management techniques, which can be said to place their main emphasis
on presentation, does little to motivate staff, resulting in low morale,
nihilistic attitudes and a leaking away of experienced and talented practitioners
at all levels.
The situation has been compounded by the commercialization
of the universities. Here, the demands of financiers and other bureaucrats
has led to a reduction in the time available to students (even those who
are self-funded) to complete Masters and doctoral theses. Thus, a mechanism
which should support and enhance the results obtained from the excavation
of threatened sites has been subverted by similar commercial pressures
to those which have reduced the research effectiveness of archaeological
units. Simultaneously, the demands upon university staff to take on roles
better performed by business managers and bureaucrats have cut into time
which should be spent engaging in research. In both cases, the opportunities
for links to be made between academia and field archaeology have been
curtailed, to the detriment of the understanding of the information gained
by developer-funded projects.
The role of English Heritage in funding research and
in setting research objectives must not be underestimated. Generally however,
these initiatives are problem-orientated and essentially reactive, although
a number of the initiatives set out in the recent Draft Research Agenda
(English Heritage 1997) do appear to acknowledge the importance of pure
research in establishing the framework for future work. The forthcoming
revision of this document (to be published on the English Heritage Archaeology
division website) will be of particular importance in this regard and
will, no doubt, generate a debate of considerable value.
Lack of training and career development
The problems of the lack of a clear career structure,
of low pay, poor accommodation and short term contracts have been widely
discussed both in print and at conferences. In general terms, the lack
of any sort of clear employment structure within field archaeology has
effectively precluded the development of training programmes aimed at
increasing the effectiveness of field technicians. Such training as there
is inevitably takes place ad hoc. The contract-tender system, due
mainly to the seasonality of excavation, has resulted in what are euphemistically
known as 'flexible working practices'; i.e. short-term contracts and no
job security. This is perhaps the principal factor in the alienation of
the majority of field staff, who see themselves considered as expendable
'trowel fodder' in whom investment is a wasted asset. Few unit managers
can justify spending money on the training of staff who might well be
laid off a week or two later. The situation is similar amongst specialists,
who, it seems, are expected to spring from the void, fully formed and
ready to provide a range of services without any formal training. One
small sign of hope in this bleak picture has been the readiness of English
Heritage to subsidize a number of training courses aimed at specific groups
of specialists. While this has been of great benefit (to the authors,
amongst others), it is clear that the numbers of people entering the profession
with a marketable skill (ceramics, faunal analysis, environmental archaeology,
metalwork etc) is falling. At present the authors know of only two ‘in
house’ trainees in the field of ceramics and concern has been expressed
by at least one unit manager at the dearth of specialists in key areas.
Even amongst those institutions which maintain some degree
of core-funding, training budgets, along with budgets for books and journals,
have been slashed. Increasingly staff are expected to attend conferences
at their own expense and in their own time, including that of the Institute
of Field Archaeologists, despite the fact that most organizations prefer
employees to be members of the Institute. Meetings of special interest
groups such as the Medieval Pottery Research Group are frequently disrupted
by the absence of key committee members whose available annual leave has
run out. Such groups have a key role in establishing and maintaining professional
standards and so even such an apparently minor point can be seen to have
significant long-term implications.
The Institute of Field Archaeologists is currently producing
a set of guidelines with regard to training and career development, although
how effective these will be remains to be seen. In the past, it has set
recommendations for minimum pay, yet still certified organizations which
did not adhere to its guidelines.
Under-funding and lack of resources
The general reduction of core funding to a variety of
bodies has had important effects in precluding organizations from maintaining
the kind of up-to-date approach necessary in a rapidly changing field
such as archaeology. Taken together with the decline in opportunities
for training (whether through formal courses or participation in conferences,
day-schools etc), the decline in such resources poses a threat to the
continued effectiveness of archaeological curators. This is not to blame
those employed in such posts - strenuous efforts are made by some individuals
to maintain an overview of ongoing professional debate. Such efforts are
not well served by a situation which was only partly envisaged by those
who enthusiastically embraced the contract-tender system.
