BAJR Conference 2006 Papers

:: Conference Papers 2006 ::
:: YORK :: 9th September 2006
DAVID CONNOLLY
BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOBS RESOURCE
WWW.BAJR.ORG
TRAPRAIN HOUSE
LUGGATE BURN
WHITTINGEHAME
EAST LOTHIAN
EH41 4QA
T: 01620 861643
M 0787 6528 498
E info@bajr.org
British Archaeological Jobs & Resources – 2006 York Conference
Introduction to BAJR Conference ....................................................................................... 1
1 - The History and Future of Private Sector Archaeologists ................................................. 2

The Dirty Digger Years - Phil Rhatz - 1950s - The emergence of freelance archaeology. ... 2
The Volunteer Years ...................................................................................................... 3
The Charity Years .......................................................................................................... 3
The MSC years. ............................................................................................................. 3
The Rise of Commercialism and Developer Funding. ........................................................ 4
The Pre-PPG 15 era. The Crisis years. ............................................................................. 4
The need for a representative body. ............................................................................... 8
Lack of career structure and Training.............................................................................. 8
Standards, what Standards? ........................................................................................... 8
A licensing system. ...................................................................................................... 11
2 - Archaeology For All Does it Stop At The Classroom. ..................................................... 13
3 - Ever-widening circles; communities for archaeology..................................................... 20

Great Ayton Community Archaeology Project................................................................. 21
Hadstock Group........................................................................................................... 21
Jorvik, ARC or DIG....................................................................................................... 22
4 - Volunteers In Archaeology.......................................................................................... 25
Using volunteers today................................................................................................. 32
Links........................................................................................................................... 35
Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 35
Appendix 1: Survey data. ............................................................................................. 37
5 - Graduated, in debt and can’t work in the sector! How can today’s Graduates hope to
achieve their dreams? ..................................................................................................... 39
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 39
Choices ....................................................................................................................... 39
Student Numbers......................................................................................................... 41
What does the sector need to offer graduates to work in the sector? .............................. 42
Possible ideas for graduate roles and employers ............................................................ 43
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 43
Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 44
6 - Parliamentary Progress? Culture, Cuts and Conservation (and other tales)..................... 45

PPG Review................................................................................................................. 45
The Heritage Protection Review.................................................................................... 46
The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee ........................................ 47
So, who are the Culture Media and Sport Committee?.................................................... 48
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 49
Epilogue...................................................................................................................... 51
7 - Diggers Forum........................................................................................................... 52
8 - DIGGERS – Role Still Unrecognized Sixteen Years On ................................................... 53
Appendix 1 – Submissions to Department for Culture, Media and Sport .............................. 60

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Field Archaeologists..................................... 60
Memorandum submitted by the Council for British Archaeology ...................................... 65
Memorandum submitted by Prospect ............................................................................ 72
Memorandum submitted by RESCUE—The British Archaeological Trust ........................... 76
Memorandum submitted by Wessex Archaeology........................................................... 89
Memorandum submitted to British Archaeological Jobs Resource .................................... 94
Memorandum submitted by the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers. 98
Introduction to BAJR Conference

David Connolly (BAJR Host)
This year in York, the first BAJR conference was held to a mixed audience ranging from
representatives of the CBA and IFA to Consultants, Unit Managers, and English Heritage staff.
There were diggers and supervisors, finds specialists and researchers. In all over 100 people
turned up to a conference that took a look at where we were in UK archaeology and
considered where we could go.
Most importantly, we asked ourselves what could we do – this was a conference with a
difference, a conference that did not just talk to the hall, but considered positive action from
each session. Already a training section has been added to BAJR, as suggested and promised
at the conference, the community aspect has always been a driving force in the CBA
manifesto, and they are pushing forward with the New Portal - the Community
Archaeology Forum ( www.britarch.ac.uk/communityarchaeology/ )
The IFA and Prospect along with the Diggers Group have had firm support from BAJR on pay
and conditions – and this has at last gathered the momentum it needed.
BAJR is but a small part of the whole of British Archaeology, but uniquely it truly represents
the whole cross-section of this ‘profession’ – In seven years, BAJR has grown from a small
jobs site with 50 people a week visiting, to a large portal with over 5000 people a day visiting
for employment, forum, directories, information, news, software and even some games. This
is what BAJR is, not one person, but those that use it. It is heartening to meet people who
‘grew up’ with BAJR, from their first job as a Digger through to (in some cases) managing
companies, heading consultancies or acting as Inspectors in the National Heritage
Organisations.
The BAJR 06 Conference was a great success, and the following papers will show the quality
and diversity of that conference. This year in 2007 we hope to build on this success and hold
another conference (venue to be decided) on the subject of Standards. I hope to also bring
news on how much has changed since the York Conference.
Thanks to all who made this possible. With a special thanks to Mike Heyworth of the CBA for
the Digital Projector and his sensible interjections during the proceedings.
1
1 - The History and Future of Private Sector Archaeologists

Peter Wardle (Consultant )
This paper discusses the history of commercial archaeology and development based
excavation from its origins in the last century. This paper argues that an understanding of the
way the dynamics of the organization of archaeology has evolved results in a more realistic
view of the nature of employment in archaeology. It examines the issues that have been
current over the last 30 years and which can be solved or just have to be accepted. The
impact of private sector archaeology on standards, conservation and matters such as pay and
conditions is discussed.
The History and Future of Private Sector Archaeologists
To those that wish to see a return to the halcyon days of the 1970s/1980s nationalised
archaeology - they did not exist except for a privileged few.
In 1988-1989 the future was to me obvious. Back in the bad old days to be an archaeologist
was to be a site director. To be a digger you were a labourer or volunteer. As an industry we
all go on about how important it is to learn from the past but how far do we actually do this?
I would suggest that the issues being discussed 30 years ago when I started in archaeology
are more or less the same as they are today.
This paper is written on the basis of considering what is best for archaeologists and in
particular their lifestyles. It may be that doing what is best for the archaeology is not the best
for archaeologists and vice versa. The issues may come down to just this question.
Chris Musson in Rescue archaeology said:
“… may be the growth of freelance professional teams accepting commissions after

the fashion of consultant architects and engineers in private practice. Perhaps they
will never achieve a major place in the archaeological unit structure but they could
become an important element in it and worth consideration for the light they throw
on methods, objectives and personal motivation.”
In many respects archaeology in Britain began with the aristocrats digging barrows for
treasure using labourers in the eighteenth century on their own land. The names say it all:
General Pitt Rivers, Canon Greenwell. Have we completely got rid of this, if it was a bad
thing? Then there were the wealthy indulging in their passion like Alexander Keiller at
Avebury. I can name in fact one aristocrat who is just this more or less and one or two royals
that have studied archaeology. I think what the audience will find shocking is that it was still
commonplace just 30 years ago.
But this has to be put in the perspective of what the rest of society was like, and as an
academic you were expected to have an income. To be an academic you had to have an
income. What is perhaps more shocking is when the IFA was being set up in the early years
of Thatcherism there was an expectation from the founding fathers that the new generation
of graduates were going to have to return to an era of having another job to support their
archaeology habit, like they had to do and still did in the fifties and sixties. Was this any basis
for the foundation of a “professional body”?
The Dirty Digger Years - Phil Rhatz - 1950s - The emergence of freelance
archaeology.
The rise of professional and private sector archaeology goes hand in hand with the rise of
rescue archaeology which began in the war, the loss was so grievous as to be obvious,
2
particularly from airfields. After the war rescue archaeology was done by freelance
archaeologists. They were criticised as being incompetent, having a lack of academic
background, for their inability to produce a report quickly, and for being “lacking in scholarly
standards”. They were paid a daily fee for digging and £25 for 5000 words of a report. The
expectation was that you had a personal responsibility to write up a report, paid or unpaid,
which still persists today.
At the time Professor Rhatz was described as an archaeological Tramp. An excavator must be
itinerant. He said there was no question that the excavator was the site director. And here
starts the debate about standards. For fifty years this debate has raged.
The Volunteer Years

In the seventies there were some professional digging teams often on “subsistence” pay as it
was called. A paid volunteer – a little scam to avoid paying national insurance that persisted
in archaeology for the best part of twenty years. It started innocently enough - expenses for
volunteers. It was very cost effective.
The Charity Years

In 1972 the first Unit was created in Kent. Others followed soon. In 1974 the budget for
Rescue Archaeology was doubled. Unfortunately there were not enough professional
archaeologists for the jobs that had been created. The CBA were sponsoring the
establishment of a professional institution to allow people working in non professional
capacities to acquire professional training. It all sounds very familiar.
In effect there was part nationalisation with national advisory committees being set up.
Archaeologists started advising on planning and the creation of Units - The Educational
Charities.
Life was good. If you wanted to be an archaeologist, simple. Go to university get a degree
get a job on graduating. You had to do a bit of digging. Well paid permanent positions with
pensions in the brave new world of the early nineteen seventies. For example “Richard White
a recent graduate from Bangor was placed in charge of Gwyneth.” to quote Henry Owen John
who became the deputy director of GGAT within 12 months of graduating.
It was to last but a few years and till Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979. The next few
years were tough in comparison. Back to the volunteer system and vague tenure. Such was
the over supply of graduates that there was now the experienced and/or graduate digging
team. What was galling was that graduates a few years older had full time permanent posts.
Things got worse – project funding was introduced which removed the security of tenure that
some people enjoyed. Salaries were pegged on the lowest of pay scales.
The MSC years.

From about 1975 a series of job creation programmes created jobs in archaeology – there
was Yop or Yob as it was more commonly known – the Youth Opportunities Programme for
example. Over a 15 year period vast empires were built up based upon these schemes; in the
unit I worked for there were over 200 staff. Bigger than either Oxford or Wessex today.
Graduate with a few weeks experience and you were in a supervising/directing job very
quickly. The pay was not bad either.
There was a high proportion of former offenders on the schemes – it was not that remarkable
when the police arrived on site and carted off a load of staff. To give you a flavour of what it
was like here are the names that the staff were called by management:
Drongos - Minions - Oiks - Lackey
3
Life wasn’t really that bad – annual contracts maybe, but with redundancy rights, holiday and
sick pay. The expenses were good. The archaeology – well if it wasn’t nationally important it
didn’t get excavated more or less.
The Rise of Commercialism and Developer Funding.

As I have shown, since the earliest days of development archaeology there has been a
private sector. In fact there are still survivors from the 1950s, just. Developer funding was
also not uncommon in the eighties particularly in London and in the mineral extraction
industry.
In the late seventies an important development was the establishment of BUFAU. BUFAU was
set up to provide jobs for Birmingham graduates. It wasn’t pleasant working for BUFAU if you
were not a Birmingham graduate – you were a second class employee. They were the first
non territorial archaeological organisation other than the government’s Central Excavation
Unit. Their objective was none government funding for archaeological fieldwork anywhere in
the country.
A key project was the Esso Midline pipeline – from Seisdon in Staffordshire to Southampton.
As Esso put it “Esso agreed to engage the Trust for Wessex Archaeology as consultants to the
Construction Team”. What the publications of the time do not describe is the politicking to
get the contract between BUFAU, Hereford & Worcester Unit, Committee for Rescue
Archaeology in Avon Gloucestershire and Somerset, and The Trust for Wessex Archaeology.
This was also the period which saw the demise of some Units and with others being under
threat.
The early consultancies established in the late eighties were in many respects all about
servicing the gravel industry, one per major player per gravel company in effect. A code of
conduct for mineral operators had been established which meant these companies would pay
for archaeological work. Late in the 1980s, much delayed, the Environmental Impact
Assessment regulations came into force. For every major development particularly
infrastructure an assessment into the impact on “Cultural Heritage” had to be carried out.
In the late eighties Thames Valley Archaeological Services was set up – what differed about
this compared to the consultancies was its objective was field work not consultancy and it
was a private company.
This in some respects was a logical step from the small excavation based organisations 1-2
people working in a small area with essentially government funding which had been
established in the Unit era. Generally these were located where there was not a “permanent
unit”. Some like the Hazleton project are still going nearly 30 years later.
The Pre-PPG 15 era. The Crisis years.

In about 1988 the then Tory government scrapped the Job creation programme. A billion
pound environmental provision scrapped overnight. The archaeological empires crumbled
overnight. Mass redundancies occurred.
At the time one of the fledging consultancies were advising on the construction of a new
office block in Southwark. Current practice was being followed, the site was being excavated
paid for by the developers and what happened? Archaeology made the news every night as
the Thespians demanded this piece of post medieval archaeology was preserved and
presented to the public. Simon Hughes the local MP amongst others was very vocal in
pressing for changes in the law.
There was a review and the results of the review were revealed at a conference at the
Museum of London. No new legislation was needed. The minister was shouted down by the
audience, me included. What was needed was clarification of existing law, particularly
planning law, and for the planning system to better protect Ancient Monuments scheduled or
4
unscheduled. From now on all nationally important archaeological sites whether scheduled or
unscheduled would be protected from development and developers would pay for the
excavation of other sites.
Had all that angst, the protest, the unpaid work been unnecessary, because the older
generation had not had the assertiveness to implement existing law? This was what I thought
at the time.
It was obvious to me and others that there was going to be a rise in the private sector,
consultancies and commercial archaeology. It was obvious to me that the money was in
consultancy and in fact digging was going to get boring because it would consist of :
Endless trial trenching
Endless machine watching
Endless digging of ploughed out RB settlements and urban archaeology which was
not considered worthwhile when the government was paying for it.
A key provision of PPG16 was the notion that the archaeology had to be done by professional
organisations. This ought I thought to lead to better working conditions and better pay. On
occasions it did. It certainly did for management. Management salaries went up.
It was also the era of the production of endless standards, blaming competitive tendering for
people losing their jobs and demonisation of consultants.
So back to the digger’s lot:

What is the difference between the job of a digger and that of a labourer? - the mainstay of
British Archaeology for a century. What changed over night so that diggers needed a degree
and suddenly were professionals when PPG 16 was introduced? What has changed in the
nature of archaeological excavation over the last 15 years? Is the quality of modern
archaeology better than it was in 1980 at Wroxeter under Barker?
The origins of the professional digger had its origins with the Rescue Archaeology Group.
There was a school of thought that an experienced professional digger could excavate 3 or 4
times the amount of soil as a volunteer. This was the RAG model and during the eighties it
was the norm in places such as London. There was one key difference – there was no report
writing for London diggers. Interestingly after RAG became the Clywd-Powys Unit the RAG
model was dropped in favour of the hierarchical model of management once permanent posts
were available.
In the seventies a similar model was set up in Trondheim. The pay was ten times more in
Trondheim than in York. £150 quid a week, cheap accommodation, and beer was just a
pound a pint. So if we equate my wages then to the modern day I was earning 150 pints a
week, compared to 80 on a BAJR Level 1 now. In real terms I suggest that wages have
doubled in the last 30 years in the UK.
Another thing that happened is that many people worked on MSC schemes a number of
times. The basic qualification was 12 months unemployment. So they would dig for a year,
have a year working as a volunteer and then get another job on an MSC scheme. Some
worked their way up to supervisor level. Some did degrees, PhDs, some are now senior
lecturers.
Perhaps if we can define what we mean then we can define what the person on site with the
little trowel actually is and thus make an assessment of their worth? Is the person on site
somebody who researches the past --- using the OED definition? We forget that archaeology
is an academic discipline at our peril. Are the people on site similarly retrievers of data for
others to interpret and write about? When the IFA was set up this was very much the tenor
of what was being suggested.
5
Again we have to remember back to the halcyon days of the 1960s and 70s – when it was
possible for a post graduate to be given a Roman Palace to excavate. An assistant was a
young professional archaeologist who was learning their craft or an experienced amateur.
This had improved a bit from the fifties when Wheeler chose his site supervisors from his
senior students who had one or more season’s experience behind them. Philip Barker extols
the virtues of the use of prisoners. A proper archaeologist was the person who wrote the
reports.
In fact the site assistant was high up the hierarchy.
If we look at the system when the IFA was set up, a degree and a year’s experience and you
became an associate. A degree and three years and having taken sole responsibility for a
project and you were a member. Membership was easy if you were a gentleman
archaeologist, you just paid for the project. It wasn’t that difficult if you were not. Equally the
notion that only people with “executive management” responsibility can be full members of
the IFA was simply not on the agenda.
So what does the new graduate digger do now that they didn’t do in the nineteen seventies,
eighties or nineties, whatever they were called. Let’s look at the job for a new graduate with
12 months experience:
Task 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 2006

Job Title Director Director/ Supervisor Supervisor Assistant Bajr
Supervisor Grade 2
Use trowel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Use pick and Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
shovel/hoe sometimes
Draw sections Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
and plans
Use surveying Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
equipment
Write written Yes Yes Yes Yes No/Maybe Yes
records
Supervise Yes Yes/No Yes Yes No No
Others
Take Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
photographs
Monitor Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
machines
Write reports Yes Yes No No No Maybe
The job descriptions tell the story.
So what we have seen is the currency of the archaeology graduate decline over a 30 year
period. So I ask the question, what has changed in the educational system that a graduate
needs so much more experience and training just to do the job of an untrained labourer just
20 years ago?
If my generation are saying that the youth of today need more training and experience than
we did when we graduated is it because the youth of today are:
A. Less intelligent – it was a lot harder to get to university in my day you know.
B. Less motivated - they are too busy drinking and doing other things in the
bar. It clearly is not this.
C. The universities just fill their heads with theoretical rubbish these days and
there is no practical training.
6
Or are we admitting that we were as a generation poorly equipped to deal with the situations
that we were in many respects thrown into at the deep end, and expected to cope with
learning to direct and supervise sites as we went along, led by people who were not much
better than ourselves often without basic skills. As if by magic we were expected to know
how to write reports.
Or are we saying that the job is just so much harder these days?
I would suggest that in contrast to many jobs such as the police, nursing or teaching where a
lower non professional tier has been introduced to do the more menial work, we have done
the reverse in archaeology. We have increased the skill level at the lower end and added
more tiers, and what was an apprenticeship job has now become a long term job. When I
graduated the notion of spending the next 45 years as a digger was simply not on the
agenda.
The issues of today for diggers are:

• The need for a representative body and or Chartered status
• Poor pay
• Training
• Lack of career structure
• Permanency of employment
• Itinerancy
• Standards
• Health and safety.
The issues are similar to those prevailing 30 years ago. Sadly I suspect that nothing will
change overall for another twenty years. The measure of success in archaeology is that
interesting excavation report, so why give away your success and with it your progression up
the hierarchy if you have that power. I hope I am wrong.
Would we be better being realistic about the nature of development based field archaeology?
For example being itinerant and temporary contracts. To a degree archaeology is always
going to be:
Temporary employment
Itinerant
The construction trade is at all levels itinerant except senior management. Working away is
the norm. Surely therefore there has to be some realism and acceptance that this is the
nature of field archaeology for a significant proportion of the work force. Short of the
franchise system what will ever change this?
Working away suits some people; I know of many people who work in the south east or
where ever and go home to their families at the weekend. There is a joke in my village that
everybody has done a contract in Ipswich including accountants, computer programmers,
traders, and archaeologists. Itinerant working is part and parcel of the modern world.
If this “norm” is recognised as such there would be at least:

A degree of honesty about the nature of the work for people entering archaeology
An adjustment of pay and conditions to suit the situation
A recognition that training, pensions and similar, are things that the individual will
have to provide for themselves in many cases.
There is a trend towards this in any event.
7
The need for a representative body.
This is not my view it is the view of APPAG. At present we have the following bodies:
• Society of Antiquaries
• Rescue
• CBA
• IFA
• IBC
• Prospect
• Association of independent archaeologists
Each with a slightly different function. Each with a subscription. To achieve what? To
represent who? If I joined all the things I could join then I would be paying out over £1000 in
subs a year, for what? The membership numbers of the IFA speak for themselves. Only a
third of archaeologists have joined. In terms of what was intended all those years ago – the
IFA has failed or metamorphosed into something very different.
What we need is a single simple organisation that everybody who earns a living researching
or protecting and similar the past can join, with the objectives of:
• Communication & Information
• Industry wide research about the nature of the industry
• Facilitating training
• Strategic planning
Where once everybody completes their training they become a full member. No grades apart
from Student. You know like lawyers, doctors, teachers, and nurses - what the real
professions have. A nice simple procedure.
What it should not be is a lobby body about the protection of the past. It should be about
helping its members. When the IFA was being set up the impression I got was that the IFA
was there to make a clear distinction between the amateurs, the academics and the field or
professional archaeologists.
Lack of career structure and Training.

I have never understood why people go on about this. There has and always will be a career
structure of progression. It is not an automatic structure achieved by time serving but one
based on merit, hard work and achievements. This is surely good if what we want is a
meritocracy.
Standards, what Standards?

