For thirty years there has
been sustained effort to embed archaeological
expertise in Britain's local government.
Local planning authorities regulate development,
and the presence of archaeological advice
within the planning process is obviously
valuable, as is the ability to build archaeological
considerations into development plans. Many
local authorities are also responsible for
museums, and a number are education authorities.
A strong archaeological presence thus makes
it possible to connect functions of stewardship,
study, and public explanation. A tool which
serves all three is the Sites and Monuments
Record (SMR): an historic environmental
database which should be available to provide
accurate, apposite and timely information,
and around which other functions can revolve.
Local provision has developed variously
since 1970. In England, its main initial
flowering was at county level, which enabled
the grouping of skills and expertise which
would often be unsustainable in smaller
areas. In some counties, like Bedfordshire
and Hampshire, integrated teams evolved
which embraced development control, public
outreach and education, and fieldwork, on
the principle that these things should be
mutually informing and reinforcing. In other
areas provision was smaller, sometimes never
advancing beyond development control. The
location of archaeology within local government
has been similarly diverse. Most often it
grew up within the planning department,
but some authorities made a point of establishing
it in relation to their museums or education
service.
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland followed
different and in some respects diverging
paths. Wales obtained, and still retains,
a system which was intended for England
in the early 1970s but never introduced,
involving regional trusts which exist outside
local government but provide services to
the planning system and the public. Scotland
went down the local government route, although
coverage was more slowly achieved than in
England. In Northern Ireland there are no
local authorities, and conservation functions
are handled centrally by the Government
itself.
Everywhere, SMRs developed unevenly, with
different systems and standards, and varying
provision for updating. A long battle, indeed,
has been to explain to others why such databases
need to be living organisms which evolve
as knowledge and valuations change.
These limitations notwithstanding, by 1990
SMR coverage in England was complete, enabling
the Government to introduce guidance which
insists that archaeological considerations
should be taken into account when planning
decisions are taken.
Progress since then has mingled triumph
with tragedy. On the planning side, the
principles launched in 1990 have taken firm
root, and have since been extended (with
variations) to all parts of the UK. A corollary
of this system, however, has been the separation
of functions of stewardship, study, and
explanation which formerly went together.
The system is overseen by local government
archaeologists who are regarded as curators,
while development-driven fieldwork is undertaken
by contracting bodies. Curators are not
always resourced to knit together the results
of contracting work or planning decisions
for the information of local people, while
contractors do not always find themselves
working for clients who see outreach as
part of their responsibility.
Since the mid 1990s such problems have
been exacerbated by the effects of local
government reorganisation. Again, the effects
have not been uniform.
In England, some existing teams have been
broken up, with loss of continuity and at
the expense of critical mass and the accumulating
asset of local knowledge.
The detachment of new unitary authorities
has left other services weakened, while
provision within the authorities themselves
is variable. Joint arrangements, where services
are shared between a number of authorities,
can be weakened when one or two authorities
decide to secede.
A recent survey of English SMRs revealed
an overall picture of structural under-resourcing
and backlog, which itself exists against
a background of potentialities in digital
information technology that is advancing
so swiftly as to threaten to outpace the
ability of archaeological bodies to take
progressive and coherent advantage of it.
Superimposed upon all this have been rising
expectations of local government archaeology
services, and the influence of the Blair
Government. Essentially, the services are
being asked to do more with less, while
the Government's priorities of access, education,
regeneration and devolution have yet to
reflect much visible sense of enthusiasm
for the historic environment at large. Steps
towards regionalization in England add further
uncertainties.
It is the stronger services which are most
vulnerable - in the rest, there is little
left to cut. Each year one or two of the
remaining broader-based services are put
in jeopardy. Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire
suffered in 1997 and 1998. This year services
were threatened in Northamptonshire, Worcestershire,
Somerset, and elsewhere.
This has become a recognisable cycle. It
is hard to resist because in a given year
the problem affects only a proportion of
services, and so can hardly be portrayed
as a national crisis. But the cumulative
effect is to chip away at the models to
which others could once aspire, and to drive
down expectations of what provision should
involve.
What should provision involve? In a sentence,
it should combine capacity for explanation
and education as well as regulation. Public
explanation is inherently worthwhile, and
if conservation leaves popular understanding
behind, other problems will follow. Moreover,
many threats to the historic environment
don't fall under the planning system at
all. The effects of agriculture, for instance,
require local advocacy and advice on a scale
which many authorities are simply unable
to provide.
Beyond this, there is large opportunity
for public participation in local interpretation
and stewardship which in most areas is not
being grasped for want of nucleal resourcing.
It is said by some that this is best provided
by local societies and amateurs, acting
spontaneously, and in some areas it is.
But this is not an either/or issue. My own
view is that independency is likely to flourish
best where it can draw on practical support
and encouragement, the two achieving more
together than either could alone.
Since 1997 the CBA has become increasingly
practised in pointing all this out. Government
reaction was initially politely dismissive,
seeking to portray the issue narrowly as
a quibble about capacity for development
control.
This year, I confess I am a trifle exasperated
by the Government's track record of talking
past the point, we have tried to put the
case more unequivocally. We have done so
in letters to and meetings with ministers,
in dialogue with the local authorities concerned,
via Parliamentary questions, contacts to
MPs and peers, the media, coverage in our
magazine British Archaeology, and most recently
through encouragement for an Early Day Motion
in the House of Commons.
This will continue until agreement is reached
on what we are all talking about - or should
be talking about. At that point we will
see progress. No-one at the CBA assumes
that a Government rethink will lead to overnight
change, but it would change the climate
in which priorities are shaped. That can
only be achieved when there is agreement
on the diagnosis of the issues. There are
signs that this is now being thought about,
and that some of the bigger beasts in the
heritage jungle (like English Heritage)
will soon be taking up the cause in a more
visibly proactive way. Meanwhile, the campaign
goes on.
|
World
Archaeological Bulletin