The way forward
In this article we have sketched out a gloomy scenario.
Without wishing to represent the situation in England as worse than it
is (and we are very aware that the situation is far worse elsewhere in
the world), we are motivated by a concern for the future of archaeology
and for the people employed within it. Thanks to its early inception and
the scale of public and private investment over the years, archaeology
in England has a considerable world-wide reputation. This, we believe,
is in jeopardy unless action is taken to reverse the trends which we have
outlined above. This is not the place to advance a comprehensive manifesto
for change, but we feel that the following points must be taken into consideration
if the current situation is not to worsen dramatically in the next few
years. It might be that some of these suggestions have resonance in other
countries - in which case, a global movement towards the raising of standards
might be considered relevant.
The following needs must be acknowledged and addressed:
- The need for the improved resourcing of curatorial archaeologists
- including the raising of staffing levels, the provision of in-service
training, the improvement of communication with the rest of the profession
and the inclusion of specialists in the formulation of regional and
local research strategies.
- The need to integrate specialists into the early stages of resource
management, project design and implementation and thus to tackle the
increasing problem of fragmentation within the discipline and the marginalisation
of specialists.
- The need for core funding of field units (over and above the project
funding provided by developers) to permit the establishment of a regime
including in-service training, a career structure and professional development.
This must also marry the short-term demands of seasonal employment with
the necessity to maintain a motivated, committed workforce, able to
exploit the potential of archaeology in the most effective manner.
- The need for a strong, unified body to represent the diversity of
viewpoints within archaeology effectively and powerfully. Such a body
must also be able to set standards for practice within the profession,
independent of established power blocs, the development lobby and government.
- The need to maintain and enhance the network of regional and national
museums whose stores house the accumulated artefactual, ecofactual,
documentary and other archives which constitute the archaeology of the
country.
Further information
Many of the issues raised in this paper have been discussed
at greater length in a variety of articles, letters and polemical pieces
in archaeological periodicals. Readers wishing to follow up particular
points might find the following web sites useful as starting points:
References cited
Biddle, M. 1994 What future for British Archaeology?
Archaeology in Britain conference 1994 / Oxbow Lecture 1. Oxbow Books.
Blinkhorn, P.W. and Cumberpatch, C.G. 1997 The interpretation
of artefacts and the tyranny of the field archaeologist. Assemblage
http://www/shef/ac/uk/assem/3/3comment.html
Carrington, P. 1993 Evaluations in rescue archaeology;
PPG 16 three years on. Chester Archaeological Service / Chester City
Council.
Chadwick, A.M. in prep. British Archaeology at the end
of the second millennium. A personal view of the state of the art.
Chadwick, A.M. 1998 Archaeology at the edge of chaos:
Further towards reflexive excavation methodologies. Assemblage.
http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/3/3chad.html
Challands, N. et al. 1998 Don't think…Dig! Paper
presented at the twentieth meeting of the Theoretical Archaeology Group,
Birmingham 1998.
Cumberpatch, C.G. 1998 The pottery. In P. Carne
Leazes Bowl, Durham City Archaeological Excavations 1996. Unpublished
archive report. Archaeological Services, University of Durham.
Cumberpatch, C.G. and Blinkhorn, P.W. Introduction. In
Cumberpatch, C.G. and Blinkhorn, P.W. (eds) Not so much a pot, more
a way of life. Oxbow Monograph 83.
Cumberpatch, C.G. and Thorpe R. in prep. Some notes towards
a characterisation of archaeology as a social practice.
English Heritage 1991a Management of Archaeological
Projects. English Heritage, London.
English Heritage 1991b Exploring our past. English
Heritage, London.
English Heritage 1997 English Heritage Archaeology Division
Research Agenda (Draft). English Heritage, London.
Morris, R, 1998 Building Roads to Intellectual Nowhere.
British Archaeology 36
Olivier, A. 1996 Frameworks for our past. A review
of research frameworks, strategies and perceptions. English Heritage,
London.
|
World
Archaeological Bulletin