I think we have to accept that we live in an imperfect world and it is not possible to do
perfect archaeology. There is much talk about quality, standards and quality control but very
little objective analysis. In contrast there is much anecdotal evidence.
It is a basic rule that the more work you do the more, in absolute numbers, will the work be
sub-standard. If we say that since PPG 16 was introduced say 50 000 pieces of work have
been undertaken, and that the work is above standard in 99% of cases then there will be 500
cock ups. At 90% there will be 5000. 100 per county.
So for each unit we can estimate the number of cocks ups. We can then sample each unit’s
work to see if in fact they are better or worse than average given their size. For example we
could check to see if a plan has a scale on it. It is perfectly possible to check to see if people
and organisations are better or worse at finding things.
I will cite one example of a cock up. The site in question was a re-development of a former
garage site in a conservation area. An archaeological watching brief was required. There was
no requirement to record a seventeenth century barn which was going to be demolished.
8
What a nonsense – the archaeological contractors were trying to record the foundations of a
building which was still standing till a few hours before they arrived. Worse still these
professional contractors, duty bound to follow a code of practice, failed to contact the local
amateur historians who had voluntarily recorded the building.
What I find amazing is that in my experience they are the opposite of what the private sector
was accused of, being local units with no local knowledge:
• Not knowing what county they are in – you know the one they take their name from
• Not knowing if they are inside or outside the city walls of the city they take their
name from
• Not being able to recognise natural
• Digging in the wrong field
• Not knowing that there was previous archaeological work on an area –not bothering
to do a search of the SMR
• Not having the land occupiers’/owner’s permission to dig.
In terms of standards, given the realities of life, I would be surprised if any archaeological
organisation did perfect work on every project, life is simply not like that. But where would it
get us if every IFA registered organisation was struck off? Would it improve the situation?
The issue is - are sites better excavated than they were 30, 20 or 10 years ago. Not more
efficiently, not cheaper, not quicker, better. By better it has to mean more useful information
about the past is being recovered. The answer ought to be a resounding yes because since
1976 we have:
• Computers
• Total stations
• Cheap C14 and other scientific dating
• Trained excavation staff
• Environmental archaeology and geoarchaeology
• Geophysics
• MONEY
If standards have declined although we have this generation of super efficient super trained
super experienced diggers, and all this kit - How has this come about?
I suggest that we have this theoretical notion of what an excavation should be, not the harsh
realities of digging in freezing cold rain. I can remember saying that I couldn’t dig in the rain
with a gale blowing because I could not see through my glasses. I can remember being told
to excavate frozen ground with a hammer and chisel. I can remember being told to weigh
tiles with two buckets and a broom handle because the project could not afford a spring
balance. These were the good old days of non competitive archaeology.
I think we forget what the archaeology of the pre PPG 16 era was like and we do so at our
peril. Are the following acceptable?
1. Machining off the layers relating to the manufacture of stained glass.
2. Excavating 10% of an urban site and only reaching natural on 1%.
3. Taking 20 years over the post excavation work.
4. More to the point not doing anything about say 95% of sites that were destroyed.
5. Stopping doing watching briefs because nothing was found.
All of these things were acceptable in the period 1970-1988.
As an exercise I decided to list a few quality indicators for some projects over the last 30
years. My conclusion is a simple one, from sites of the same type there has in essence been
little or no change. My straw poll is based upon similar situations – set piece planned
9
excavations. Not salvage, not UAD, not evaluations. I am not saying all excavations past and
present are perfect but overall how much has the standard declined or improved?
This analysis showed the opposite of what I thought.
Prehistoric - Rural
1976 1981 1991 1996 2005
Ledston Hazleton Maybury Rectory
Topsoil Machine Hand Machine Machine Machine
Sieving Yes Yes No No Some for
enviro
Enviro Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3d recording of Yes Yes Yes Yes No
finds
C14 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Other science Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Sample of 100% 100% 100% Complex 50%
features
excavated
discrete
Munsell Books Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Computers Yes Yes No Yes Yes
CAD No No No Yes No
Published Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Open days/Public No Yes Yes Yes No
Time to 10 10 5 10 6
publication in
journal years
Urban Medieval
1976 1981 1992 1996 2006
York Stafford Hallow Taunton Hereford
Stratigraphic Yes Yes No Yes Yes
excavation
Excavation of pits Strat Hack - Hack Yes
Radar Yes
Post med Machined Machined Excavated Excavated Excavated
Sieving No No No No No
Enviro Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3d recording of No No No No No
finds
Other science Yes No No No No
Munsell Books Yes No No No
Computers Yes No Yes
CAD No No Yes
Published In part No Yes In progress
Open/public days Continuous Yes No Yes No
We must also remember that 100 times more sites get excavated than they did before
PPG16. We forget that the prediction back in 1973 was all archaeological sites apart from
those in the care of the National Trust would be destroyed.
So that was the past. Here is the future.

Can we have that perfect system where the past is protected, the diggers are well paid,
settled in comfortable homes with a normal life style of their choosing: enjoying their work as
10
they undertake research writing learned papers: never getting cold and wet: undertaking the
perfect excavation retrieving 100% of the data in the ground?
What I would like to happen is that archaeology is re-nationalised following the introduction
of a regional franchise system. APPAG have suggested this so it must be the most likely
scenario. Love it. Five times my turnover and a nice research job at the same salary as I’m
on. Early retirement at 55 if not earlier and an index linked local government style pension. I
could afford to be a gentleman archaeologist paying for digs.
It may lead to stable jobs for everybody and an end to working away. It has one fundamental
drawback. A return to the very worst of the unit system. A lack of choice of who you can
work for if you want to live in a given area. The title of my paper - A return to the era of “you
will never work in my patch again”.
I think there will be an increase in the number of small private sector companies, you know
those one man and his dog organisations working from their garage much berated by all. I
see these organisations as being a good thing. They have been in existence 50 years. They
are the traditional form of employment for the ordinary non aristocratic archaeologist. They
tend to grow fairly quickly. They are better employers, do better archaeology and can pay
more to their work force. I would cite the following as good examples of these organisations.
I will a name a few: naming and praising something we should do more of.
• Foundations archaeology
• JM Heritage Services
• Marches Archaeology
• PCA Lincoln.
When PPG 16 was introduced many of us thought this would be the way things would go
fairly quickly with small practices of 4-5 people operating in a small area with temporary staff
being hired in for bigger excavations. For the digger an increase in pay but still no guarantee
of employment and still the itinerant life. In England there would be about 200 of these
organisations employing about 1000 people or 20% of field archaeologists.
There will continue to be an upper tier of super national and international companies such as
Oxford and Wessex as we know them – but others are emerging.
We have seen the demise of the council units - good. I think this is an obvious trend that will
continue. This is not a good trend for diggers - more itinerancy.
I think we will see a polarisation of the size of units.
At the opposite extreme there could be a massive reduction in the amount of work
undertaken in advance of development.
At the moment not enough is found, two thirds of watching briefs and evaluations find
nothing.
Sooner or later it is going to be realised what poor value for money archaeology is and there
will be a massive reduction in the amount of smaller projects that are undertaken. This would
lead to say a 1000 job losses.
Here are things that I think won’t happen:
A licensing system.
There are a number of reasons why I think this will never be introduced:
1. The private sector will not allow it
11
2. There is a trend to end closed shops and restrictive practices. The trend is
for all activities to be so deregulated except;
a. The medical profession
b. The teaching profession
c. The real IFA
3. So what is different about archaeology?
4. Who would be licensed? The digger driver? The project manager? The
consultant?
I pose the question why do we actually need a system of licensing anyway? If the reason is
to cut out the people who are not “archaeologists” who cannot do the most basic of
archaeological projects then surely that is what Trading Standards is there to do.
To conclude, what I suggest that my generation and the generation before has done is
depress and devalue the role of the graduate, who is now an intellectual navvy. In the
eighties we joked about this and that this was what archaeology was evolving into. The
turning point was when it became more restrictive as to who did post excavation work. This
got steadily worse rather than better.
I suggest the best bet is to return to the RAG model of employment. Let’s get everybody
writing reports and build up backlogs of excavation reports to guarantee continuity of work.
Its tried, its tested and it should pay well. Let’s put the ology back into archaeology. We are
not archies we are archaeologists. Let’s return to studying the past.
Let’s run archaeology as a series of collectives. There is at least one example. Working in
small areas a short drive away from where we live.
Let us compare the salary of a contractors’ banksman compared to an archaeologist doing a

watching brief. The banksman gets paid about UKP 300 per week and a supervisor gets the
same or a little bit more. The same job, the same client, the staggering thing is the difference
in charge out rates and the proportion of the charge out rate each is paid.
If diggers received the same proportion of their pay as the banksman they would be on
£32,175 per year that is BAJR Grade 7 Top of the ladder, professor, unit director and now
digger salary. 619 greenies a week.
Its what the IFA call “executive manager” pay so let’s all become executive managers.
Thus the real question is where does the money go?
Dr Peter Wardle
The Historic Environment Consultancy
22/12/2006
12
2 - Archaeology For All Does it Stop At The Classroom.

Rose Drew (PhD Student – York University)
On the 4th of July a hasty email was sent to David Connolly. I had been travelling a bit and
so I hadn’t had net access all the time; I had a struggle to find the registration form or to
submit an abstract on-line; in the end the deadline passed. I sent off what now seems to be
the abstract.
As a result of travelling and working non-stop for a week, then starting it all again on
arriving back in the UK I burned out on Thursday and had to spend Friday basically doing
nothing. As a small business owner who sorts bone, that can be arranged. But as a field
digger in my heart, I know that fieldwork doesn’t work that way.
In my undergraduate archaeological training, I was encouraged to participate, but I was

allowed to arrive on the field site whenever I got there, to work at my own pace, with bucket
help, and could work for as long as I was able, leaving when needed. That was in 1996. Over
the following years, any work I did for the professor had the same rules. I, in turn, did the
best I could and made it a personal goal to work as long and as hard as anyone else.
But this professor didn’t often call on me to do paid work on his private CRM contracts…..
Here are a few pages from the Inclusive, Accessible

Archaeology project in Reading.
I went through the site in mid August and then contacted one of
the project leaders, Tim Phillips and he was very interested. His
program monitors inclusion of disabled students in archaeology
degree programs but will eventually focus on the cold hard facts
of actual employment. I briefly outlined my archaeological work
experience in America.
Figure 1 : Disability and Archaeological Fieldwork Report

- Tim Phillips and Roberta Gilchrist
To quote from the Inclusive Accessible Archaeology site:
From Anita's Story [she has MS]
"I think with sensitivity, and being aware that we all have disadvantages of one sort or
another, that archaeology could be a lot more inclusive than it is. Before I started, I had the
view of a young, fit and healthy image. Not so much an image problem, more of an image
factor. I am sure that if the idea that we cannot all do everything could be got across, it
would be a lot better. That is being a human being, not a disabled person. If that idea could
be developed, I do not see why archaeology cannot be inclusive. There is a chap I met at
College with chronic arthritis; he can hardly bend down on his hands and knees. But he can
do the most astonishing detailed and beautiful drawings. If people have the skills to do these
things, nobody feels uncomfortable if they are able to exploit these skills. "
13
from
‘Summary of the Results of the
Employer’s Questionnaire’
“….Major concerns of employers are

-- the ability of employees to do the job
-- risk factors and Health and Safety
-- honesty when being recruited.”
“There is some confusion
over exactly what constitutes
‘disability’….”
“Disabled employees are

mostly employed in field investigation
activities whatever their impairment,
including restricted mobility.”
Just look at the range of requirements for the “simplest” field tasks
Hand/Eye coordination – Power grip (to hold spade) Range of movement in upper
limbs (lift spade to create momentum, lower spade with controlled movement) Supination
(movement of elbow and wrist to lift) Pronation (movement of elbow and wrist to place
object in wheelbarrow or ground) Flexion – (Fingers, wrists, arms, back, legs (including Hip,
Knee, Ankle and toes) Extension (Fingers, wrists, arms, back, legs (including Hip, Knee,
Ankle and toes) Abduction (Fingers, wrists, arms) Upper limb strength, Lower Limb
strength, Retraction and Protraction of upper limbs (move spade away and towards
body) Rotation of wrist, arm legs and back (including neck) Weight bearing on wrist,
fingers, arms, legs and back, Passive movement of wrist, fingers, arms, legs and back,
Spatial awareness and stamina for repeat activity. And that was just to cut the turf!!
This does not include such barriers as the barrow run, try getting over one of them with
some disabilities.!
14
But what about the common practice of trowelling? Now we are only getting going.
Sensation – to feel objects under knees or hands

Flexion – to be able to bend wrist, arms, back(and neck) and legs
Extension – straighten fingers, arms. Back and legs
Rotation of neck (to view excavation area)
Upper limb strength to support body while kneeling
Retraction and Protraction of arms to allow movement while
kneeling
Weight bearing on fingers, wrist, arms, knees and back.
Hand Eye coordination

Visual acuity (ability to distinguish colour & texture and see artefacts.)
Power grip (to hold trowel)
Pincher grip (to use point of trowel or open finds bag)
Fine finger dexterity (to lift and record artefacts as well as recording)
Resistance.
Just to be able to trowel a small area needs a vast range of abilities and senses….. something
we take for granted.
What about, sieving, recording finds, planning or finds marking and processing… the
requirements can go on and on and on …… but are all reasonable parts of fieldwork!
15
In America, archaeological jobs are advertised via sites like Shovelbums the brainchild of R
Joe in Columbus Ohio. But here are a number of examples of adverts found on the website.
“The work is primarily pedestrian survey, but may also include site testing,
excavation, and construction monitoring, Frequent out of town travel can be
expected. The fieldwork is physically demanding and candidates must be able
to walk 6-10+ miles a day carrying up to 20lbs of equipment over steep
slopes and through heavy brush….
“
“The work is physically demanding and workdays are frequently tiring and
difficult….rugged terrain and inclement weather… Applicants must be in good
physical condition and have previous backcountry hiking or camping
experience…
“
“Commitment to entire project desirable. Please DO NOT RESPOND without
mandatory qualifications…
Ability to stand, walk, stoop, dig, and work all day.
Ability to walk over rugged, remote terrain up to 10 miles or more [with]
gear, food, water…
“
“Mississippi
Must be physically able and willing to do shovel testing and pedestrian
survey in summer heat on a military base.
“
“Wyoming
….must be physically capable of walking 10+ miles a day carrying
personal equipment…..inclement weather…..
“
“South Dakota
Candidates must be physically capable to walk 10 or more miles per day
carrying personal field and safety equipment….inclement weather….
“
and on and on for dozens of adverts.
16
Take this advert for example:
“Archaeologist/Museum Technician $14 per hour. Savannah Georgia
Serves as Technician for Curatorial Dept of Savannah History Museum and

Coastal Heritage Society. Conducts Phase I, II, and III level field work....All
phases of lab work…Writes technical reports…Develops exhibits with
guidance…Catalogs permanent collection….database entry.
Qualifications. Ability to lift 50 lbs. Ability to climb stairs and ladders.
“
this prompted the following comment from Terry O’Conner;
“I don’t know what the legal position is in the US, but in this country such a precise demand
for lifting ability, use of ladders etc would have to be backed up by explicit reasons why the
job could NOT be done by someone who could not lift 50 lbs, do 200 press-ups, etc. …..The
post also asks for 3-5 years field experience which could be really difficult to get for someone
with family……”
Some examples of disabled archaeologists and their experiences are as follows;
From Disabled Students in University of Reading, UK:

[Dyslexia, arthritis, upper limb disability: serious motorcycle accident]
“I could not maintain the pace of everyone; I had to learn to pace myself….I have been able
to specialise and find a niche [in flotation sieving]. I found something I am physically capable
of doing, and it holds a total fascination as well.” Simon, 31-45.
Restricted mobility: rotated femur

Five years ago, age 19 ripped her hamstring away from the back of the knee after kneeling
for extended periods during two weeks of field training….
On her second training dig, Sarah (21-30):
“I was bucket, barrows and finds girl…it was just about all I could do on site. I am now
working as a computer archaeologist, desk-based and quite happy doing it.”
Diabetic, and RSI (recent onset)

“[Diabetes]…has not affected my working life. RSI in my wrists has built up through
excavation work…My joints make it too painful to dig or type, affecting my work as an
archaeologist. I have had this a couple of years. I was eventually made redundant. Trouble is
everyone is so worried about losing their job that you keep pushing…
I want to stay in archaeology. I have tried other things, but I missed it. I am looking at
various teaching options or publishing …At the moment I cannot dig…It would not be fair to
others wanting digging jobs if I went for that sort of work. I have no regrets…I was warned
what it was like when I was doing excavations at 16…no money, aches and pains…Only
regret is I did not know when to stop…I live with my boyfriend and he can cover rent.”
Sandra, 21-30.
17
MA in archaeology; car accident mid-career. Works for Gov’t agency

Car accident and three major falls.
“The way I have been treated is very paternal. In professional terms, perceptions I cannot
manage things have ruled me out of things which is not unreasonable. There are a range of
archaeological activities people with physical disabilities can do; my employers look out for
interesting jobs for me to do. I have never considered myself to be an excavator…I have
always taken data and analyzed it…The single word to describe being disabled mid-life is
isolation.” Alan, 45-60.
So what are Reasonable Limitations?

Lets take the Shovelbum American adverts again
“Must be in good health, able to work year-round, live nearby, have transportation and work
on an any-time basis.”
“Basic archaeological survey and documentation skills necessary. Must have the ability to hike
in rugged, remote terrain and work in summer heat.”
“Applicants must be physically fit and willing to work in challenging conditions.”
“Experience excavating at least 30 shovel test pits per day in subtropical environments is
required.”
“The position requires travel, field work and direction of field crews.”
“Work will be outside and in all weather conditions and sometimes difficult terrain.”
“Ongoing excavations in Desert Hot Springs, where the temperature is climbing.”
“Applicants should be physically fit as backpacking trips lasting multiple days may be
required.”
“…the ability to use field tools (shovels, trowels, etc) and conduct fieldwork in a wide range
of physically demanding conditions…”
“Ability to lift 50 lbs or more and must have valid driver’s license…”
and the favorite!
“The duties of some of these positions may regularly require standing, walking or
climbing into and out of trenches and excavation units, using hands to manipulate items
and to lift or carry them, talking, and hearing. They occasionally require climbing or
balancing; stooping, kneeling, crouching. Reasonable accommodations may be made to
enable individuals to perform basic functions.” … now that’s reasonable isn’t it!
And
“ACS does not discriminate in employment opportunities or practices on the basis of race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or any other characteristic protected by
law.” Though it does make it kind of tough!
Between November 8 2005 and August 26 2006,

178 ShovelBum adverts were posted to my email:
128 had no stated physical requirements or limitations 50 jobs did.
18
One archaeological company in the USA stated;
“I tried not to let your disabilities constrain the work goals and objectives but at that
same time be sensitive to your limitations. I thought you often kept your end up but
obviously there were many episodes of lost time that made you less than
dependable. The bottom line is would I build a project work force based on a crew of
disabled employees? Only if it were a project without time boundaries or specifically
designed to promote access for the handicapped.”
Comments from other archaeologists (in the UK)
Dee: “Universities act like a degree will get you a job— Doing a year of volunteer work in
your field is worth more than a degree.”
A: “Don’t tell them you’re disabled”
B: “I knew a guy who didn’t want to hire women because they can’t shift as much dirt as
men.”
C: “It’s a question of liability: an employer is responsible if a disabled employee gets hurt.”
Dee: “If you walk onto the site on crutches, but can sit and trowel, fill a bucket and do the
job—who cares? But if you want to roll up in a chair…..”
A: “It’s back to what was said before, not everyone can do every job.”
These are the perceptions, these are the constraints, these are the issues and barriers.
My disability issues are a spinal fusion that reduces my ability to carry much weight or shake
a screen. Did so last June-July and was rewarded by a leg so numb for 3 months I could have
stuck a fork into it.
Exhaustion and crushing fatigue/pain are larger problems and bounced me off site for a day
and a half this past week. Rest gets me back on site. I live on various MS meds.
Interestingly, about 2.30 this morning I idly wondered what the earliest Shovelbums adverts
were like. I opened my CRM File back to the start, May 2003, and read them. After 39
straight email adverts, NOT ONE had any restrictions listed. Many were from companies I
have quoted here and certainly were from the 50+ companies that made my Naughty List.
Lone Mountain out in America’s West. Gray & Pape. Others.
If out of almost 180 adverts, about 50 had strict limitations, which is 28%, how is it that 39
continuous ads, from all over the US and covering the early, let’s-get-‘em-in-and-start-work
dig season, listed not one?
Perhaps, after 3 to 3.5 years, they have learned that hidden disabilities surface; that the less-
physically able just prove too much to deal with, with tight budgets, crafty developers, and
weather slow-downs. Could this happen in the UK and is it already happening, silently?
All of these adverts are available upon request, as is this CD.
Rose Drew PhD Student

Dept of Archaeology, University of York
YO1 7EP mrd501@york.ac.uk
19
3 - Ever-widening circles; communities for archaeology

Don Henson (Head of Education and Outreach Council for British Archaeology)
Archaeology grew from origins as a leisured pastime for the wealthier

classes.
It moved from 17th – 18th century gentlemen antiquarians to 19th century

part-time archaeologists, e.g. Sir John Evans, head of a paper manufacturing
firm, Lord Avebury, a banker and a Liberal politician, to 20th century
archaeologists for hire to wealthy patrons.
The earliest professionals were people like Pitt-Rivers 1882 Inspector of Ancient Monuments,
museum curators like Sir Arthur Evans at the Ashmolean from 1884, or scholars, e.g. the
1851 Disney Professor at Cambridge University.
1892 saw Flinders Petrie appointed Professor of Egyptology at UCL. In 1906, there were 5
professors in archaeology at Liverpool, and in 1929 Dorothy Garrod became the first woman
professor (at Cambridge). We also saw media presenters like Sir Mortimer Wheeler, TV
Personality of the Year in 1954.
Archaeology as a leisure activity has persisted alongside the growth of the profession. There
was the early growth of national and regional societies in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries. The county societies followed in the mid-19th century.
More localised societies developed after 1945, and metal detecting clubs in the 1970s and
1980s. Now we have local heritage groups growing up with an even more local focus, often
funded through the now defunct Local Heritage Initiative. The trend has been towards more
local and less socially exclusive groups.
The work of the voluntary sector has > Archaeology & local history courses 1934 (W G
for a long time been underpinned by Hoskins)
adult education classes, beginning > Summer field schools 1949 (M Beresford)
with W G Hoskins in 1934 and the
summer field schools of Maurice Courses in 1961 195
Beresford from 1949. Courses in 1971 549
Courses in 1980 687
Courses in 1999 1327
Courses in 2004 1124
> 55,000 students in archaeology & history 1969-70
We now also have developments like the Portable Antiquities Scheme, which began in 1997.
It has 36 Finds Liaison Officers, and listed 2,300 finders of antiquities in 2004/05. It gave
talks to 14,000 people, and held finds days attracting an audience of 17,000 people.
Importantly, 47% of finders belong to social groups C2, D and E, where only 29% of these
groups would visit museums.
The key to wider public engagement has been funding. The Heritage Lottery Fund and Local
Heritage Initiative have been two most important sources of money. A simple search on the
HLF database under the word archaeology reveals 97 projects supported since 1994. A
similar exercise on the LHI database yields 233 projects supported from 2000 to 2006.
20
Great Ayton Community Archaeology Project
One example of an LHI supported project is Great

Ayton Community Archaeology Project.
The group aim to achieve a high degree of
competence in surveying and project management and
are thus investing in a large amount of training. This
will result in them being relatively self-reliant and able
to undertake more detailed projects in the future. The
grant will also fund IT equipment/software and
surveying equipment. The group is aiming to increase
the local awareness of local heritage through this
project. They also plan to set up a history society to
ensure a long term commitment to local historical research.
Hadstock Group
The villagers would like to undertake a trial excavation on a patch of land adjacent to the
churchyard which contains earthworks. These may represent the site of the early monastery
or other elements of the Saxon or medieval village of Hadstock. The group will commission a
geophysical survey of the site, then working closely
with the County Archaeologist and his staff, will
undertake trial excavation. Professional supervision
and training will be available, but the workforce will be
volunteers from the village.
Community archaeology was pioneered in Britain in

Leicestershire in the mid 1970s. The current
Leicestershire and Rutland Archaeological Network
aims to establish archaeological wardens in all
parishes along the lines of the successful heritage
wardens scheme. These wardens may choose to actively seek out archaeological sites and
finds, while others may prefer simply to be a recorder, reporting on information brought to
them.
The following is taken from the information on the LRAN website,

http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/community/museums/community_archaeology/archaeological_
network.htm .
Wardens could:
• Encourage people to look in their gardens for finds; garden ornaments can prove to
be objects of some antiquity, unrecognised as such, and many finds have been made
whilst digging the garden or allotment.
• Establish a field survey, with the co-operation of the farmers. Walking fields in a
regular grid is an excellent way of finding objects on the surface, particularly pottery,
tile and flint, and locating sites. Newly-ploughed fields are especially important, as
many objects deteriorate over the course of a few years' exposure to the elements
and to arable cultivation.
• Metal detecting on ploughed fields is a valuable complementary technique to field
walking. LCCHS advises against detecting on permanent pasture where no imminent
threat of destruction is present, as archaeological features may lie close to the
surface and could be damaged by digging to recover detected objects.
• Examine “holes” in the ground such as drainage ditches, service trenches, and
building foundation trenches, with due permission. Many fieldworkers have
undertaken such “watching briefs” on behalf of LCCHS and the Archaeological Adviser
to the local Diocese of the Church of England.
21
• Record local buildings and traditional building techniques, and "ridge and furrow"
earthworks.
• Use of the SMR, and advancing local knowledge, will help Parish Councils in their role
of local consultants. These Councils are empowered to draw the attention of planning
authorities to the need for consultation with their specialist archaeologist advisers in
Leicestershire County Council on particular sites when commenting upon planning
applications.
Jorvik, ARC or DIG
Other pioneering work has taken different

forms, e.g. York Archaeological Trust
developed the Jorvik visitor centre in 1984,
complementing this with the ARC
(Archaeological Resource Centre) in 1990,
where people could handle finds. ARC has
now been reformed as DIG, where young
people and others can gain an experience of
archaeological methods and techniques.
The most recent development has been the growth of

community archaeology projects run or supported by
professional archaeologists but involving local people. For
example, the MOLAS Community Archaeologist has run a
community project at Shoreditch Park in London, excavating
terrace houses that were bombed during the war, and working
with local groups like young offenders.
There are also networks of community groups supported by

community archaeologists, e.g. York has 12 groups supported by a
post in the York Archaeological Trust, and a freelance worker Kevin
Cale supports 14 groups in North Yorkshire.
Direct face-to-face contact with people is now being complemented by digital access to
archaeological information and resources. There are 38 online Sites and Monuments
Records. There are major databases online like CANMORE from the RCAHMS, CARN from
RCAHMW, and PastScape and Images of England from English Heritage. The RCAHMW have
pioneered a town heritage trails on hand-held PDAs, e.g. at Ruthin in North Wales. Units like
York Archaeological Trust and Wessex Archaeology now have good websites.
22
The interest in archaeology has never been higher. Surveys over the last five years
combined with other data can build up a picture of the community of interest for
archaeology. Those actively involved include c.6,000 employed archaeologists, perhaps
20,000 full and part time students aged 16+, and may be 25,000 volunteers in societies and
clubs. Those who may be interested but not actively involved include 2 million members of
English Heritage, the National Trust and other bodies, and the 10 million people who visit
heritage sites every year. There is an outer layer of those with a casual interest but little of
no real engagement, perhaps 33 million people. Beyond these, there are the, at most (and
probably a lot less), 14 million who are not interested in heritage at all.
100%
80% Profession
Students
Volunteers
60%
Members
Visitors
40% Casual
None
20%
0%
Opportunities exist within the profession to work in the field of public archaeology and with
community groups. The national agencies have outreach and education sections, as does the
National Trust. Among the field units, some but not all employ outreach or education staff.
A few local authorities and national parks also have such staff. Museums have a long history
of education work, and most now have education or outreach staff. There is a also a growing
number of freelance community archaeologists.
However, there are still barriers: the lack of secure funding, and attitudes within the
profession towards non-professionals. These attitudes are fading as a younger generation
rises in the profession, but there are still too many archaeological organisations who fail to
take seriously their public responsibilities. Too many archaeologists are overly protective of
the heritage, acting as historic environment site guardians seeking to keep the public away
from what is rightfully theirs.
But, things are changing, and public archaeology is becoming much more part of the
mainstream profession. Organisations that are based in a local authority or happen to be a
charity, realise that they have a public duty enshrined in their very being. Many realise that if
archaeology is to be in receipt of public funds through taxation, then we have a responsibility
towards that public. Then there is the fact that heritage is highly visible and creates a
demand for access and involvement that cannot be ignored. Many archaeologists also have a
deep-seated ideological commitment to a democratic archaeology.
23
All these trends are reflected in the training of a new generation of qualified and committed
archaeologists in the universities. There are various postgraduate courses that help to equip
archaeologists with the necessary skills to reach out to the public; e.g. MAs at Newcastle
(Heritage Education & Interpretation), York (Archaeological Heritage Management),
Cambridge (Archaeological Heritage & Museums), UCL (Public Archaeology), Bristol
(Archaeology for Screen Media).
All in all, the prognosis for community archaeology is rosy. We are on the brink of a new
engagement between archaeologists and the public they serve. We have every reason to be
optimistic that the profession will continue to grow and that there will be a more actively
engaged volunteer sector being supported by that profession.
24
4 - Volunteers In Archaeology
Jon Welsh (Freelance Archaeologist)
Introduction. In his 2003 lecture to the Institute of Archaeology Orton posited a view of
archaeology as a potential means of contributing to someone’s quality of life by providing the
opportunity to participate in the study of their own past. He suggested that this “personal
past” could be interpreted in different ways- through family history, local history and the
archaeology of the person’s local area. Orton suggests that one important role of anyone
bearing the label ‘archaeologist’ should be enabling people to do just this (Orton 2003: 55).
Seeing a demand from people who want to do archaeology and

suggesting this demand is capable and worthy of growing Orton
(2003: 59) suggested we meet the demand with closer relations
between what he describes as labelled and unlabelled
archaeologists. Orton (2003: 59) uses these terms to differentiate
without resorting to using old dichotomies of
professional/amateur. The unlabelled archaeologist includes
volunteers and people who do not do archaeology for a living and
those with archaeological qualifications who work in other areas.
Orton (2003: 59) believes archaeology will not flourish without
these people as they are sources of political support, specialist
skills, multi-disciplinarianism and hard work, commenting they are
not mere ‘trowel fodder.’
Part of Orton’s (2003: 62) conclusion was that volunteers make up a large part of the
‘audience’ for what we as archaeologists wish to communicate about the past and that
without this contribution to their lives archaeology is meaningless. Despite the prominent roll
amateurs have played in British archaeology from the Age of the Antiquaries onwards, many
archaeology enthusiasts today feel a definite sense of exclusion. The gap between
professional and amateur archaeology is an area that presents a significant problem to
archaeology today (APPAG 2003: 33, section 15). The change that has precipitated this
situation is the professionalization of field archaeology, Chadwick (2000) sees contract
archaeology and competitive tendering as being a cause of the decline in research digging
citing Biddle (1994), Carver (1989; 1994), Mellor (1997) and Symonds (1985) against the
contrary claims of Strickland (1995). We must now ask how as part of the problem we can
affect a satisfactory solution.
Volunteering 1970. Coles (1972: 5) repudiated the traditional view of amateurs as

inexperienced and professionals as expert, suggesting that both should be experts in their
own fields of participation.
Alexander (1970: 18) refers to volunteers as ‘helpers’ and regards these individuals as
being those who actually remove sediment with trowel, brush, pick, shovel or hoe. The term
‘helpers’ seems derogatory as it implies one is not really doing anything, just helping
someone else to do it. This can be seen as evidence of an era when diggers did not record
and the term ‘trowel fodder’ had not yet been coined. Coles (1972: 5) outlines a similar site
hierarchy where all those below supervisor or specialist level are assumed to be volunteers,
but referred to as “workers.” However, Coles (1972: 5) regards the worker’s role of being one
of not only following the supervisor’s instructions, but learning necessary technique from the
supervisor and gaining insight of the excavation process.
Ideally these volunteers would have had knowledge of archaeology but novices could also
be used. While long-term excavations and bodies maintaining a permanent workforce often
had time to provide training Alexander (1970: 18) noted they could not provide the
theoretical knowledge which he noted as becoming increasingly important (contra Flannery
25
1982). Nevertheless, Alexander (1970: 40) recruited site assistants from the ranks of amateur
archaeologists as well as professionals, although these assistants were amateurs who brought
a specialism from their full-time professions.
“In England in particular, but in growing numbers elsewhere, many adults spend their
holidays working voluntarily on excavations and their winter evenings studying archaeology.
It is through them more than anything else that the great improvements in excavating
standards can be attained. It is now usual to make some contribution towards their expenses,
and this is money well spent (Alexander 1970: 50-1).”
Alexander (1970: 40) saw amateur archaeology as an activity on the increase. At the time
of writing archaeology was beginning to be taught in schools and higher education and it was
possible through advertising and the CBA to find skilled amateurs who were available during
their holidays to help with excavations. Huggins (1995) testifies to this, lamenting that in the
1970s advertising for volunteers drew respondents nationwide. Coles (1972: 8) meanwhile
recognises the fact that some amateur digs were never completed due to lack of interest or
support.
Volunteering today. Community archaeology and volunteers are becoming increasingly

excluded from archaeological projects (Schadla-Hall 1999; Start 1999 both cited in Chadwick
2000). Prior to PPG16 (1990) Chadwick (2000) describes a “widespread feeling” within
archaeology that research formed the core of archaeological work. Post-PPG16 archaeology
has been driven by meeting development needs rather than being research-led. Chadwick
(2000) describes an anti-intellectual atmosphere developing as a response to the need to
simply record faster and the neglect of analysis and interpretation. The effect of PPG16 and
competitive tendering has forced archaeologists to question whether their role lies in
providing a service to developers or to inform the general public and archaeological
community about the past (Chadwick 2000 citing Andrews and Barrett 1998). Public
awareness and interest in archaeology is at a zenith but the opportunity for public
participation is at a nadir according to many (eg, Chadwick 2000; Duke and Saitta 1998).
However with these claims the claimants offer the fact that amateur archaeology remains a
hobby for the retired middle-classes. This seems paradoxical as those who claim there is no
opportunity for public involvement are pointing to the “retired middle class” public who are
involved in archaeology. Obviously there is opportunity for public involvement but it is the
fact that a (literally) dying breed of older, middle-class people are predominating which is
causing concern (Chadwick 2000; Huggins 1995). Is the amateur, like the antiquarian before
them, a milestone (or merely roadkill) on the road of progress in archaeology.
Amateur archaeology. The coming of the professional has obviously marginalised the
amateur. The 21st century digger combines the specialisms of the 1970 site surveyor,
photographer, trench recorder and outdoor archaeological assistant.
Huggins (1995) provided a negative commentary of amateur archaeology in Britain. The

amateur archaeologist is seen as having the advantage of time, digging at their own pace
over a long period of time and gaining an unparalleled understanding of the site, which is as
familiar as their own garden. Even with these advantages, Huggins (1995) states that little
meaningful amateur archaeology is being carried out. An active (in the sense of excavation
and/or fieldsurvey) amateur archaeology society is dependant on a small core of one or two
members with the skills to produce and synthesize a drawn and written record into an
accurate report and the commitment to see it through to publication (Huggins 1995). Huggins
does not mention the input of specialist reports and others have commented on the lack of
interest and enthusiasm the post-ex and publication stage elicits in community archaeology
(Coles 1972: 8; S. Farrell pers. comm. 2005).
26
Huggins (1995) reported only around 24 societies in the

whole of Britain were engaged in fieldwork and
excavation and some of them were in unviable positions.
As an exception to this rule, Huggins mentions his own
society, Waltham Abbey Historical Society (WAHS), but
concedes that there are few members under 40, no-one
but himself to conduct excavations, poor intake of
volunteers, and little funding. With two hundred
subscribing members as of 1995 and a steady income
since the 1970s WAHS was a “relatively well-off” society,
but hiring geophysics was still way beyond their reach
(Huggins 1995). (Although the Council for Independent
Archaeology has since developed a low-cost resistivity
meter.)
The following quotes from Huggins (1995) show the perceived root of the malaise in
amateur archaeology:
“I genuinely believe young people are largely not interested in archaeology any more.”
“Many local societies are also hopelessly short of money.”
“The debilitating effects of poverty amongst local societies can only be relieved if national
institutions step in.”
Like Huggins (1995), the APPAG report (2003: 16, section 39) states the case for their
being “millions of interested individuals who would like to know more about archaeology and
would like to take part.” The media are attributed for stimulating this level of interest and
amateur societies are cited as having failed to capitalise and attract younger members.
Reasons for this are hard to pin down, it could be that younger people missing from amateur
archaeology are more attracted to the more alternative lifestyle of professional archaeology
and the digging circuit. The reduction in amateur archaeology society sites could be balanced
by the growth of training digs. The combination of “a Duke of Edinburgh Awards' expedition
and a music festival” (quote Carenza Lewis, Current Archaeology) may be what amateur
archaeology lacks and the reason why so many people are competing for low-paid jobs in
field archaeology.
It is hard to associate a celebrity with amateur archaeology. Citing TV archaeology would

not a valid argument as to many “being on the telly” is the peak of professional status and
the recognisable faces of TV archaeology get paid.
Portrait of amateur archaeology. An interview in British Archaeology (Denison 1995)

paints a picture of the distinguished amateur archaeologist, Chris Salisbury (1929-2004),
Archaeologist of the Year 1994 and winner of the Pitt Rivers Award for best amateur project.
A GP until retirement in 1992, Salisbury was self-taught and became a recognised specialist in
waterlogged wood. By his own admission obsessive, Salisbury spent almost every evening
and weekend recording local gravel pits under extraction.
Salisbury considered fictional novels, which he loved, “a waste of time” best avoided;
Argued that “an archaeologist with a social life is probably not a good archaeologist” and
attributed the breakdown of his first marriage to his obsessive interest in archaeology. A
steadfast opponent of the Council for Independent Archaeology, an organisation set up
support amateur archaeologists and local archaeological societies, Salisbury predicted it
would “turn amateurs sloppy.” Salisbury was similarly derisive of other amateur
archaeologists who “whinged” in his words about over-professionalization of archaeology.
“There is plenty of archaeology that needs to be done. They should simply go out and do it.”
“The proper role for amateurs is to be handmaidens to the professionals –as nurses are to
27
doctors.” “Professionals are responsible for maintaining rigorous standards, and I use them as
my role models. I am, of course, better than many professionals, but that’s because they are
bad professionals.” Salisbury claimed no desire to be a professional archaeologist, “too much
administration, not enough pay.”
Chris Salisbury founded the Historical and Archaeological Society of both Nottingham and
Owthorpe. He was appointed research associate in the Archaeology Department of the
University of Nottingham and was instrumental in establishing the Tree-Ring Dating
Laboratory at the said university. His most important discoveries were the three medieval
bridges at Hemington, near Castle Donington (TSON 2004).
However, when Salisbury died after a short illness in 2004 his considerable archive had
hardly begun to be published (TSON 2004). Denison’s (1995) article describes his garden as
“a kind of archaeological builder’s yard” and it must be asked whether in these cases
amateurs are painstaking enough to ink codes on all such home and garden artefacts and
keep an inventory which will be passed on to a suitable repository by their executors.
Council for Independent Archaeology (CIA). The CIA was formed at the third
Congress of Independent Archaeologists in 1989. The CIA has a membership of over 400,
both institutional and private and has at its core beliefs the importance of maintaining
independent archaeology and a mistrust of the “over-centralization of archaeology.” In
particular the CIA are resistant to the Valetta Convention which they consider aligns the
government towards licensing archaeology. The CIA campaign against the convention
amassed 1600 signatories and “led to a splendid display of sophistry on the part of the
government” with the result that “the government is unlikely to move openly in this direction,
though constant vigilance is needed to ensure the government does not backtrack on its
undertakings.” However, the licensing issue arose partly because amateur fieldwork was not
properly reported to local authority archaeologists and to ensure that fieldwork was carried
out by those with the appropriate qualifications and authorisation. The current government
position is that licensing is unnecessary due to existing regulatory mechanisms (APPAG 2003:
16, section 41).
Quote: “Amateurs.” The portrait of an amateur above and the activities of the CIA are
two different sides of the same coin, a token which seems to be taken at face value by many
in professional archaeology. All too often the professional seems to regard the amateur as an
“anorak,” or “obsessive” “know-all,” and regard the CIA with amusement as an “aptly-named”
(anonymous quote) organisation of the “paranoid” and “unusual” (anonymous quotes).
However, the concerns of the CIA are upheld and considered by the APPAG (2003). In its
recommendations for the voluntary sector the APPAG (2003: 16, sections 42-4) call for the
following:
(a)A Code of Conduct be implemented congruent with Article 3 of the Valletta Convention
but with sufficient leeway for developer-funded archaeology to be open to volunteers without
them undermining the position of professionals;
(b)Closer links be made between professional and amateur archaeology. National
archaeological bodies such as the CBA and IFA should be more representative of the interests
of amateur groups and all agencies should explore more avenues for the involvement of
amateurs;
(c)A relaxing of the regulations on Heritage Lottery Fund funding for community
archaeology and training excavations.
28
Interest rates. We are told that public interest in archaeology is at an all-time high, while
opportunity for participation is at an all-time low (APPAG 2003: 16; Chadwick 2000; Duke and
Saitta 1998; above). Paradoxically we are told that amateur archaeology is on the verge of
extinction and that young people are no-longer interested in archaeology (Huggins 1995).
Which is true? Tim Taylor, producer of Time Team is quoted as saying “the extent of
popularity of the subject to the general public can be measured by the millions of people who
watch the programme and by other factors, including the 15% increase in applications to
study archaeology at university (1998: 15).”
Research by Longlands (2005) using Time Team as a benchmark has shown this statement
to have no evident support. University application figures published by UCAS (table 1) appear
to have decreased or maintained steady, with an increase in archaeological science
applications caused by UCAS including forensic science applications in the same category
(Longlands 2005: 34). Similarly, visitor figures for museums and archaeological sites
appeared to remain static or decrease over the period encompassing Time Team’s
appearance to the present (Longlands 2005). Television viewing statistics produced by the
Broadcaster’s Audience Research Board (BARB) have shown that between 1999 and 2005
viewer figures for Time Team have declined and while able to compete with BBC2, do not
approach the popularity of BBC1 and ITV (Longlands 2005: 12-3).
UCAS Applications
1200
1000
800
600 Archaeology
Arch. Sci.
400
200
0
96-7 97-8 98-9 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04
Figure 1. UCAS applications for archaeology and archaeological science. Since 2002/2003
figures for archaeological sciences and forensic sciences have been merged (after Longlands
2005: 5).
Longlands (2005: 37-8) attributes the slew of archaeological television programmes in the
last decade to inter-channel competition for viewers trying to emulate each other and not to
an increased interest in archaeology. Indeed her research seemed to indicate that the
television archaeology created an interest in archaeology that did not extend further than the
living room and Sunday night programming (Longlands 2005: 38).
29
Viewing Figures
3.5
2.5
viewers (m)
2
TT
1.5
0.5
0
24/01/99 23/01/00 28/01/01 no data no data 25/01/04 23/01/05
02 03
date
Figure 2. BARB viewing figures for Time Team 1999-2005 (after Longlands 2005: 13).
Viewing Figures
3.5
2.5
viewers (m)
2 TT
1.5 C5
0.5
0
24/01/99 23/01/00 28/01/01 no data no data 25/01/04 23/01/05
02 03
date
Figure 3. BARB viewing figures for Time Team and competing programming on Channel 5,
1999-2005 (after Longlands 2005: 13).
30
Viewing Figures
3.5
3
viewers (m)
2.5
TT
2 C5
BBC2
1.5
0.5
0
24/01/99 23/01/00 28/01/01 no data no data 25/01/04 23/01/05
02 03
date
Figure 4. BARB viewing figures for Time Team and competing programming on Channel 5
and BBC2, 1999-2005 (after Longlands 2005: 13).
Viewing Figures
10
9
8
7
TT
viewers (m)
6
C5
5
BBC2
4
BBC1
3
2
1
0
24/01/99 23/01/00 28/01/01 no data no data 25/01/04 23/01/05
02 03
date
BBC2 and BBC1, 1999-2005 (after Longlands 2005: 13).
31
Viewing Figures
20
18
16
14 TT
viewers (m)
12 C5
10 BBC2
8 BBC1
6 ITV
4
2
0
24/01/99 23/01/00 28/01/01 no data no data 25/01/04 23/01/05
02 03
date
BBC2, BBC1 and ITV, 1999-2005 (after Longlands 2005: 13).
Using volunteers today.
Where are today’s volunteers drawn from?
Amateur archaeologists. There would seem to be a spectrum of people meeting the

criteria for amateur archaeologists. This spectrum will run from those who have studied
archaeology, whether this study has been self-lead or at university, to those whose contact
with archaeology is restricted to their time on site and perhaps televised documentaries.
Those at the more academic end of the spectrum are not necessarily any more useful than
those at the more practical end.
Supported young people. This refers to people who are supported by their parents and
presumably still living in the family home. They do not claim any state benefit, are not liable
for council tax and if in full-time education until the age of 19 their parents receive Child
Benefit payments and may also receive a means-tested Education Maintenance Allowance.
Student. The student, usually of archaeology, will be trying to make up their degree
fieldwork requirement or increase their work experience. By enrolling on a degree students
cannot claim state benefits (unless disabled or lone parents) including Housing Benefit until
they graduate or have withdrawn from study. They are dependent on their own earnings,
family support and the Student Loans Company.
Unemployed. If someone is not working they will often be claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance
(JSA), commonly referred to as ‘the dole’ or ‘the nash.’ It is often presumed that there are
limitations to people on JSA doing voluntary work. To quote the Volunteering England
website: “There is a lot of confusion over whether volunteering affects an individual’s
benefits. This is not helped by the fact that many benefits advisors are poorly informed about
volunteering and often give the wrong advice.”
32
Long-term sick. As long as a volunteer is only having their expenses reimbursed benefits
such as Income Support (IS), Incapacity Benefit (IB) and Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
However, there is confusion over IB as claimants used to be limited to 16 hours a week, this
rule has been repealed but many people are being misinformed that it is still in place.
Similarly there is confusion about volunteering and ‘permitted work’ (work that is deemed
therapeutic) the ‘permitted work’ rule applies only to paid work. Some people worry that
volunteering will trigger an investigation into their need to claim IB, this is very rarely the
case (Volunteering England).
Retired. Having no work commitments and living on savings and pensions the retired
volunteer would seem ideal.
Benefits and volunteering. Voluntary work is defined as working for a non-profit

organisation or someone who is not a member of your family, where only reasonable
expenses are paid. JSA claimants can do as much voluntary work as they wish as long as
they are demonstrably available for work and actively seeking work. An individual is entitled
to 48 hours notice to attend interview and a week’s notice before starting work.
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and Jobcentre Plus websites are extremely
vague on the issue of voluntary work. The Jobcentre Plus website advises that “voluntary or
part time work may affect your benefit payment or credits,” this would seem misleading given
the information provided by Volunteering England. The JSAL7 leaflet on volunteering while
claiming JSA is not available from either the DWP or Jobcentre website (Volunteering
England).
Volunteering England consider it good practice to inform volunteers that it is compulsory

for the individual volunteer to notify their benefit advisor. However, the organisation cannot
force them to disclose this information and has no duty or obligation to inform the benefits
office of who is volunteering. Negativity, misinformation and lack of ignorance on the part of
benefits advisors are cited as reasons for many people being secretive about their
volunteering activities. For this reason organisations should be careful about showing their
volunteers’ names or photographs in publicity or the media (Volunteering England).
Many benefit claimants are on very low incomes and could not afford to volunteer if their
expenses were not paid. Many volunteers may need weekly or daily reimbursing of expenses
and may not be able to wait for cheques to clear. It should be noted that asylum seekers
have very little access to cash if they are in receipt of vouchers to obtain goods and services
and may have difficulty paying for transport and convenience food (Volunteering England).
JSA, incapacity benefit (IB) and income support (IS) are only paid to people not in paid
employment of any kind. Expenses do not constitute payment and the Social Security
Amendment (Volunteers) Regulations 2001 clarified that in-advance expenses payments do
not count as earnings. If the money given to cover expenses exceeds the actual expense by
even a small amount this will be counted as payment, thus it is good practice to collect
receipts and have volunteers repay any excess (Volunteering England).
The solution. At present no Code of Conduct scheme has been introduced. The London
Archaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC) has made the problematically large
Museum of London (MoL) available for study by local amateurs and groups. This facilitates
the need of the material to be studied with the needs of people to study their past (Orton
2003: 57).
Chadwick (2000) pointed out small developers, charities and individuals may be unable to
afford commercial archaeological rates. The use of volunteers could reduce cost but their use
raises the issue of big business claiming poverty to gain cheaper archaeological work and
bargaining with the new jobs developments will create. Some units which currently use
training-for-work (where the DWP pays half a trainee’s wages) schemes to provide part of
33
their workforce are criticised for cost-cutting, poor archaeology and for failing to take enough
trainees on into full-time employment. However, less ambitious projects, such as fieldwalking,
are ideal for a largely volunteer workforce as when done entirely with professionals they are
extremely expensive.
How difficult would it be for a local authority to provide a small digging or fieldsurvey
project that ran only on weekends with a minimal crew of professional archaeologists? Coles
(1972: 6) mentions the contribution that amateurs can make in the case of small projects
that are not of sufficient importance for large-scale operations or financial aid. If interested
parties in the district could simply book ahead by phone and turn up at a central site at a set-
time on a weekend morning to work under two professionals would the scheme be viable?
Would it not be an ideal situation if the local county council archaeology department were
also the local amateur archaeology society? Indeed in some areas freelance community
archaeologists are beginning to appear and the Museum of London’s Shoreditch Park
community excavation has been successful (Don Henson pers. comm. 2006).
Conclusion. It would seem that given the findings of Longlands (2005) it is reasonable to
suggest that archaeology on television is not producing an army of would-be volunteers with
nowhere to dig. Personal experience suggests that young people are still interested in
archaeology and that those previously volunteering are now chancing their luck in
professional archaeology. Archaeology is becoming increasingly professionalized but young
people remain free to choose between professional and amateur archaeology.
What is needed is to make a distinction between volunteer archaeology and amateur

archaeology as there would seem to be an implicit difference between the terms. The
volunteer is regarded as someone who offers their free time to assist archaeology while the
amateur follows a non-professional career in archaeology. Many volunteer organisations have
little contact with archaeology. Searching the Volunteering England website for ‘archaeology’
returns one hit and this involves paying to dig abroad.
It may seem harsh but the cult of the ‘digger’ and the digging ‘circuit’ and archaeological
community may be partially to blame for the marginalisation of the voluntary sector in
archaeology. As cosy as it is to be a member of the ‘digger’ cult, this cult was prior to
professionalization more like a priesthood. A priesthood that has since closed the temple
doors to the public, ceased to be part of the community and become our own community.
Archaeology is the pursuit of the past, sometimes it is a physical pursuit, sometimes an

intellectual pursuit, often a combination. If we regard this pursuit in the way that chess is a
mental sport (or pursuit) or running is a physical sport (or pursuit), we can view ourselves (as
professional archaeologists) as being akin to professional sportspeople. Professional
sportspeople who not only pursue the goal at the highest level, but coach and assist others in
their own pursuit at amateur and club level and promote that pursuit to whoever is
interested.
34
Academic Undergraduate Courses

Year
Archaeology Archaeological Sciences Total
1996/1997 887 103 990
1997/1998 786 162 948
1998/1999 678 180 858
1999/2000 679 163 842
2000/2001 716 175 891
2001/2002 670 161 831
Arch. Sci. + Forensic Sci.
2002/2003 509 822 1331
2003/2004 479 1151 1630
Table 1. UCAS applications for archaeology and archaeological science. Since 2002/2003
figures for archaeological sciences and forensic sciences have been merged (after Longlands
2005: 5).
Channel 24/01/99 23/01/00 28/01/01 25/01/04 23/01/05

No.1 ITV ITV BBC1 BBC1 ITV
viewers 16.57m 17.58m 9.05m 8.49m 5.49m
No.2 BBC1 BBC1 ITV ITV BBC1
viewers 7.9m 7.33m 6.61m 4.49m 4.6m
No.3 BBC2 BBC2 TT TT TT
viewers 3.31m 3.44m 2.99m 3.01m 2.59m
No.4 TT C5 BBC2 C5 BBC2
viewers 3.13m 2.76m 2.72m 2.42m 2.58m
No.5 C5 TT C5 BBC2 not C5
viewers 1.61m 2.63m 1.98m in top 30 1.2m
Table 2. BARB viewing figures for top 30 programmes on Sunday 1730-1800 (after
Longlands 2005: 13).
Links
Volunteering England provide The Good Practice Bank resource for information on co-
ordinating volunteers at:
www.volunteering.org.uk/goodpractice
Bibliography
Alexander, J. (1970) The Directing of Archaeological Excavations, London: John Baker

Publications Ltd.
All-Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group (2003) The Current State of Archaeology in the
United Kingdom, London: APPAG.
Andrews, G. and Barrett, J.C. (1998) ‘Why cost-effective archaeology needs a new research
agenda,’ Institute of Field Archaeologists Yearbook and Directory of Members 1998: 40.
Biddle, M. (1994) What Future for British Archaeology? Paper presented at the Eighth IFA
Archaeology in Britain Conference 1994. Oxford: Oxbow Lecture 1.
Carver, M.O.H. (1989) ‘Digging for ideas,’ Antiquity 63: 666-674.
35
Carver, M.O.H. (1994) ‘Putting research back into the driving seat,’ British Archaeological
News 13: 9.
Chadwick, A. (2000) ‘Taking English Archaeology into the Next Millennium- A Personal Review
of the State of the Art,’ Assemblage 5.
Available HTTP: (http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/5/chad.html) (16 June 2006).
Coles, J. (1972) Field Archaeology in Britain, London: Methuen.
Denison, S. interviewing Salisbury, C. (1995) ‘Treading the hard road to success,’ British
Archaeology March 1995.
Flannery, K.V. (1982) ‘The Golden Marshalltown: A Parable for the Archaeology of the 1980s,’
American Anthropologist, New Series 84(2): 265-78.
Huggins, P. (1995) ‘Struggling amateurs, in need of support,’ British Archaeology April 1995.
Longlands, Z. (2005) Switching On Archaeology, University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne:

unpublished BA dissertation.
Mellor, J. (1997) ‘In the frame -a depressing picture of archaeology in the late 1990s,’ Rescue
News 71: 6-7.
Orton, C. (2003) The Fourth Umpire: Risk in Archaeology, Inaugural lecture12 March 2003,
University College London: Institute of Archaeology.
Available HTTP: (http://ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/special/orton-inaugural-2003/index.htm) (16
June 2006).
Schadla-Hall, T. (1999) What is happening to British archaeology? paper presented to Twelfth

IFA Archaeology in Britain Conference, Glasgow, 7-9th April 1999.
Start, D. (1999) ‘Community archaeology. Bringing it back to local communities,’ in Chitty, G.

and Baker, D. (eds) Managing Historic Sites and Buildings. Reconciling Presentation and
Preservation, London: Routledge: 49-59.
Strickland, T. (1995) ‘PPG 16 research,’ British Archaeology: September 1995.
Symonds, J. (1995) ‘A long look to archaeology's future,’ British Archaeology: June 1995.
Taylor, T. (1998) Behind the Scenes at Time Team, London: Channel 4 Books.
TheSite.org
Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire (2004) News for Spring 2004,

Available HTTP:
(http://www.thorotonsociety.org.uk/Thoroton_Society/news/thornews_spring2005.htm)
(06 June 2006)
Volunteering England (www.volunteering.org.uk)
36
Appendix 1: Survey data.
A random sample of 20 British professional archaeologists were asked 8 questions about

volunteering, here are some of the findings. The sample was not great enough to be
statistically significant but it is hoped to have gathered enough information to identify trends
and inform discussion.
Individual views on volunteers in archaeology

12/20 respondents had a positive view of volunteers.
6/20 respondents had a mixed view of volunteers.
1/20 respondents had no opinion of volunteers.
1/20 respondents did not understand the question.
No respondents had a negative view of volunteers.
Keyword Frequency
Must be in right situation 5
Enthusiastic 5
Valuable labour 5
Inclusive 3
To be encouraged 2
Eccentric 2
Interested 2
Doubt ability 2
Doubt commitment 2
Good 1
Valid contribution 1
Undervalued 1
Rewarding 1
Doubt understanding 1
Represent next generation 1
Vital 1
Annoying 1
15/20 respondents' first experience of archaeology was volunteering.

Of the 5/20 whose first experience was not volunteering 3/5 had volunteered since.
Volunteering Motivation
Holiday
New area
Hobby/interest
Unemployed
Uni
Experience
Never
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
37
Perception of general view of volunteers in archaeology

8 in 20 thought the profession has a negative view of volunteers.
6 in 20 thought the profession has a mixed view of volunteers.
4 in 20 thought the profession had a positive view of volunteers.
2 in 20 were unsure of the profession's view of volunteers.
Keyword Frequency
Unnecessarily negative 5
Doubt ability 3
Enthusiastic 3
Right situation 3
Trowel fodder 2
Unsure 2
Slow 2
Mixed 2
Necessary evil 2
Next generation 2
Necessary 1
Source of money 1
Demanding if paying 1
To be encouraged 1
Valid Contribution 1
Cheap labour 1
Annoying 1
Welcome resource 1
Working with volunteers
No experience
Negative
Mixed
Positive
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Do you think it is easy to find a volunteer placement?

11/20 respondents thought it would be easy.
3/20 respondents were unsure.
3/20 respondents thought some research would be needed.
4/20 respondents thought it would be a case of "pay to dig".
5/20 respondents thought it had become more difficult lately.
6/20 respondents thought it would be hard
38
5 - Graduated, in debt and can’t work in the sector! How

can today’s Graduates hope to achieve their dreams?
Neil Moorcraft
This paper is based on my own personal experience since graduating in 2001 with a Post
Graduate Degree from the University of Birmingham. Since 2001 I have had a variety of roles
both within archaeological units, the Public Sector and the Private Sector. In this paper I am
going to put forward some very simple ideas based on the experiences, although I don’t think
that my situation is unique.
Introduction
So you joined the Young Archaeologists Club, studied Archaeology at University, researched,
theorised, spent 4 weeks excavating, etc and you’ve graduated with a view to carrying on
within the profession but you’re horrendously in debt, so what next? The realisation, you lack
experience and the only opportunities available in the sector are as excavators! The result,
more graduates are turning to temping, permanent work in non-archaeology positions or try
and carry on in post graduate education but getting greater into debt with no real end solution.
What is lacking? Any form of a structured progressive training with the possibility of a role at
the end. How can we move forward and make the most of the talented and enthusiastic
graduates out there? Universities don’t have the money, neither do archaeological units; the
Public Sector is too enclosed and bureaucratic so is the Private Sector the solution?
Choices
Believing that a degree or diploma is certainly the way forward and will give greater
opportunities more students go to University to study all aspects of archaeology believing that
this will set them up for an adequate job, but are they taught the bigger picture? It’s certainly
not a case of naivety on the students’ part but a great deal of trust is placed upon the course
content with a belief that when students finally graduate they will have all the tools required
for a successful career. However, are they the right tools for today’s career opportunities or
should degree courses reflect this in some way?
In a recent discussion on this topic with archaeology lecturer Paul Garwood, from the
University of Birmingham, he suggested that for students wishing to pursue a career in
archaeology “it is widely believed that they should do a three plus one degree”. The
implication of a post graduate qualification for archaeological students will, however, put
further pressures of debt onto them with no real guarantee at the end of an archaeological
job. I personally chose to carry onto a Post Graduate qualification with the view that this
would indeed assist me in my pursuit of an archaeological career. But I found this was not the
case.
39
In 2001 upon graduating my own personal level of debt from both under and post graduate
degrees amounted to £10,000. In a recent news report, the average graduate left university in
2006 with £13,252 worth of debt and it’s estimated that this could be up to as much as
£22,000 for middle income families (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4790583.stm).
Upon graduating I was faced with several career options, these are best show highlighted in
Figure1.
Figure 1.Possible career routes following University
University
Experience Required
Teaching Non
Archaeological
Roles
Consultancies Units Public

Sector
Other
Bodies Museums
Initially I wanted to work within the archaeological sector, however I soon realized that
although I am enthusiastic and passionate about archaeology the roles were based on short
term contracts at fairly low pay and required a significant level of experience.
Another option I had was to train to be a teacher. This meant that I would be required to study
for a further year but would at the same time be able to take advantage of government
funding available.
The final route available to me was to work within non archaeological roles through local
temping, etc. This was highly beneficial do to the lengths of contracts available, the
abundance of roles available and the rates of pay available.
I also considered working abroad in Italy but from my research into working abroad I found
the situation there was far worse than in the UK.
I opted to do a variety of roles. Believing that an archaeological role existed out there for me I
worked through temping roles which offered me a guaranteed income locally to me whilst
waiting for an archaeological role to arise.
Over the past six years several did and I managed to get a role within an archaeological unit
as an Archaeological Assistant. Due to the units size however there was little career
progression and the contracts were fixed at six monthly.
Again after a period of temping a role arose within the Public Sector. I found this role an
incredible insight into archaeology within the Public Sector but what I soon realized was just
bureaucratic the Public Sector can be. This was reflected within the organisation that I was
working for but I found that again there was no real career progression available.
40
Student Numbers
In preparation of this paper I was curious to know how many students each year apply for
archaeology and archaeological science degree courses. Using UCAS figures which are the
most comprehensive these were plotted on the graph below (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Graph to show total number of students enrolling on archaeology courses compared
to those who have serious career intent
2000
1800
Students
Enrolment numbers
enrolled on
1600 Archaeological
Science courses
1400
1200
1000
800
Students
600 enrolled on
Archaeology
400 courses
200
Students with
serious career
0 intent
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Years
(Based on data from UCAS)
It was estimated by Chitty (1999) that, of around 1100 individuals graduating in archaeology
annually, perhaps 10 to 15% will emerge with a serious interested in pursuing a career in
archaeology. This was also highlighted by Aitchinson in his report on Profiling the Profession
(1999). I plotted this further to include every year up to 2005 to find out the general trend in
applications.
What is clear from the graph is the consistent number of students applying for archaeology
degrees compared with those applying for archaeological science degrees. This graph does
highlight the growth of students applying for archaeological degrees each year. This is
particularly evident when compared to the percentage of students who will emerge with
serious career intent in archaeology.
With a lack of incentive in archaeology at present I see future figures for students applying for
archaeology courses dropping.
41
What does the sector need to offer graduates to work in the sector?
A huge void seems to exist at present once students graduate from their degree courses. All
other sectors seem to be able to give assistance in some way so that the skills gained are
further nurtured in some way, for example graduate training schemes.
If a scheme was to be in existence then it would need to offer graduates four key points
(Figure 3).
Figure 3. What does the sector need to offer graduates to work in archaeology?
Job security
Offer a
Paid work Excellent career
role
experience prospects
with…
Debt
guidance??
Firstly job security. A scheme which offers long term security perhaps 1 to 2 years rather than
3 to 6 months would give a graduate with severe debt problems the ability to budget more
effectively.
Secondly career prospects. Graduates are use to having structure and this cannot be on offer
within a short term role of 3 to 6 months. Therefore offering longer contracts would give
employers the opportunity to nurture and expand these graduates.
Thirdly debt guidance. This is something that I doubt would jump to anyone first thought but it
must be seen as a crucial part when most graduates will have potentially £16-22,000 worth of
debt.
Lastly paid work experience. In general archaeology experience is often unpaid and when
most employers are looking for an average of over two years this will surely act to put more
graduates off. Therefore having a scheme that offers experience that will be paid for as part of
the scheme would be a way forward.
Certainly until recently no such training schemes were available but recently the IFA have
offered between 8 and 10 Heritage Lottery funded workplace learning bursaries for the next 4
years (http://archaeologists.net/modules/news/aticle.php?
storyid=94). These are of great benefit to graduates and those already in employment alike
and are welcomed but largely these roles only act to fill archaeological skills gaps already in
existence.
42
Possible ideas for graduate roles and employers
Although I have suggested what type of role needs to be created in order to assist graduates
to fill the void that currently exists between graduating and employment but where should
such a scheme be placed?
In order for the scheme that I have highlighted above to succeed it will need to be put within
the employer who can offer it and the graduates on the scheme the best possible chance.
I don’t believe that a graduate training scheme would work consistently throughout the
archaeological sector but instead could be segmented into certain areas.
I have tried to show in Figure 4 how best to segment parts of the scheme highlighted above
into relevant employers whether they are large or small units, Private Sector consultancies
and/or the Public Sector.
Figure 4. Possible ideas for graduate roles and employers
Possible role Employer
A graduate training scheme Private Sector

which would be structured consultancies and large
and covering a wide range scale archaeological
of areas. units with resources
Paid and well structured Large or small

work experience archaeological units,
placements during summer museums, Public
intervals of undergraduate Sector
courses.
It could be argued that certain parts of this scheme currently exist, for example work
experience within the archaeological sector. What is clear is that work experience in its
present form is often unstructured with students washing ceramics and having little or no
structure to how this fits into the wider picture of unit or museum archaeology.
Conclusion
The ideas above are based on my limited work experience within the sector and the problems
I faced when trying. At best I would suggest to all graduates that they consider seriously hard
whether their true belief of finding a dream archaeological role is worth living with severe debt
when the potential is there for them to earn significant amounts elsewhere whilst still taking an
active role or interest in archaeology. Consistent reports from 1999 until the mid 2003
(Aitchinson 1999; Aitchinson & Edwards 2003) highlighted the problem that graduates face
but the sector failed to respond to these in any significant way. What the sector fails to
recognize is that at present there are more graduates, as willing employees; than there are
roles available and if all graduates turned away from archaeology the sector would be stuck. It
has become apparent to me that perhaps the reason why the sector has failed to grow like
nearly all other sectors is due to just how much a niche market archaeology is. In 2009
43
Aitchinson’s initial report on the profession will be ten years old. I would hope that by this time
the sector is some way moving towards assisting more graduates specifically. The longer the
sector continues to make more emphasis on education at pre-university level, the more
graduates inevitably will turn to careers elsewhere.
At the time of writing this paper History Matters published post cards with the question “What
legacy would you like to leave to your grandchildren?”. My response to this is simple; I
personally would like to have at least contributed to the development of the archaeological
sector in their acceptance and further development of graduates.
Bibliography
Aitchinson, K., 1999, ‘Profiling the Profession’, Council for British Archaeology, English
Heritage and Institute of Field Archaeologist
Aitchinson, K & Edwards R., 2003, ‘Archaeological Labour Market Intelligence – Profiling the
Profession 2002/03’, Cultural Heritage National Training Organisation
Chitty, G., 1999, ‘Training in Professional Archaeology – A preliminary review’, Hawkshead

Archaeology and Conservation
Dr Carter, S & Robertson, S., 2002, ‘Projects to define professional functions and standards
in archaeological practice’, Q-West Consultants
44
6 - Parliamentary Progress? Culture, Cuts and

Conservation (and other tales).
James Doeser (Institute of Archaeology, UCL)
My research is an analysis of the policy process, from formation through to implementation.

These are complicated processes involving many people under specific circumstances. As a
result very few people are in a position to understand them. It is the intention of this short
paper to use the CMS Committee report to cast a little light into the murky waters of the
policy process.
There are currently four fundamental reviews or archaeology policy that have taken place or
are on-going. These are the review of the PPGs (15 and 16)
http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144706
The Heritage Protection Review http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/95DE7ED3-BEE9-

42C2-A0F0-A2365717DD3D/0/HeritageProtection.pdf , the drafting of the Heritage White
paper and, running parallel to all of this, shedding light on the current state of affairs
regarding government and archaeology, has been the House of Commons Culture, Media and
Sport Committee's inquiry and report “Protecting and preserving our nation's heritage”
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/culture__media_and_sport/cms051115.
cfm .
The reason for the focus on the CMS inquiry in this paper is that it is
one of those very rare opportunities to cast a light on the attitudes of
the sector. To get a critical appraisal of the workings of the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), on English Heritage (EH) and
other bodies. Select Committees have a legal power to get questions
answered and to request presence of a minister. While you may get the
impression from the title of the inquiry that it was largely concerned
with heritage, and its protection, issues surrounding commercial
archaeology which were also touched upon. The CMS inquiry was very
timely. The PPG
reform and the Heritage Protection Review (both of which
have been underway for a number of years) were reaching
critical stages, they were maturing as policy reforms but
were still able to be influenced by the inquiry.
You probably already know about these but just in case you
do not the basic premises of these reviews and reforms are
as follows:
PPG Review
The review of the PPGs is part of an ongoing review by what was the ODPM (now the Dept
for Communities and Local Government - DCLG) which is updating planning guidance and
bringing it into line with contemporary ideas about planning, resources and architecture.
The origins of this began way back in 2001 with a Green Paper (Green papers are a broad
statement of policy intentions produced by government to indicate their future plans and to
spark some debate, they are not usually draft legislation) entitled Planning: delivering a
fundamental change http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1143142. What followed
was a series of consultations, some of which are still ongoing, and publications from the
45
ODPM outlining what was to come and building upon some of the concerns raised during
their consultation period http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1143168.
One process which is to change the way we talk about archaeology in the planning process is
that of turning PPGs into PPSs. Planning Policy Guidance notes are becoming Planning Policy
Statements. By far the most significant of those already in operation, in my view, is PPS1:
Delivering Sustainable Development http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1143805.
PPS1 mentions of archaeology as one of the many material considerations that are to be
taken into account when permitting development. I suspect that the tone of PPS will be
replicated throughout the rest of the PPSs. What does all this mean for archaeology and PPGs
15 and 16?
As I have already said, these are still under review and have been for a number of years
now. The review keeps being prolonged for a number of reasons, not least of all the general
inertia of any programme requiring the close co-ordination of more than one government
department! The Heritage Protection Review - something I will come on to later - has been
the primary reason for the delay in the last few years. What this means, of course, is that the
PPGs continue to suffice, in their imperfect yet functional way, to be the primary mechanism
by which archaeology takes place in the UK. At the time of writing a further delay has been
outlined in the government’s response to the CMS inquiry’s report pushing the publication
date for PPS15 beyond 2010. See below for further details.
The general noise from the grapevine - some of you may know more, or differently - is that
the new archaeology PPS (a combination of PPG15 and 16) will not be much different from
what we have at present. There will certainly be more about post-excavation commitments
and public involvement at that stage, and possibly, I suspect, if they have been vociferous
enough, a greater role for the IFA in quality control.
The major problems with PPG16 as they operate today will not be solved by the
transformation to a new united PPS. This is because the primary problems result from the
economic mechanisms of open-market competitive tendering. The new PPS will not eradicate
the growing mountain of finds and grey literature, variable technical standards, health and
safety, pay and conditions and all the other usual bugbears of the sector. That is because
these are not necessarily problems inherent in PPG16 but rather faults in its implementation
through competitive tendering (or, more specifically, the kind of competitive tendering which
has become the norm).
The polluter pays principle will remain in the new PPS. This is a good thing because it is fair.
There will not be a developer tax. Despite the Aggregates Levy (something akin to a
developer tax) and the amazing work that this has permitted I do not believe there is the
appetite for a change in the overall funding mechanism.
Unless one takes the fundamentalist attitude (this is not meant pejoratively, as I know there
are quite a few who hold these opinions) that there should be a fully funded state
archaeological service it remains for the commercial sector - not the state - to solve the
problems with rescue archaeology in the UK.
The Heritage Protection Review
The next of these ongoing changes to government policy regarding the historic environment
is the Heritage Protection Review http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/95DE7ED3-
BEE9-42C2-A0F0-A2365717DD3D/0/HeritageProtection.pdf . This is being undertaken by civil
servants in the DCMS in collaboration with other departments including DCLG and DEFRA. It
is a complete overhaul of scheduling and listing policy which will, if implemented, have
significant implications for government sponsored bodies like English Heritage and other
archaeology professionals especially those working in local government planning
departments.
46
The origins of the HPR stretch back to those historical documents Power of Place
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.42 and its partner in crime A
Force for Our Future
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Publications/archive_2001/his_force_future.htm
.
Power of Place was EH's statement of intentions for the historic environment, justifying their
own existence and A Force For Our Future was the DCMS’ response in which they set out
their priorities and and objectives for the coming years in historic environment policy. There
was a great deal of discussion of these documents and a fair bit of feedback given to both EH
and the DCMS. In late 2002 the then Minister Lord Mackintosh announced the intention to
undertake a comprehensive review of the regime for heritage protection.
The aims of the HPR, as set out in statements from the DCMS,
http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/95DE7ED3-BEE9-42C2-A0F0-
A2365717DD3D/0/HeritageProtection.pdf are to simplify the listing and scheduling
procedure, making it more transparent and user-friendly. The government has the intention
to allow individual members of the public to better understand what can be at times arcane
and contradictory procedures. Responsibilities for listing and scheduling will be devolved
down through the chain of government away from the DCMS and down to English Heritage
and Local Authorities. There are funding implications there which will be explored later.
The results of the heritage protection review (which the DCMS is undertaking with wide
consultation - they are not simply writing it on a back of a serviette in the staff canteen) will
be put into the Heritage White Paper. White papers are draft legislation so it is widely
expected that a Heritage Bill will enter Parliament at some time in the coming 18 months.
The Heritage Bill will be the first piece of comprehensive archaeology (that is sites and
monuments) focused legislation since the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas
Act, remember that? I wasn’t even born then!
What the Heritage White Paper might contain, and what those within the sector would like to
see it contain, will be explored later. One of the primary purposes for the Select Committee
inquiry was to illicit such information.
The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee
The work of select committees is interesting for someone undertaking work like myself. Very
rarely is a government department and its ministers asked to justify their policies in anything
more than sound bites. There is one select Committee for each government department so
the one which is of most important to us archaeologists is the Culture Media and Sport Select
Committee. Because the department is something of a ragbag mix of responsibilities
(archaeology and heritage being small fry when compared to other departmental issues such
as BBC charter renewal, the Licensing Act and the Olympics) not all CMS Committee inquiries
are of interest to the archaeologist.
Select Committees are made up of MPs who themselves are selected by a committee of
committees! They have special advisors who help collate evidence and write the eventual
report (in this case they were Bob Kindred and David Sekers, neither of which are
archaeology experts, and this is reflected in the final report). The crucial thing to bear in
mind when considering the work of Select Committees and their impact upon policy is that
they are set up to report to Parliament and not the Government. This is an important
distinction to make. The DCMS has a legal obligation to reply to the Select Committee but the
government has no obligation to act upon any findings or opinions in the Committee’s report.
It is therefore up to Parliament, in it’s usual lumbering way to pressure the Government to
listen to the select committee report. A good report, if the department is conducive, can
positively influence policy. An alternative route is to embarrass or shame a department into
47
doing something about an appalling state of affairs or impending crisis. Whether this report
manages to do that we shall see, I have my own opinions and you may have yours.
Just to briefly run you through the technicalities of how these things work. The first stage is a
press release in which the Committees clerk announces a new inquiry, outlines the scope of
the new inquiry and invites written submission In this instance see
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/culture__media_and_sport/cms051115.
cfm. I am not entirely sure who dictates the subject of new inquiries, presumably the
chairman. Once the deadline for written submissions has passed the committee then
interviews those who it identifies as being most important for the issues of its inquiry. In this
case there were the usual suspects of the Institute of Field Archaeologists, National Trust,
English Heritage etc. and we will explore their contributions in a moment. In this case there
were also ministers who were called in to justify their department’s work and the opportunity
to ask some blunt questions arising from the evidence put before the committee.
So, who are the Culture Media and Sport Committee?
Details can be found at
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/culture__media_and_sport/culture__m
edia_and_sport_members.cfm and a list of the members are below, starting with the
Chairman John Whittingdale.
Member – Constituency - Party

Mr John Whittingdale MP - Maldon and East Chelmsford - Conservative
Janet Anderson MP - Rossendale and Darwen - Labour
Philip Davies MP - Shipley - Conservative
Mr Nigel Evans MP - Ribble Valley - Conservative
Paul Farrelly MP - Newcastle-under-Lyme - Labour
Mr Mike Hall MP - Weaver Valley - Labour
Alan Keen MP - Feltham and Heston - Labour
Rosemary McKenna MP - Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East - Labour
Adam Price MP - Carmarthen East and Dinefwr - Plaid Cymru
Mr Adrian Sanders MP - Torbay - Liberal Democrats
Helen Southworth MP - Warrington South – Labour
48
• Are they familiar?

• Do they have archaeological knowledge?
• Do they know what an Iron Age Hill fort looks like, and what it’s conservation and
visitor issues might be?
• Do they know that the IFA always say this and that Prospect always say that etc.?
• Does any of it matter so long as they can effectively relay the sector’s concerns to
parliament and so influence government policy?
Coming on to this specific inquiry.
The questions which were put out for consideration and issues on which evidence was invited
were...
— What the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should identify as priorities in the
forthcoming Heritage White Paper;
— The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English Heritage and other relevant organisations in
representing heritage interests inside and outside Government;
— The balance between heritage and development needs in planning policy;
— Access to heritage and the position of heritage as a cultural asset in the community;
— Funding, with particular reference to the adequacy of the budget for English Heritage and
for museums and galleries, the impact of the London 2012 Olympics on Lottery funding for
heritage projects, and forthcoming decisions on the sharing of funds from Lottery sources
between good causes;
— What the roles and responsibilities should be for English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery
Fund, local authorities, museums and galleries, charitable and other non-Governmental
organisations in maintaining the nation's heritage; and
— Whether there is an adequate supply of professionals with conservation skills; the priority
placed by planning authorities on conservation; and means of making conservation expertise
more accessible to planning officers, councillors and the general public.
Coming onto the evidence as submitted by those deemed to be fighting the corner for
archaeology, well I will take you through some. Appendix 1 contains the evidences submitted
in full to the committee by the IFA, CBA, Prospect, Rescue, Wessex, BAJR and ALGAO
Conclusions
After collating the written evidence the committee then undertook public interviews with
those bodies whose evidence would best inform their inquiry. Transcripts of these can be
found at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmcumeds/912/6021401.htm
The archaeological sector endeavoured to put forward their concerns in terms which
politicians could appreciate (and, for the most part, succeeded). Government and their
sponsored bodies largely explained how they were addressing these concerns. The
questioning was relatively tame and the DCMS’ responses, particularly with regards to
funding were particularly disappointing.
After digesting the written and oral evidence what eventually came out was this...
49
Unfortunately it is terrible. It will be buried and ignored by government and a vital

opportunity to impress upon the politicians the concerns of the sector will have been
squandered. The report itself is not very well written. Instead of having a handful of incisive
recommendations there are lots, all of which are bundled up in the 57 point concluding
section.
If you wish to read the report for yourself then follow this link
The press release was an overly wordy and non-newsworthy document in which some of the
damning indictments of the committee were lost to news desk editors. The DCMS, which
must reply to the report, will bat away any of the criticism with platitudes and mentions of
the forthcoming white paper. It could have been different, or could it? The committee
themselves realised that they had begun with too wide a net with which they caught plenty of
extraneous evidence. There are many in the sector which could see this coming.
Anybody who remembers the illicit trade inquiries by the same committee
will know that those were more focused and once one report was not acted upon, they
went ahead and produced a follow-up. What eventually resulted was the Dealing in Objects
(Offences) Act 2003, which only got through thanks to the Iraq war but nonetheless the
Select Committee had their role to play in the early stages.
Thankfully the report’s recommendations were a condensed of concerns held widely in the
heritage sector. These included the following:
A need to…
• address the issue of class consents,
• increase funding for English Heritage,
• get better representation for heritage in government generally,
• deal with the funding implications of the Heritage Protection Review on local
government,
• and move forward PPG reform and for it to include better public involvement.
I have it on good authority from my contacts in the DCMS that the HPR will be complete and
the Heritage White Paper will be published towards the end of this year - certainly before
Christmas. Once that is out of the way the PPG review can be revived, one hopes. What will
make all of this potentially meaningless and what the sector has been worrying about all year
is the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. All departments and their sponsored
bodies have been desperately finding ways of justifying themselves and their funding to the
Treasury who will next year decide how much money they will all get.
Comprehensive spending reviews can be bad news for non-essential aspects of government
like the arts and archaeology. 2007 could be a very painful year for archaeology and heritage
funding. We shall have to see…
50
Epilogue
October this year saw the Government’s response to the Committees report.
It can be read at
http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/12DA916B-D3C8-456E-82DB-
9542754066B0/0/Cm6947_cttee_pph.pdf
What is clear from the government’s response is that they do not acknowledge the continuing
under-funding of English Heritage, they applauded the savings already made within the
institution which many feel has reduced the organisation to the bare bones able to undertake
its statutory duties but not much else. The problems with the PPGs are not seen as being
high priorities for change and indeed it seems that it will be delayed again until the full
implementation of the Heritage Protection Review in 2010. Admittedly the phrasing is not
entirely clear in the government’s response but if true this will mean that PPG16 will be
replaced after 30 years of existence, by far the oldest of all PPGs. Most worryingly of all are
the guarded words about next year’s spending review, something which we are all
anticipating with dread.
51
7 - Diggers Forum
Your Industry. Your Career. Your Choice.
Since our formation as an IFA Special Interest Group at the end of 2004, the Diggers’ Forum
has begun to act as a focal point for those who believe that our profession can be changed
for the better.
The Forum represents archaeologists primarily involved in excavation and post-excavation

roles (as opposed to managers, consultants, county officers etc) across the UK. It is these
staff that have been poorly represented within the profession, leaving many feeling
disenfranchised, helpless and disillusioned.
In recent weeks the Diggers’ Forum has brought together representatives from the IFA,
Prospect and BAJR for combined discussions on the best way to improve pay and conditions
for archaeologists. Working together with like-minded organizations to campaign for these
changes is an important step forward. We will be inviting Archaeological Unit Managers to
join this process as part of a Campaign for a Living Wage.
However, we need your support in order to push for improvements in archaeological

employment. For IFA members, membership of the Diggers’ Forum is free, for non-IFA
members the cost is £5 a year. We are campaigning for change across the industry for the
benefit of all archaeologists, but members will also have access to a web page, and receive a
quarterly newsletter, discounts to Forum activities and events, plus the support and advice of
experienced professional archaeologists. Can’t be a bad deal for a £5!
For an application form or more details please contact Jez, Chris or Paul at the details below,
or visit www.archaeologists.net/diggers
For information about the Digger’s Forum and forthcoming

meetings, please contact:
Jez Taylor
020 7410 2242 or 07951 024197 jezt@molas.org.uk
Chris Clarke
07751 612574 chrisclarke600@hotmail.co.uk
Paul Everill
023 80 363 589 or 0777 5582525 paul@everill.net
52
8 - DIGGERS – Role Still Unrecognized Sixteen Years On

Matt Edgeworth
There is a major imbalance in British archaeology today. The fact that diggers1 are paid such
low wages, relative to other levels of the profession, reflects badly on archaeology as a
whole. It is an issue so pressing that it now tends to overshadow other concerns, important
as they are. A graduate entering the field with a BA, BSc or MA would be lucky to get
£14,000 a year. Some of our best diggers, whether university trained or not, have
accumulated years of valuable experience on sites of all periods and types, both rural and
urban - with all the expertise that such experience brings. Yet on average they get little more
than half the national average wage, the level of pay commonly accepted as the poverty line
in the UK. (For statistics on wage levels in archaeology today, visit the Outwage UK website).
The imperative for a restructuring of pay scales within archaeology is clear. Many have stated
the case - not least BAJR itself, the Digger newsletter, the Prospect union, the Digger’s Forum
and many other groups and individuals. The basic argument is set out succinctly, for
example, in Archaeology: a Dignity Wage by Kevin Wooldridge or in the short article
Prospecting for Change by Antony Francis (2006).
In this paper, I discuss some of the underlying reasons why this situation has come about. I
want to take a long view, over a period of sixteen years – and to look, in archaeological
fashion, a little below the surface. I argue that actually it’s not just about pay. Pay is merely a
symptom, a reflection, of something much deeper. You could temporarily fix the pay, but the
problem would come back again later because the root causes have not been addressed.
An easy course to take would be to blame the competitive tendering system. But other
professions operate under similar market conditions while somehow managing to uphold
reasonable levels of pay for key workers. Besides, this is an aspect of the world we can’t
change. Like it or not we inhabit a commercial environment. It’s up to us to find ways of
working within it so as to benefit workers at all levels of the profession.
No, the problem originated before the privatization of archaeology and before the onset of
competitive tendering. I suggest that it is how excavation was perceived or mis-perceived
back in the 1970s and 1980s that lies at the root of our problems today. Certain old ways of
seeing have stuck. There’s a kind of internal cultural glitch that stops us from seeing the true
worth of excavation and the role of excavators. And that glitch goes back a very long way
indeed.
I’m not talking here about the perceptions of people outside the profession. As a matter of
fact I think that most people today do actually rate archaeological skills quite highly. Even
developers who want us out of the way as quickly as possible have, on the whole, a kind of
grudging respect for the skills of excavation and fieldwork generally. That’s why they are so
shocked when they hear what excavators get paid.
On the contrary, it is how we within the profession perceive the core skills of archaeological
fieldwork that is the issue here. I believe we totally undervalue them, relative to other skills
such as those of management or consultancy or curatorial work. The theoretical significance
of the craft skills of digging has never been properly discussed or acknowledged. And the
pay levels reflect the value we place upon what is really the central method of investigation in
our profession. As well as tackle the problem of pay, then, we also have to challenge and
rethink our common assumptions about the relative importance of excavation, and the people
who undertake it.
This analysis can only be a short one. It will inevitably be a partial account, because I want to
focus on this underlying issue of how excavation is perceived within the profession, and how
these perceptions are linked to pay. I’m going to pick up the situation in 1990 and briefly
outline developments up to the present day.
53
Why 1990? That of course was the year that PPG 16 came into force – the planning
guideline that led in effect to the privatization of archaeology in the UK. It just so happened
that immediately before that pivotal event, in the winter of 1989-1990, I carried out an
ethnographic study of the craft skills of excavation. The results of that work were written up
in thesis form and eventually published as the BAR report Acts of Discovery (Edgeworth
1991/2003).
I don’t want to talk too much about that book. You can read it yourself if you want to (its
now available in e-book form and can be downloaded free). It basically set out to open up
the whole question of how archaeological data is produced. While there is much in the book
that is not directly relevant, the important thing about it is that it does show – through
detailed case studies of excavation - how diggers make an important theoretical as well as
practical contribution to the archaeological process. And it demonstrates that their role
consists of more, so much more, than mere data collection. As the ‘agents of discovery’ – the
people who actually encounter and manipulate material evidence and transform it into
meaningful data – they occupy a primary and central role in the production of knowledge
about the past.
This view was at odds back then with general perceptions in both the academic and non-
academic sectors of archaeology. I will outline these here because some of these views have
persisted.
In academia, excavation was regarded on the whole as simply a means of data collection.
Evidence was merely uncovered and recorded. The material record uncovered and the record
of it that diggers produced were regarded as practically equivalent, the latter being seen as
effectively a direct representation of the former. This view effectively ‘squeezed out’ the
enormous amount of work undertaken by diggers, with the real work of archaeological
interpretation supposedly being undertaken by relevant experts after excavation. The idea
that diggers themselves might be doing some of the key work of interpretation, as an
embedded part of the digging process itself, simply never occurred to anyone.
Outside the academic world, British archaeology was organized largely through county council
units. On county council pay scales and job descriptions, crucially, diggers were counted as
manual workers. That is, the physical aspects of the job – like pushing wheelbarrows or using
a mattock or being outside in all weathers – were always highlighted. Cognitive aspects, of
which there are many, were always played down. Once the job was classified as manual, of
course, the system made it very difficult for anyone to acknowledge that diggers make a vital
intellectual contribution, that digging an archaeological site is not like digging a potato patch
or a pipe trench. The complex paths of practical reasoning and inference-in-action that
diggers follow in the course of their everyday work were never taken into account.
As any experienced digger knows, you can’t excavate properly without interpreting what is
being excavated. Interpretation is an integral part of digging. To take account of the twists
and turns of emerging evidence, multiple inferences are routinely made about human agency
in the past which inform and shape the unfolding strategy for digging that evidence. That
was the case in 1990 and that is the case now. But the fact is that - by being characterised as
data-collectors on the one hand and manual workers on the other hand - excavators were
written out of the interpretive process, as though they played no part in it. As I argued back
then, they were rendered invisible.
How have perceptions changed over the last sixteen years in these respects?
It’s fair to say that academic archaeologists have gone some way towards changing their
ideas of excavation. The view of excavation as an interpretation-free activity has long since
been discarded and no-one really believes it any more. Whether you agree with post-
processualism or not, its main proponents have taken a practical turn towards excavation as
54
a process, with the locus of interpretation shifting onto reflexive practice at the so-called
‘trowel’s edge’ (Hodder 1999) - and to excavation as a materializing practice (Lucas 2001).
This has led to greater recognition of the role played by diggers in the archaeological process,
and to the setting up of enterprises like Framework Archaeology that do actually strive to
accord diggers and their skills something like the respect they deserve.
The Framework approach “extends the work of excavation beyond the recording of materials
into a creative programme, fashioning an understanding of other people’s lives out of the
excavator’s own encounter with the relict material conditions” (Andrews, Barratt and Lewis
2000). Of course, Framework did not invent the creativity of digging, any more than Hodder
can be said to have introduced reflexivity into archaeology. This is the way competent diggers
have always worked. Diggers have been working at the trowel’s edge long before theorists
discovered that there was such a crucial interface (see my 1991 account of archaeology
‘under the moving blade of the trowel’, based on observation of diggers at work). They have
always been engaged in fashioning understandings of other people’s lives out of their own
encounter with material evidence. It is just that Framework were the first organization to
explicitly recognize what it is that diggers actually do, and to build methodologies and
strategies that respect and encourage their creative contribution, rather than constrain it.
There is of course a danger here of academics moving in and telling diggers how to dig. But
the arrow of mutual influence points the other way too. Actually there is a great deal that
academics can learn – indeed, already have learnt – from diggers in the commercial sector.
The practical turn taken by archaeologists like Ian Hodder and Chris Tilley was itself
inextricably bound up with the encounter with commercial workers on sites like Catalhoyuk
and Leskernick. The influence of such workers on recent transformations in post-processualist
methodology and theory should not be underestimated.
The whole question of pay and conditions of diggers has now become the subject of
academic discussion. I’m thinking of papers by Adrian Chadwick (2003), Hodder and
Berggren (2003) and Wilmore (2006), and also the recent Invisible Digger project by Paul
Everill.
A further recent development is the greater appreciation of the potential of the enormous
amount of new archaeological information contained in ‘grey reports’ produced by commercial
units. As Richard Bradley points out in his recent and important ‘Bridging Two Cultures’
paper, after surveying the grey literature, this information can re-shape our understanding of
British prehistory (Bradley 2006). His argument can be extended to cover other periods of
British archaeology too. Despite problems of accessibility, the sense is emerging of the
evidence contained in the grey literature as a huge and largely untapped resource for
academic synthesis and review – a testament to the work put in by diggers as well as
management in the commercial sector. If the data they produced does indeed lead to a re-
writing of British prehistory, it will be the diggers, as much as anyone else, who helped bring
the transformation about.
I do not want to push the academic/commercial split too far. Obviously the two worlds are
connected. Indeed, the projects I have mentioned cross over and bridge the divide. But the
fact is that the idea of diggers as mere data-collectors or manual workers – now so out of
date and theoretically outmoded - still has currency in the commercial sector. Despite the
enormous changes brought about by privatization, much has stayed the same. Many of the
current unit job descriptions for excavators, for example, were originally written back in the
county council days, reproducing old perceptions and assumptions. They retain job titles like
‘archaeological technician’ and phrases like ‘data-gathering’, stressing always the manual and
non-cognitive aspects of the work. They have been reworked and modified many times, but
still uphold the old myths of manual as opposed to intellectual work and data-collection as
opposed to data-production.
55
In this respect the cultural glitch that I mentioned before has a very real material basis,
solidified into job descriptions that are extremely resistant to change. This is where any
change should start. Alter the job descriptions and titles to give an accurate picture of what
diggers actually do, and real restructuring of pay within archaeology might become possible.
The mistaken assumptions about excavation that are solidified into job descriptions greatly
influence and shape not just perceptions, but also policy. They are embedded, for example,
in the levels of responsibility set out by the IFA (Institute of Field Archaeologists), which
effectively structures the pattern of career progression in British archaeology::
MIFA
1 Full responsibility for all stages of projects or equivalent
2 Substantial written reports or equivalent essential
AIFA
1 Delegated responsibility for projects or equivalent
2 Written reports or equivalent usually required
PIFA
1 Responsibility for data collection and basic organisation
2 Written reports not expected
3 Must have fulfilled appropriate time requirement : ie. a minimum of six months
(from IFA Validation Committee Guidelines)
The levels of responsibility are directly linked to recommended levels of pay:-
MIFA responsibilities £20,898
AIFA responsibilities £16,139
PIFA responsibilities £13,856
(IFA recommended minimum starting salaries from 1st April 2006)
The hierarchy of the three main levels of responsibility, from Practitioner (PIFA) to Associate
(AIFA) to full Member (AIFA), does excavators no favours at all. Most excavators fall into the
lowest Practitioner grade. And this places them on the lowest rung of a ladder which
ultimately leads out of the field towards the relatively more valued and better paid position of
manager or curator or consultant. The assumption is that excavation is merely a stepping
stone towards the greater attainment of project management, whereas I would argue that it
should be regarded as a field of mastery in and of itself. Experienced and competent
excavators should be entitled to the full respect of the institution that seeks to represent
them - and be rewarded with the decent wage that such respect implies.
56
Also embedded in the levels of responsibility is an over-valuation of managerial skills. Don’t

misunderstand me. I’m not saying that business and managerial skills aren’t important. They
are vital in today’s commercial environment. But the core skills of archaeological fieldwork
and interpretation are important too. And these are undervalued in the levels of responsibility
structure. We need to get the balance right.
This whole idea of levels of responsibility illustrates the imbalance. There is far too much
stress on ‘full responsibility’ and ‘delegated responsibility’ instead of ‘actual responsibility’.
Take the case of archaeological supervisors for example. They take upon their shoulders
most of the actual responsibility for the day-to-day running of sites from project managers.
They are often effectively responsible for more people and for carrying out more varied tasks
and for dealing with more unforeseen problems. Most decisions on unfolding strategy are
taken off their own bat. They bridge the gap between the field and the office, which would
otherwise become a chasm. An accomplished and experienced archaeological supervisor, like
a project manager, should be eligible to be a full member of IFA.
Or take the really experienced and accomplished excavators. We all know of people working
in British archaeology who have spent many years out in the field on a whole range of sites
and materials and have achieved a considerable mastery of a wide gamut of archaeological
methods. They are masters of practical archaeological interpretation and fieldwork technique.
They are depended upon by supervisors and project officers alike - to uphold the standards
of excavation, to pass on specialist skills to the younger and more inexperienced members of
the field team. How else would the embodied skills of excavation be transmitted and
transformed over time, passed on from one generation to another? Yet such workers, despite
their expertise, would find it very difficult to be elected into the MIFA grade. This is wrong.
The type of responsibility their job entails is not recognized by the IFA system, which favours
the managerial office-based type of responsibility only.
Some of the best archaeologists that our profession has produced are now spending their
time not doing archaeology at all, not even writing reports. They are based primarily in the
office and not in the field. They have been inexorably drawn away from what they are best at
and diverted into mainly managerial or business tasks. It is of course partly a matter of
personal choice. But there is a real sense in which they are compelled, by the very structure
of career progression in archaeology, to leave archaeological fieldwork behind – thereby, by a
kind of catch-22, achieving full membership of the Institute of Field Archaeologists. And this
is what I mean when I say that the undervaluing of core skills has dire effects across the
profession as a whole. Bad pay and conditions and low morale ultimately force many of the
best fieldworkers to leave the field - either to depart from the profession altogether, or to
climb the IFA levels of responsibility ladder (or it stops them from entering the field in the
first place). This is a loss not only to the field – for standards of excavation and recording
inevitably decline as a result - but also a loss to the individuals themselves, and indeed to the
entire profession.
Excavation is an extraordinary method of opening up and exploring the world, of bringing the
past to life in the present. It is central to archaeology and probably the reason why most of
us took up the profession in the first instance. It is where the particular ‘way of seeing’ that
defines archaeology as a discipline and profession is rooted. All the other diverse practices of
archaeology, from community archaeology to consultancy to curatorial work - draw
something of their methodologies and perspectives from the foundational art of excavation
itself. We need to get rid of the old ideas, so theoretically outmoded, of excavation as mere
data-collection or manual work. Excavation is not a semi-skilled occupation, as one member
of the audience described it - though it is in danger of becoming one if we fail to retain our
skilled workers! We need to realign our perceptions of it, value it properly and start to look
after this area of our work, to the great overall benefit of all archaeologists.
Above all we need to ensure that we properly value and pay a decent wage to the people
who do the fieldwork, the diggers themselves – the lifeblood and the future of archaeology.
57
Notes
1I use the term ‘diggers’ because fieldworkers use it to describe themselves, not because it
provides a full and accurate description of what they do. The term ‘field archaeologists’, or
something similar, might be more appropriate.
References
Andrews, G., J. Barrett, and J. Lewis. 2000. Interpretation not record: the practice of
archaeology. Antiquity 74:525–30.
Bradley, R, 2006, Bridging the two cultures: commercial archaeology and the study of British
Prehistory. A lecture to the Society of Antiquaries of London, 12th January. Available:
www.sal.org.uk/downloads/Bridging-Two-Cultures.doc (accessed 1 Sept 2006)
Chadwick, A. 2003. Post-processualism, professionalization and archaeological

methodologies: towards reflective and radical practice. Archaeological Dialogues 10 (1): 97–
117.
Edgeworth, M. 1991. The act of discovery: an ethnography of the subject-object relation in

archaeological practice. PhD thesis. University of Durham, UK.
Edgeworth, M. 2003. Acts of discovery: an ethnography of archaeological practice. BAR

International Series 1131. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Francis, A. 2006. Prospecting for change. Archaeology Gazette (Prospect newsletter) August
issue.
Hodder, I. 1999. The archaeological process: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hodder, I., and A. Berggren. 2003. Social practice, method, and some problems of field
archaeology. American Antiquity 68 (3):421–34.
IFA, undated, IFA Validation Committee guidelines, web document. Available:

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/join/Validation_guidelines.pdf
(accessed 1 September, 2006)
Lucas,G. 2001. Critical approaches to fieldwork: contemporary and historical archaeological

practice. London: Routledge
Wilmore, M. 2006. Landscapes of disciplinary power: an ethnography of excavation and

survey at Leskernick. In Edgeworth, M (ed) Ethnographies of archaeological practice: Cultural
encounters, material transformations. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press
Wooldridge, K, undated, Archaeology: A dignity wage. Web document. Available:

http://www.freewebs.com/departmentofurbanarchaeology/archaeologyadignitywage.htm
(accessed 1 September, 2006)
58
Links in the text
Outwage UK
http://www.freewebs.com/outwageuk/
Prospecting for change

http://www.bajr.org/Documents/Prospect/arch_july_lowres.pdf
Archaeology: a dignity wage

http://www.freewebs.com/departmentofurbanarchaeology/archaeologyadignitywage.htm
The Digger
http://www.bajr.org/diggermagazine/default.htm
Invisible Diggers
http://www.invisiblediggers.net/
Acts of Discovery
http://traumwerk.stanford.edu:3455/edgeworth/Home
Under the moving blade of the trowel

http://traumwerk.stanford.edu:3455/edgeworth/892
59
Appendix 1 – Submissions to Department for Culture,

Media and Sport
Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Field

Archaeologists
The Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA) is pleased to contribute to your timely inquiry.
The IFA is the professional body for archaeologists. It promotes best practice in archaeology
and has c 2,050 members across the UK and abroad. Archaeologists who are members of the
IFA work in all branches of the discipline: heritage management, excavation, finds and
environmental study, buildings recording, underwater and aerial archaeology, museums,
conservation, survey, research and development, teaching, and liaison with the community,
industry and the commercial and financial sectors.
Q1. What DCMS should identify as priorities in the forthcoming Heritage White
Paper
The IFA believes that the main focus of the White Paper should be Heritage Protection
Reform (HPR). We fully support the aims of this ambitious programme, especially:
• — the proposed reforms of designation and consents procedures, including a unified

list of heritage assets; and
• — the option for owners, local authorities and English Heritage to enter into tripartite
voluntary management agreements as an alternative to potentially time-consuming and
bureaucratic individual consents.
For the proposed new regime to work, however, the White Paper must also seriously
address the urgent questions of
• — adequate resources (including training of professional practitioners) for its

implementation;
• — recognition of accredited skills in historic environment practice—systems are being

developed and it will be necessary and "reasonable" for local authorities, registered museums
and heritage agencies to require accredited practitioners for some work;
• — ensuring that local authorities are made to take proper responsibility for the
historic environment, most importantly a statutory requirement for all of them to have access
to an adequately resourced and scoped HER service; and
• — revision of the Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) as a matter of urgency (and
not contingent on waiting out any delays in finding parliamentary time for HPR) to ensure;
— greater public benefit through requirements to store, conserve and display artefacts
recovered during fieldwork; to involve the public in excavations in their neighbourhood; and
to open sites for visitors to analyse, research and publish excavation results in forms
accessible by the archaeological community and the wider public—although possible, it is
extremely difficult to synthesise on a national scale results of countless developer-funded
excavations: those advising on, studying and interpreting the historic environment need to do
so in the confidence that they have accessed the best available knowledge and
understanding. An eminent prehistorian recently said "everything written about British and
Irish prehistory without using the grey literature [unpublished client reports] of the last 20
years is wrong";
60
— greater quality of work, through encouragement of planning authorities to specify that

archaeological work must be carried out in accordance with IFA standards and by accredited
organisations or individuals;
— better protection of threatened sites by specifically including palaeoenvironmental

deposits and artefact scatters within the scope of the guidance; and
— better management of historic buildings through a requirement for investigation and

recording of buildings damaged or destroyed in development, including archiving and
publication of the results;
• — reform of Scheduled Monument class consents to prevent continuing damage (eg

ploughing) of scheduled sites being permitted on the basis that it has been allowed before;
• — reform of the legislation relating to the marine historic environment bringing it as

far as possible into the terrestrial system with a consistent approach to designation, removal
of marine heritage assets from the salvage regime, and scope for protecting underwater
heritage assets other than shipwrecks;
• — a more consistent approach to the underwater heritage in difficult cases including

those beyond UK territorial waters (eg the exemplary approach to the Titanic compared with
that for the Sussex);
• — VAT reform, and more general fiscal incentives for conservation and heritage; and
• — maintenance of a ring-fenced share of lottery money for HLF, recognising that

committed funds are not an underspend; and encouragement of HLF and archaeologists
together to develop fieldwork opportunities where members of the public can participate in
research, develop new skills and acquire a vocational qualification in archaeological practice.
The IFA believes that the development of HPR and its implementation, including reforms of
the approach to maritime heritage, will require much greater involvement of local
government and professional institutes.
The institutes have a major role to play in guiding and assisting their members—whether
working for or with colleagues in local government and the private sector—to prepare for
day-to-day delivery of the new regime; and their role in self-regulation of the sector does not
seem to be fully recognised. A lack of recognition of the value of accredited professionals,
through government agency grants and permissions and through the planning process,
severely compromises the ability of the institutes to regulate quality and deliver better
services to the public.
Q2. The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English Heritage and other relevant
organisations in representing heritage interests inside and outside government
The IFA believes that English Heritage performs essential functions that need to continue,
but must be better resourced. Transfer of responsibility for maritime heritage to English
Heritage has been a welcome development, but with so few staff responsible for an area
almost as large as terrestrial Britain the resource allocation is inadequate, and as result the
good progress being made has not been as rapid as the sector would have liked. English
Heritage has made great strides through its modernisation programme, but its performance
has been compromised significantly as a result of the real-term cuts it has undergone.
DCMS is developing a positive and constructive relationship with the IFA. We welcome this
development and look forward to fruitful cooperation.
61
There is a need for a body to oversee and guide historic environment policy, building on the
initial foundations provided by HEREC but more representative and communicating well with
the sector, in particular private practices, independent bodies and local authorities. There is
reason to feel that government, its agencies and appointed representatives of the sector do
not recognise the diverse ways in which archaeology is delivered, and how closely
organisations work together. We calculate that in 2003-04 developers, working with local
authority planning departments and archaeological contractors (public and private sector,
commercial and charitable), carried out c £144 million of archaeological research; local
government paid for an additional £28 million; other charitable foundations supported £23
million. Central government and the EU paid for £18 million—essential resources, but only
part of a wider picture. Interestingly, it is in the areas outside the purview of central
government that many of the most important innovations have been made.
Q3. The balance between heritage and development needs in planning policy
Perhaps the most important thing to say here is that the IFA, in common with other
heritage bodies, believes that there is a need for a balance, and that good development
benefits from reconciling old and new. With a sensible approach conflict is usually avoided.
IFA is preparing with IHBC and ALGAO a Standard and guidance for stewardship of the
historic environment, which will advise how—and require IFA and IHBC members—to act
reasonably on behalf of the historic environment and thus to minimise scope for conflict.
On the whole that balance is found where well-informed planning and conservation policies
have been developed and local authority officers and members—especially when informed by
English Heritage's commendable "Historic Environment Local Management" (HELM)
programme—are properly informed. Then we achieve synergies not conflict. Occasionally the
democratic processes of planning produce results that the heritage sector does not like, but
chances are reduced where there is informed debate.
The biggest problems arise in regeneration or renewal areas where normal planning controls
are shortcut, where sensible environmental assessment and controls are treated as red-tape
blocking desirable economic development. There are also problems in the marine zone,
where developers have been slow to take responsibility for submerged heritage seriously.
Many developers lack understanding about responsibilities and appropriate actions,
compounded by a lack of clarity over who is responsible for development control in in the
marine environment generally, and in intertidal and nearshore zones: some local authorities
take an active role in the curation of maritime heritage, others do not have the available
funding or specialised personnel to be able to do so.
As stated above, there is a need to revise planning guidance to produce improved public
benefit.
We also believe that it is important to encourage the use of heritage as a driver for
regeneration in towns, villages and suburbs, not just in major cities. The programme of
informing the decision-makers must go on, and be adequately resourced.
Q4. Access to heritage and the position of heritage as a cultural asset in the
community
The IFA maintains that community engagement is vital if archaeology is to be justified and
deliver the benefits that society needs. We commend to the committee the recent publication
by The Archaeology Forum Archaeology enriches us all for an exploration of the potential for
archaeology to help people explore and celebrate Britishness.
62
Local authorities, contracting organisations and CBA's Young Archaeologists Clubs have
done excellent work in bringing the results of archaeology to a wider public, but again the
flaws in planning guidance have limited what can be seen as a "reasonable" charge on
development. Some of the best work has been done in tandem with other initiatives—the
example of local authority "garbology officers" teaching young people both about archaeology
and waste and recycling illustrates how archaeology can contribute to a wide range of
curriculum topics and generic skills.
Further obstacles are presented by the lack of suitable permanent and accessible
repositories for archaeological archives—while there are flagship examples like the London
Archaeological Archive Research Centre, in many parts of the country there are no
organisations capable of accepting archaeological materials, let alone facilitating public
enjoyment of them. There is no national museum for maritime archaeology, the National
Maritime Museum's archaeological collections have been dispersed, and archaeological
archives are not accessible. Maritime archaeology is especially popular, but opportunities for
access to the submerged heritage are few for non-diving members of the public. Fortunately,
a number of new initiatives are helping to bring the heritage "to the surface", but there is
much to be done.
A statutory requirement for local authorities to have access to a Historic Environment

Record service is essential: as we are currently seeing in Northamptonshire and elsewhere,
discretionary services will always be cut when hard budgetary decisions are being made.
Q5. Funding with particular reference to the adequacy of the budget for EH and
for museums and galleries, the impact of the London 2012 Olympics on Lottery
funding for heritage projects, and forthcoming decisions on the sharing of funds
from Lottery sources between good causes
The 2012 Olympics are a wonderful opportunity to showcase the UK's (multi-)cultural
heritage, and we need to invest in that opportunity to deliver on this element of the
successful bid.
As mentioned above, English Heritage funding has had real-term cuts year on year. The
organisation is not given enough to carry out adequately all the functions that fall to it—in
spite of having delivered the reforms asked of it. We are particularly concerned about the
erosion of resources for the grant-giving Historic Environment Enabling Programme, which
has been very significant in funding strategic development of the sector that cannot be
successfully resourced through the planning process. We view with some concern the
relatively low status in EH research and funding priorities of strategic development of the
sector compared to individual conservation and research projects. All are valuable uses of
limited funds, but more strategic investment would develop the sector and reduce the future
need to pay for activities more properly the responsibility of owners, local authorities and the
private sector.
Extra funds will need to be found for the significant training investment required to produce
a profession (in local authorities and working with them) sufficiently skilled to deliver the HPR
agenda.
The HLF share of lottery funding must be ringfenced, maintained at least present level and
not subjected to clawbacks on the grounds of spuriously identified underspends.
Q6. What roles and responsibilities should be for EH, the HLF, local authorities,
museums and galleries, charitable and other non-Governmental organisations in
maintaining the nation's heritage
We do not look on major restructuring and reassignment of responsibilities between

governmental and other state-funded bodies with any enthusiasm. Suggestions floated in the
63
last couple of years have been either unworkable or highly unlikely to produce savings and
improvements. What the sector needs now is structured development and investment, not
cavalier reorganistion.
HPR will increase the role of local authorities. Ideally we would look for ring-fenced
resources, but recognising that is not possible the only effective safeguard will be to make
statutory local authority responsibilities to the historic environment.
The HLF needs to be protected and maintained.
The provision for the archiving, acquisition and curation of maritime collections should be
included in all future policy. Consideration should be given to the establishment of a national
museum for Maritime Archaeology that could house a specialist unit of advisors and have the
responsibility for the curation and display of the nation's marine and seafaring heritage.
As mentioned above, the role of the professional institutes tends to be overlooked—

especially their self-regulatory work in setting and policing standards, for public benefit and
consumer protection. Reform of planning guidance and support of accreditation requirements
could help the institutes fulfil their responsibilities. For a sector like this to self-regulate to
best effect government must use its influence through the work of its agencies and through
the planning system.
Q7. Whether there is an adequate supply of professionals with conservation

skills; the priority placed by planning authorities on conservation; and the means
of making conservation expertise more accessible to planning officers, councillors
and the general public
Rather than address just conservation skills, we suggest that the committee consider skills
needs across the historic environment sector.
The IFA believes that local authorities are badly under-resourced in terms of conservation
officers and archaeologists. To deliver HPR the sector will need to look at a range of solutions
(not just improved investment, which is essential), including pooling or sharing of expertise
between authorities.
We have already remarked on the success of HELM in raising awareness in local authorities
and in encouraging the identification of heritage champions.
In archaeology, the IFA in partnership with others is gradually evolving a career structure
for archaeologists. Occupational and functional mapping has allowed the definition of National
Occupational Standards for archaeological practice, and we are in the process of introducing
a vocational qualification. Working with the advice of Creative and Cultural Skills, we are
fostering the development of skills through programmes of secondment—generously funded
by archaeological employers, English Heritage and the HLF—but much more is needed. UK
archaeological skills are the envy of the world: they are frequently exported, and students
from around the globe come to study at our universities. Yet they are little respected here.
It is no easy task, but by linking roles, skills, training and qualifications to professional
recognition and remuneration we hope to overcome not only the appalling problems of low
pay in the profession (cogently described in the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group's
report), but also the effect that poor pay and slow career progression have on our ability to
recruit a diverse workforce. Once again, we need help to ensure that professionalism is
recognised and required so that there are real incentives for all archaeologists to adopt
professional and ethical standards—for the benefit the discipline, its practitioners and the
public we serve.
64
Memorandum submitted by the Council for British Archaeology
The Council for British Archaeology is an educational charity working

throughout the UK to involve people in archaeology and to promote
appreciation and care of the historic environment for the benefit of present and
future generations. We have a statutory role as one of the national amenity
societies consulted on listed building proposals.
CBA has a membership of 620 heritage organisations and c10,000 directly subscribing
individuals of all ages. Our institutional members represent national, regional and local bodies
encompassing state, local government, professional, academic, museum and voluntary
sectors. We work with a network of CBA Groups at the regional level in England, and with
their national counterparts in Scotland and Wales, CBA Cymru and the Council for Scottish
Archaeology. Our role as a statutory consultee is supported by a network of c 120 expert
volunteers who visit and advise on local proposals that include demolition of listed buildings.
The Select Committee's inquiry into the heritage is both timely and wide-ranging. In this
submission we focus on the CBA's core mission to involve people in archaeology and by this
means to promote appreciation and care of the historic environment. There are a number of
other important issues for the archaeological community and the heritage sector in general,
which are covered in the evidence presented to the Committee by the Archaeology Forum, by
Heritage Link and by the Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies. CBA has also
contributed to their submissions.
What the DCMS should identify as priorities in the forthcoming Heritage White
Paper
1. We welcome the opportunity that the Heritage Protection Review presents for reform of
the existing statutory framework for designation; the unification of consent regimes; the
introduction of Heritage Partnership Agreements; and enhanced local delivery of heritage
services provided by local government. Much-needed revision of related planning policy
guidance will also be welcome in the context of the modernised planning system and
reorientation of other aspects of public policy to bring about more sustainable communities.
CBA has consistently advocated an holistic approach to understanding and protecting the
historic environment, based on involvement and action by people at the local level, and
believes that both the integrated approach and the enhancement of local delivery being
promoted by English Heritage and DCMS are timely and important.
2. As a body with UK-wide remit, CBA notes with concern that there has been little
indication of how these reforms will be implemented in Wales. Here the arrangements for
delivering heritage services are significantly different. It appears that no model has yet been
developed for implementing HPR in Wales and the heritage sector in Wales remains largely
uninformed about the aims of these reforms. It has not benefited from a shared dialogue
through seminars and workshops like those organised by DCMS in England as part of the HPR
process; no assessment of existing capacity or pilot studies are taking place in Wales in
parallel with those for England. CBA hopes that the White Paper will address.
• A framework for implementation of HPR in Wales to ensure that Welsh and English
systems for protecting and managing change in the historic environment are congruent and
consistent across national borders (particularly in terms of local delivery and integration with
the planning system) and also to accommodate the different mechanisms for providing
heritage services that have evolved in Wales.
3. It is clear that the implementation of these fundamental reforms in heritage protection

will require substantial resources for delivery, as the initial pilot projects are showing, but
there is confidence that they should ultimately bring about a more effective approach to
65
managing change in the historic environment at national and local level. The challenge will be
to secure the resources that are needed to implement the proposed reforms. The CBA
identifies the following issues as ones that we believe should be a priority for DCMS in
formulating the White Paper.
4. Resourcing for local authorities

The enhancement of local delivery for heritage protection is the most effective means by
which to ensure that changes in the historic environment are managed so that local people
can be involved actively in protecting and caring for heritage assets. Our belief in this is
supported by the experience of our local volunteers, agents and regional CBA groups; and by
recent research bringing together the experience of those working in community projects,
such as the Castleford Conference—Whose Heritage is it Anyway?— in 2005.
5. If local authorities are to become the principal means of delivering a more locally
responsive, integrated system of managing change for the historic environment, then they
will need to increase their capacity and levels of skill. The initial HPR pilot work and recent
surveys of local authority services for the historic environment in England (for conservation,
for archaeology services and for Historic Environment Records) show that some local
authorities do not have appropriately skilled staff or access to relevant specialist expertise
and information. Where it exists, it is often spread too thinly to be effective. Provision is
variable between authorities and there are few standards in place for benchmarking
performance. English Heritage with DCMS and ODPM are jointly undertaking research to
address the resource implications of HPR for local services in England. There is likely to be a
need for a significant level of new investment, but a realistically achievable one. For example,
an assessment of the resources required to bring all existing Historic Environment Records in
England (c100) to a common level of basic provision was estimated in 2004 at up to £7
million.
6. We would like to see positive provision in the White Paper to respond to the findings of
the research into enhancing local delivery including:
• a duty for local authorities to provide historic environment conservation services with
appropriately skilled staff to an agreed service standard;
• a duty for local authorities to have access to an Historic Environment Record meeting
a national standard;
• recognition of the resource investment required to deliver the modernisation of local

heritage management services and commitment to securing this.
7. Reform of the Class Consent regime is also expected to form part of the White Paper
proposals. The national Monuments at Risk Survey (1998) highlighted the impacts that
agricultural activity continues to have on archaeological sites. An English Heritage pilot
exercise in 2004 in the South West, which contains over a third of all scheduled monuments
in England, showed that nearly a quarter of all scheduled monuments were at high risk. The
main risk of damage is from ploughing.
8. We recommend that the White Paper include:
• — Provision to reform the Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order, and early
action to remove the Class I consent and to replace it with a requirement for formal consent
to be sought to continue agricultural, horticultural, and forestry works that affect land
designated as nationally important archaeological sites.
The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English Heritage and other relevant organisations in
representing heritage interests inside and outside Government
66
9. Historic environment interests cut across several Government Departments and it

continues to be a challenge to achieve collaboration and cross-connection between strategic
policies and programmes. English Heritage, with the support of DCMS, has made significant
progress in working actively with key Departments and their agencies in recent years. The
success of joint initiatives and collaboration with DEFRA is exemplified in the results of last
year's Heritage Counts showing the very important contribution that Environmental
Stewardship and other agri-environment schemes delivered through DEFRA are making to the
protection and effective management of change in the rural environment. However, it is
disappointing to see publication of key strategies from Government agencies that still do not
recognise the heritage dimension—for example, the Environment Agency's recent strategy for
protection of the marine environment, in which there is no reference to protection of the
marine historic environment.
10. As the drafting of Marine Bill goes forward in 2006 on the heels of the White Paper for
heritage protection CBA would like to see
• — effective collaboration between DCMS, DEFRA and other relevant Departments to

ensure that protection of underwater cultural heritage is appropriately covered in the Marine
Bill in new statutory provisions and a marine spatial planning framework.
• — DCMS support for aims of the Burlington House Declaration and in championing
the adoption of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage.
11. Since the creation of Heritage Link, independent heritage bodies have been able to
coordinate their action through a single umbrella organisation. The voluntary sector in the
heritage is a significant and large community whose engagement is fundamental to delivering
Government's programme for sustainable communities, but its interests are not adequately
represented by DCMS or by English Heritage.
• — CBA would like to see the resources and skills needed by communities and local
amenity groups being championed at the national level and for Heritage Link to receive, not
only a place at the table, but the resources it requires to be effective on behalf of
independent heritage organisations.
The balance between heritage and development need in planning policy
12. Positive progress is being made in getting across the message that managing change in
the historic environment need not be an area of conflict with development. English Heritage's
advocacy through its "constructive conservation" campaign is having an impact. One of the
areas where there has been, however, a disappointing failure to recognise the value and
potential of heritage has been in the Government's housing market renewal Pathfinder
projects. We continue to be very concerned at the way in which traditional terraced housing
in the north of England, valued by local communities and capable of sustainable re-use, are
being condemned for large-scale demolition. Some of these programmes have not addressed
the views of local people properly or taken a balanced view of the alternatives to demolition
and new building in the context of sustainable development and communities. The ODPM's
Housing, Planning Local Government and Regions Committee looked at these issues last year
(Empty Homes and Low-demand Pathfinders, April 2005) and found that Pathfinders need to
consult better with local communities and to include refurbishment of existing housing so that
the heritage of the areas is preserved and forms the basis for regeneration.
13. A new Planning Policy Statement for the historic environment, to replace PPG15 and 16
is a priority, although there is currently no timetable for introducing this. The redrafting of
guidance will be an important opportunity to emphasise the social and economic benefits of
managing change to enhance the heritage and to strengthen the existing guidance in a
number of areas.
67
• — The new PPS should reinforce the message that the key to unlocking the potential
of the historic environment as an asset in regeneration schemes is an understanding of the
existing historic character of an area together with the local community's aspirations.
14. PPG16 has been highly successful in establishing the principle that development in
archaeologically sensitive places must be properly informed by impact assessment and
evaluation as part of the design process; and that the costs of this necessary preparation
should properly form part of the responsibility of those wishing to make changes that have an
archaeological impact. As a consequence, the balance of funding for archaeological work has
moved from a situation where there was almost entirely public funding pre-PPG 16 (1990) to
one where the private sector is now the principal funder of archaeological work in England.
• — The new PPS should be robust in extending the principle of pre-application impact
assessment to the historic built environment as a whole, particularly to ensure that the
precautionary principle currently applied to development affecting archaeological sites also
applies to proposed changes in the historic built environment.
Access to heritage and the position of heritage as a cultural asset
15. CBA works to promote the full public benefit of archaeological work and historic
research, with positive action to enable people to take part in local discoveries and to learn,
enjoy and gain understanding about the history of their communities. Archaeological
investigation and research is done in the name of the public interest in our diverse cultural
heritage and can only be justified if public benefits flow from it. This aspect is not covered by
the existing planning guidance and its absence has been a barrier to achieving private sector
support for publicising and promoting public involvement in archaeology, despite the huge
appetite for it demonstrated in television and media coverage of archaeology.
• — We recommend that the new PPS should include guidance on the importance of
communicating the results of discoveries about local heritage and of promoting and
increasing local involvement with the process of discovery. It should emphasise the important
public benefits and positive outcomes of constructive partnership between heritage
conservation and development.
16. More widely the sector has much to do to extend and diversify participation. The
preliminary results of the DCMS "Taking Part" survey provide good indications of the high
level of active public interest in heritage activities; it also shows that some groups in society
are excluded from taking part. We need better understanding of the barriers to participation
and of the success factors in projects and programmes that have worked well to extended
participation. The CBA's National Archaeology Days—since 2005, National Archaeology
Week—have seen steady growth over the recent years, with last year over 300 events and
participation by over 100,000 individuals. The CBA's network of Young Archaeologist Clubs,
with over 3,000 members, continues to grow rapidly across the UK. We recognise ourselves
the need to diversify and extend participation in both these areas. It is only by working at the
grass roots level we can achieve the fundamental changes in access to archaeology that we
seek.
17. Breaking down barriers will come gradually and it will take sustained investment of
effort and resources to create exciting opportunities to stimulate a new generation of
participation. While we look to DCMS and English Heritage for support in this, the sector now
relies almost entirely on the Heritage Lottery Fund and other Lottery Fund distributors. In this
respect, the work of the HLF has made an outstanding contribution to the heritage in general
with c£3 billion invested since 1995. Overall HLF estimates that it has funded about 330
archaeological projects totalling £115 million, a large proportion of which went to a relatively
small number of major projects. Major beneficiaries have been national projects such as the
Portable Antiquities Scheme (supported through the CBA's Portable Antiquities Working
Group) which has drawn thousands of members of the public into reporting and learning
68
about their discoveries. Another important area that has benefited is the enhancement of
local authority Historic Environment Records. However, it is through the small-scale projects,
funded through the Local Heritage Initiative (LHI), Young Roots and Your Heritage
programmes that many valuable local and community archaeological projects have been
supported.
18. CBA is concerned about the closure of the LHI programme this year and the current
uncertainty about the future of Lottery Funding for heritage good causes. Though there has
been an excellent start in developing community archaeology projects through LHI and Your
Heritage, contributing to the gradual widening of access that CBA advocates, the concern is
that this will now fall away. Archaeology has benefited from a fraction of HLF's overall
investment in heritage—less than 0.05% of the total money disbursed for heritage good
causes. Some would argue it has seen less than its fair share of investment, which is
surprising given that it is the ideal subject to draw in new participation and enthusiasm for
the heritage and a bridge discipline that can lead into many other areas of citizenship and
learning. Opportunities to be involved in archaeology are appealing to people and provide a
route to appreciating the wider historic environment and local heritage, and ultimately for
building capacity for community-led heritage initiatives and decision-making. The limitations
of the voluntary sector's capacity have been a factor in the limited take up of the HLF's offer
of support.
• Public appetite for taking part in and enjoying archaeological discovery continues to
be keen; it offers a route to a broad-based community participation in the heritage. CBA
believes the recent modest investment in community archaeology through HLF needs to grow
substantially to bring the full social and educational benefits that can flow from this area of
keen public interest.
• There is limited capacity in the voluntary sector in archaeology to develop the

projects and programmes that HLF could fund, and we need investment in a programme of
facilitation and training to enable local groups to make their ideas for projects into a reality.
19. Archaeology and education:
CBA champions the important role of archaeology as a subject in education and as a

resource for lifelong learning. We support moves to promote learning outside the classroom
and an understanding of the whole historic environment as part of this: the built and the
"natural", contemporary and historic. Securing the interest and enjoyment of young people is
one of the best ways in which we can ensure the protection and appreciation of the historic
environment in the future. We note with concern the gradual decline of provision for
archaeology and heritage courses in continuing education which has traditionally supported
the strong voluntary sector in the heritage.
• Government needs to support subject communities like archaeology in training for

new and practising teachers in how to use the whole historic environment as a resource and
to promote learning outside the classroom.
• We need recognition of the special needs of continuing education within the funding
frameworks for higher education and support for funding courses that contribute towards
active communities and quality of life.
Funding, with particular reference to the adequacy of the budget for English Heritage and
museums and galleries, the impact of 2012 Olympics on Lottery funding and the future share
from Lottery sources between good causes
20. Funding for English Heritage has declined year-on-year in real terms over the last five
years, while the proportion of DCMS funding going to other areas of its responsibility has
risen steadily. At the same time partners with whom English Heritage is working under other
69
Departments have seen significant rises in their budgets, eg Countryside Agency and English
Nature. Our perception is that the harder the heritage sector tries to work to deliver the
Government's agenda (and English Heritage has successfully addressed the Quinquennial
Review's criticisms of its operation) the more resources are withdrawn from its work. The
restructuring of English Heritage, HPR and now relocation, have tended to deflect energies
significantly from its core conservation and research work into necessary strategic activities; a
period of stability is badly needed for consolidation and to deliver HPR, the objectives of its
new corporate plan and the new strategic research programmes currently under consultation.
21. The impact of English Heritage's consistently diminishing resources on archaeological

research and development has been noticeable, though to some extent masked by the
Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF), which is distributed through English Heritage.
Heritage Lottery Funding in archaeology has been primarily directed at encouraging access
and education but has not been invested in the research-led fieldwork necessary to advance
knowledge in some areas of the discipline. Strategic and capacity building work in
professional archaeology falls outside the terms of reference of both of those sources of
funding (ALSF and HLF) and does not attract finance through the private sector. There are
therefore key areas of archaeological research and development for which English Heritage
continues to provide the principal support.
22. Intense pressure is consequently being placed on English Heritage's Historic

Environment Enabling Programme and National Capacity Building Programmes from all parts
of the sector, not least in response to modernisation in other areas of public sector. Local
authorities, for example, have been given attractive financial incentives to deliver online
planning to Government targets, but the impact of this on the ability of the heritage sector to
respond and engage with community-led planning are only just being considered. The costs
of equipping the heritage sector with the capacity to respond to modernisation of the
planning system are being met not by ODPM or by local authorities but from the charitable
funds of amenity societies and from English Heritage's steadily declining resources for grants.
23. ALSF and HLF sources of funding for archaeology and for the heritage in general are
coming under 10-year review and are potentially vulnerable in the future, particularly given
the switch of focus that is expected in preparation for the Olympics in 2012. CBA is most
concerned about the possible long-term consequences for archaeology in England should the
decline in English Heritage's grant-in-aid continue, particularly in view of the additional
resource that the organisation needs to deliver the reforms of Heritage Protection Review.
• Resources for capacity building and training in the professional and the voluntary
sector are a priority for maintaining standards in research and practice. English Heritage is
the main funder of these. We would like to see its overall grant expenditure restored in real
terms to 2000-01 levels through a corresponding increase in its funding from DCMS.
• Archaeology has received only a modest share of the HLF's distribution of lottery
funds (0.05%) and it is essential to maintain this level of funding—which complements that
from developer-led and English Heritage projects—for the continuing development of
community archaeology, Historic Environment Records and new local heritage research
projects.
• The Cultural Oympiad, ahead of the Olympic Games themselves and starting in 2008,
is a unique opportunity for Britain to showcase its cultural heritage and we look to DCMS to
secure an appropriate level of new resource for the growth and infrastructure that will be
essential to support a world-class programme of events and opportunities for visitors to
appreciate UK's cultural heritage.
• It is imperative that the HLF retain its share of funding, and its separate identity, to
support the cultural heritage sector through the Cultural Olympiad period in the run up to the
Games.
70
What roles and responsibilities should be for English Heritage, the HLF, local authorities
museums and galleries, charitable and other non-Governmental organisations in maintaining
the nation's heritage
24. To summarise points made in the sections above, the CBA believes that English
Heritage has successfully restructured to respond to the Quinquennial Review findings and
that a period of stability for delivery of its new strategic vision and successful relocation is
essential. Its role in relation to the HLF was recently reconsidered and we see no reason to
suggest the need for a further review. We consider it imperative that the HLF retain its
separate identity and existing share of the Lottery Fund for heritage good causes. It has a
very successful track record and has transformed the public perception of heritage and the
potential of others to make a real contribution to enhancing, educating and participation
through archaeology. Local authorities clearly have a more important role than ever in local
service delivery for heritage protection reform (as above in 3.—5.).
25. We believe that the voluntary sector and non-Governmental organisations have a key
role to play in complementing the work of all these organisations; but that it is unrealistic to
implement modernisation in public policy based on community-led (ie voluntary and amenity
group) decision-making and participation, without assistance for the voluntary and
community sector to build the capacity and skills needed to engage with a modernised
planning and heritage management system. Heritage Link's recently published research Why
Consultation Matters provides the evidence that local amenity groups can and do have a role
in influencing the protection and enhancement of their local heritage but there are some
serious barriers to engagement.
• There is an important role for non-governmental and voluntary bodies to articulate

the views and needs of communities wishing to enhance and protect their local heritage.
• Communities and individuals want to take part in shaping local decisions about the
historic environment but need access to the right information, understanding and skills. The
sector has the policies but has not yet developed the right programmes to break down
barriers to engagement.
Whether there is an adequate supply of professionals with conservation skills; the priority
more accessible to planning officers, councillors and the general public
26. This question applies equally to skills for archaeology and for public outreach and
engagement. The overview of heritage sector skills carried out on behalf of Heritage Link in
2005 highlighted skills gaps and skills deficits that have been identified in recent studies
across the sector. Surveys of local authority conservation staff and archaeological service
staff reflect this picture in detail; shortages of skilled professionals exist as well as skills
deficits in new areas such as those required for delivering the sustainable communities
programme—public engagement, consultation, facilitation and communication. The demands
of new local heritage service delivery under the HPR proposals will make current shortages of
skilled personnel more acute. While the Archaeology Training Forum and English Heritage
have put in place a number of measures to begin to address these issues, in conjunction with
the relevant Sector Skills Councils, engagement from the recently formed Creative & Cultural
Skills is coming only slowly.
27. In archaeology, a combination of low pay and limited opportunities for career
progression restricts recruitment and results in low retention of trained practitioners. We
need support for the implementation of a vocational qualification for practice, being
developed through the Institute of Field Archaeologists, and for a graduate entry-level
training or apprenticeship scheme to provide a route for career progression and to maintain a
standard for professional practice. Equally important, as emphasised above, is skills
development for those who want to participate on a voluntary basis.
71
• Local delivery of heritage services as part of heritage protection reform will require
an increase in skilled workforce and capacity building both in local authorities and in local
amenity and community groups. The sector needs positive action from Creative & Cultural
Skills to bring together leaders in the conservation sector and to agree an action plan for
skills and qualification development.
Memorandum submitted by Prospect
INTRODUCTION
1. Prospect is a Trade Union, affiliated to the Trades Union Congress, representing more
than 100,000 members. 5,000 of these members work in what we regard to be the Heritage
Sector. Members are employed in specialist and professional jobs such as Curators,
Conservators, Archaeologists, Archivists, Designers, Photographers and Scientists. They are
employed across the United Kingdom in the National Museums and Galleries, other Non
Departmental Public Bodies such as English Heritage, the British Library, the Museums,
Libraries and Archives Council and Historic Scotland, the National Trust and Independent
Museums and Galleries. The Prospect Heritage group co-ordinates the views of our members
in the Sector and this evidence is provided by that group.
PRIORITIES FOR FORTHCOMING HERITAGE WHITE PAPER
2. Prospect is aware of the work that has been carried out between English Heritage, DCMS
and ODPM on the Heritage Protection Review. Pilot projects and case studies are being
concluded and it is likely that proposals to radically reform the statutory protection, regulation
and management of the historic environment will be forthcoming. Prospect would seek to
ensure that any radical reform did not destroy the many strengths of the current system but
instead built upon them. We also believe that proposals for implementing Heritage Protection
Reform by enhancing local delivery will almost certainly have significant resource implications
for Local Authorities and it is crucial that any such proposals in the White Paper are backed
by the necessary funding.
REMIT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF DCMS, ENGLISH HERITAGE AND OTHER

RELEVANT ORGANISATIONS IN REPRESENTING HERITAGE INTERESTS INSIDE
AND OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT
3. It is undeniable that DCMS has had many successes, one of the most notable being the
reintroduction of free admission to National Museums and Galleries. Nevertheless the DCMS
suffers from being a very small Department which distributes the large majority of its funds
to NDPB's. The Department appears to find it hard to convince the Treasury that the work
carried out by the NDPB's it sponsors is important and only ever appears to receive increases
in line with inflation. The Sector is indeed still suffering from real terms cuts in funding
throughout the 1990s which have never been made good. If it distributes extra money to one
sector in one year the other sectors have to take a real cut. One recent Minister, openly
admitted that the DCMS would not be able to secure adequate funding when there were so
many other priorities such as health, education, transport etc. We believe that it is important
that the Department continually makes the case for additional real funding for Heritage
particularly as the NDPBs are being asked to do, and indeed are doing more to meet the
Government's agenda in relation to education, social inclusion and access etc. The run up to
the Olympic games in 2012 presents both an opportunity and a threat in this respect. The
72
opportunity is to emphasise and recognise the importance of heritage, as the bid did. The
threat is that the focus of the Government will shift towards Sport leaving Heritage in its
wake.
THE BALANCE BETWEEN HERITAGE AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS IN PLANNING

POLICY
4. Prospect believes that including heritage in the planning system has produced much
information that would have been lost but we believe that competitive tendering for
archaeological investigation is the unacceptable face of this process. It has driven the cost of
projects down to the point that it is depressing wages (notably for the lowest paid digging
staff) and reducing the quality of excavation and recording. Competition has also encouraged
units to carry out work in places far beyond their locality, often resulting in redundancies in
archaeological units which have been unsuccessful in bids. Redundancy will often lead to
skilled archaeologists leaving the profession as they do not want to be continually fearful of
redundancy. Consequently skills are being lost and low pay is narrowing access to the
profession. Other side effects of this competitive tendering include more traffic, fuel
consumption and stress for staff as archaeological units chase work around the country.
5. Prospect believes that developer funding has also led to a decline in participation in
fieldwork by the general public not least by local societies. This and the inaccessibility of
much of the results to the public has the potential to reduce public support for archaeology.
We support greater provision for outreach which has suffered due to the lack of funds
associated with the planning process.
6. Prospect is concerned that there is far less publication of the results of fieldwork than
before. Much of the information goes no further than the "grey literature" reports held by
local authorities. As museums are underfunded they are often unable to receive material from
archaeological interventions and it remains in storage with the contractor. Until the material is
deposited, it is not available to the public and information about heritage is not being
disseminated. The fact that archaeological units now work all over the country means that
there is a fragmentation and loss of local knowledge with archaeologists not knowing what
has been found in their area. We believe that a publication levy on developments should be
introduced in order to improve the level of publication.
7. Prospect suggests that a regional franchise system should be introduced to reduce the
unhealthy competition described in this section. At the very least, there should be a
preference for local units within the tendering system.
8. Prospect considers that in the light of any proposed Heritage Protection Reforms English
Heritage should retain a monitoring role given its expertise and wider perspective on the
position of heritage features. The role of English Heritage is likely to be enhanced, in fact,
and as such it will be important to ensure that its expanded role is fully funded.
ACCESS TO HERITAGE AND THE POSITION OF HERITAGE AS A CULTURAL ASSET

IN THE COMMUNITY
9. As indicated above Prospect would like to see the Government make a more sustained
case for heritage to be seen as a cultural asset and as a fundamental part of the bedrock of
society. Too often it is seen as a luxury. In order to fulfil this role as a cultural asset heritage
needs to be properly funded and the people who work within it need to be paid properly for
their contribution (see later.) Furthermore improving access to heritage requires a greater
commitment from Government and the heritage employing bodies to improve the diversity of
the current workforce. Currently black and minority ethnic groups are woefully
underrepresented in the Sector. David Lammy's speech at the British Museum in October
2005 was an important step forward in this area.
73
FUNDING, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE BUDGET

FOR ENGLISH HERITAGE AND FOR MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES, THE IMPACT OF
THE LONDON 2012 OLYMPICS ON LOTTERY FUNDING FOR HERITAGE PROJECTS,
AND FORTHCOMING DECISIONS ON THE SHARING OF FUNDS FROM LOTTERY
SOURCES BETWEEN GOOD CAUSES
10. As indicated above successive Governments have been underfunding heritage for many
years. The previous Conservative Government cut heritage funding in real terms over several
years at a time when it was asking them to produce more, The current Government then
continued with the previous Government's spending plans for the first two years it was in
power. Since then funding increases have been broadly in line with inflation. Where additional
funding has been gained it has been for specific issues such as the reintroduction of free
admission to national museums and Galleries. Some NDPB's have received additional funds
but this has tended to be for specific projects or for building repair. Where they have been
successful other NDPB's have suffered. NDPB's have also been asked to sign up to Public
service Agreements which place additional burdens on them but without additional resource
been provided. Furthermore many National Museums and Galleries have complained that
they have not received adequate compensation for the extra costs associated with the
increase in visitors since the reintroduction of free admission.
11. Several NDPB's have created new posts to meet the extra demands in relation to
access, learning and development but the consequence has been that Curatorial and
Conservation posts have been left unfilled. Posts which are crucial to the statutory duty of
museums and galleries to collect and care for the Collections and to exercise scholarship are
often left unfilled or deleted and in the worst cases staff are made redundant. The worst
example of this was probably the British Museum in 2000 when as a result of the building of
the Great Court and the necessary employment of more customer facing staff as a
consequence, more than 100 posts were made redundant. Some of these were the experts in
their field and that expertise has been lost on a permanent basis. More recently, but as a
typical example, the National Museums Liverpool has left a curatorial post looking after the
Egyptology Collection vacant for years and is only now in the process of filling it. One senior
conservation post in metals has been vacant for three years (a 50% reduction in staffing) and
a number of other conservation posts are vacant in the same organisation.
12. There is no doubt that there is growing pressure on funding and this is impacting on
staff in relation to jobs and pay in all of the NDPB's. Restructuring is now regular and ongoing
with concerns about the loss of expertise and professionalism. A recent restructuring exercise
at Tate has resulted in the loss of some senior and expert staff. In many Museums the low
rates of pay, which are a consequence of the squeeze on funds and the extra demands, are
resulting in high rates of turnover in even the specialist grades. Staff with postgraduate
qualifications in grades such as Museums Assistant are joining the British Museum on a salary
of £14,000 in London and are staying for a few years and then leaving because of the low
rates of pay. Where NDPB's want to address pay problems they can only do so by worsening
pay rates for other groups of staff which just transfers the problem from one group of staff to
another. This high turnover together with the retirement and redundancy of experts is in
danger of creating a demographic timebomb in terms of succession planning. This concern
was recognised by the previous Minister of State but it is important that action is taken to
improve pay rates in the NDPB's. These are now substantially lower than pay for jobs of
equivalent weight in the Civil Service compared to 1996 when pay delegation was introduced
and the Civil Service link was removed.
13. As an example of the funding problem English Heritage has calculated that, based on
its 2000-01 position it now has a real terms shortfall of £9.7 million in grant-in-aid. Given that
grant-in-aid is now £125.28 million this represents a shortfall of 7.75%. English Heritage has
only been able to meet most of its PSA targets by "efficiencies"" which have resulted in
significant job loss. Many of the staff who have left on redundancy or on retirement (without
replacement) were involved in giving relevant case specific advice and advice to inform
74
policy. It is vital that policy has a practical knowledge-based foundation and it is of concern
that this expertise is being lost at a time when it appears that it will be required more than
ever. It should also be noted that the tight financial situation English Heritage has faced has
resulted in pay restrictions which have severely limited progression through pay ranges. This
is not likely to retain existing expertise or encourage development of it. It is crucial, in our
view, that if the White Paper proposes major reforms there is clear evidence that English
Heritage will have the financial and staffing resources necessary for it to undertake its new
role.
14. As indicated above we believe that it is important that heritage continues to benefit
from Lottery funding in the run-up to the 2012 Olympics.
WHETHER THERE IS AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PROFESSIONALS WITH

CONSERVATION SKILLS; THE PRIORITY PLACED BY PLANNING AUTHORITIES ON
CONSERVATION; AND MEANS OF MAKING CONSERVATION EXPERTISE MORE
ACCESSIBLE
15. It does appear that there is a problem in relation to the supply of archaeological and
conservation professionals in local government. The development of such expertise
demands an improvement in pay and conditions to encourage young conservators and
archaeologists to join the profession, stay in it and build up expertise. Prospect is
working with the Institute of Field Archaeologists and the Standing Conference of
Archaeological Unit managers to establish minimum standard terms of conditions of
employment. This could prevent the undercutting of pay rates which takes place
through competitive tendering.
75
Memorandum submitted by RESCUE—The

British Archaeological Trust
INTRODUCTION
RESCUE—The British Archaeological Trust was founded in 1972 in response to the building
boom of the later 1960s and early 1970s and the enormous losses sustained by the nation's
heritage as a result. RESCUE campaigns locally and nationally for the interests of
archaeology, seeing the subject as lying at the heart of our nation's cultural life. The recent
successful resolution of the issue of ongoing damage to the site of the Roman town of
Verulamium through ploughing followed 16 years of campaigning on the issue and is an
example of the type of work that we undertake. We are active in supporting local and
community groups in protecting archaeological sites and landscapes. Examples include our
support for the Dartmoor Preservation Association in their campaign to save the Blackbrook
Valley and Crownhill Down from open cast mining. We are also active in opposing the plans
to extend gravel quarrying in the vicinity of the Thornborough henges in North Yorkshire and
regularly highlight threats to sites and landscapes in our publication RESCUE NEWS. We are
also active in calling for far better funding for local and regional museums, seeing these
institutions as of fundamental importance to the care and curation of the archives resulting
from the activities of the commercial archaeology sector undertaken as part of the PPG
15/PPG 16 regime.
We respond regularly to discussion documents issued by the DCMS, English Heritage, CADW
and Historic Scotland and have recently produced substantial responses to Power of Place,
Force for our Future,
Understanding the Future: Museums and 21st century life and Tessa Jowell's recent essay
Better places to live.
RESCUE is entirely funded by the contributions of members who are drawn widely from
amongst the profession, the voluntary sector and the interested public. We publish RESCUE
NEWS three times a year and distribute this to our members and, free of charge, to a variety
of institutions and individuals concerned with the historic environment in general and
archaeology in particular. We hold a half-day public meeting in March each year during which
a theme of relevance to the heritage sector is discussed by invited speakers with different
angles on the issue.
We have published a number of practical handbooks which are widely used within
archaeology. In co-operation with the Institute of Conservation Archaeology Group (ICON-
AG) we have published First Aid for Finds, a handbook for the on-site conservation and
handling of archaeological finds. This is widely used in the UK and has been translated into
Greek, Japanese and, most recently, Georgian (the latter in association with David Connolly
of the British Archaeological Jobs Resource).
We are an active member of both The Archaeology Forum and Heritage Link but retain our
own individual character, seeing the considerable diversity within the heritage sector as an
indication of its strength and wide significance within British society.
RESPONSE AND EVIDENCE
RESCUE is pleased to be able to offer the following comments on the issues raised in the
call for contributions to the work of the Committee. We will be happy to elaborate on any or
all of the issues at a later date, should the Committee feel that this would be helpful and we
are more than willing to supply the Committee with copies of our responses to recent
Government discussion documents (as referenced in the text).
76
Question 1: What should the Department for Culture, Media and Sport identify as
priorities in the forthcoming Heritage White Paper
• — Sites and Monuments Records/Historic Environment Records (SMR/HER) should

be placed upon a statutory footing as soon as possible.
This move has been suggested by numerous bodies concerned with the historic
environment (including RESCUE) on every available occasion since the publication of Power of
Place (English Heritage 2000) and the Government's response, The Historic Environment: A
force for our future (DCMS 2001). We regret that there has, to date, been no sign of this
measure being implemented. RESCUE believes that a statutory requirement for every local
authority to maintain an SMR or HER is essential in order to give every planning authority
access to fully independent local and regional expertise in the historic environment field and
also to ensure that the public interest is served through the maintenance of high quality
resources available impartially to all.
• — The non-statutory planning guidance notes PPG 15 and PPG 16 should be

strengthened and placed on a statutory footing as soon as possible.
This move has been repeatedly urged by those concerned with the future of the historic
environment. While a revision of PPG 15 appears to be in progress, that of PPG 16, which is
concerned specifically the buried archaeology, has yet to be addressed. This delay has
already led to serious losses as re-development in towns and cities is proceeding rapidly,
often at the expense of unique archaeological sites, rural landscapes and townscapes.
• — Reform of the system of Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) class consents.
The current system of class consents allows the continuation of wholly unsuitable activities
on the sites of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, notably ploughing. RESCUE looks for reform of
this situation and the provision of powers for English Heritage to insist on the cessation of
unsuitable forms of land use or management which threaten these uniquely valuable sites.
• — A change to the funding of local and regional museums which will either place on
local authorities a statutory obligation for their effective funding, staffing and maintenance or
will remove them from local authority funding entirely and ensure their effective direct
funding from increased DCMS resources.
We have highlighted our many concerns about the ongoing decline of the local and regional
museum sector in our recent response to the DCMS document Understanding the future:
Museums and 21st century life (RESCUE 2005) and must restate our profound concerns here.
The vulnerability of museums to cost cutting exercises which affect staff numbers, staff
training, the quality of staff and the adequacy of the care and curation available for existing
museum collections are a matter of public record. Throughout the country local and regional
museums have lost staff and have been forced to take decisions which have negative
implications of the future of collections and archives which are of national and international
importance. We would also emphasise the lack of adequate storage space for the new
archives generated by work undertaken under the PPG 16 regime. The direct result of this is
to place in peril the effectiveness of the principle of "preservation by record" which is
fundamental to archaeology as a discipline. It also makes continuing work on collections by
museum staff and visiting scholars difficult or impossible and so may preclude the use of
these collections in contributing to public enjoyment and appreciation of the results of work
carried out under the PPG 16 regime.
• — Support for innovative archaeological and historical research through existing

institutions including museums, SMRs/HERs, university-based archaeological units, and the
larger archaeological Trusts.
77
Research is the life-blood of archaeology. It is a research-based discipline which depends

upon the research process in order to develop and deploy new approaches to the material
remains of past human lives and actions which lead to new interpretations of our past and
new ways of presenting the results of our endeavours to the wider public. We are concerned
that the DCMS does not fully appreciate the central place that research plays within
archaeology (or within the historical disciplines generally) and so fails to understand the
tension that exists between aspects of developer-funded archaeology and the research
process. To neglect research is to imperil the development of new approaches to the past
which emphasise context, contingency and the significance of alternative viewpoints. All of
these are essential if we are to move beyond an essentially static notion of the past and of
archaeology as a means of illustrating existing narratives. We look to the Committee to
investigate this aspect of the discipline and the ways in which research can be encouraged
and supported.
Question 2: The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English Heritage and other
relevant organisations in representing heritage interests inside and outside
Government
• — The Department of Culture Media and Sport
With reference to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, RESCUE welcomes the
recent appointment of Mr David Lammy as Minister with specific responsibility for matters
concerning the historic environment. RESCUE is an active supporter of both The Archaeology
Forum and Heritage Link, organisations which are working to increase understanding within
the DCMS of the scale, diversity and significance of the heritage sector generally. In spite of
these positive steps we remain concerned that there appears to be little understanding
amongst ministers, their advisers and civil servants within the Department of the significance
and importance of the diversity which is a characteristic of the heritage sector. We believe
that this is a significant problem for the Department and one which can only partially be
addressed by the sector itself. We would like to see a much greater engagement by the
Department with the heritage sector generally and with those elements which are specifically
archaeological in nature. Ministerial involvement in high-profile exercises in public
archaeology is to be welcomed and we recognise that the Minister cannot himself investigate
individual areas of concern. We would, however, suggest some form of fact-finding activities
which would see civil servants and ministerial advisers engaging in a practical sense with the
day-to-day realities of life in the heritage sector. A low-profile visit to a typical local museum
storage area would, we suggest, be extremely effective in focusing minds within the
Department on the very real and practical problems created by the long-term underfunding of
these mundane but essential facilities.
Civil servants and ministers within the DCMS appear largely ignorant of the essentially
dynamic nature of archaeological and historical research. We are not illustrating established
"stories" about the past but are actively engaged in the writing of diverse and often
competing accounts of the past from the raw data which emerges from research founded
upon the activities of excavation, survey, recording and analysis. It is these activities which
make the study of the past vibrant and dynamic. The apparent ignorance of these aspects
demonstrated by Ms Tessa Jowell's recent essays has been profoundly depressing and steps
should be taken to improve the relationship between the DCMS and the heritage sector (and
particularly the archaeological component) by improving the understanding of archaeology
and its objectives within the Department.
A related issue is the repeated calls from Ms Tessa Jowell and the Department generally for
the heritage sector to engage with the wider community. RESCUE is, and has always been,
deeply concerned with the amateur and voluntary archaeological sector (we were, for
example, responsible for the formation of Young RESCUE in 1972 which became the network
of Young Archaeologists Clubs now ably managed by the Council for British Archaeology).
78
British archaeology has always benefited greatly from the participation of the
amateur/voluntary sector but the extent of this seems to have passed the Department by
entirely (as we outlined in our response to Better places to live). Throughout the country local
and regional bodies (societies, clubs, trusts and other organisations as well as individuals)
regularly undertake original archaeological fieldwork and are supported in this by museum
staff and professional archaeologists, often on a voluntary and unpaid basis. Some
recognition of the value of this work by the DCMS would be much appreciated, as would the
recognition that within professional archaeology there is an existing commitment to working
with amateur/voluntary groups which is unmatched in any other area of cultural or social
scientific endeavour. RESCUE challenges the Committee to find anything comparable to the
network of local archaeological societies in, for example, sociology or anthropology. Only in
the fields of ornithology and natural history can comparable levels of amateur/voluntary input
be found but this state of affairs is simply unrepresented within recent statements emerging
from the Department. We shall return to this point in connection with the future of Lottery
funding for the heritage sector as this has been of great value and appears to be threatened
by the sports lobby and particularly the looming threat of the levels of funding required for
the staging of the Olympic Games in 2012.
• — English Heritage
RESCUE supports the principal of a strong, state funded body responsible for the care,
management and investigation of the historic environment and believes that English Heritage
is the body best suited to this task.
We believe that English Heritage requires a period of organisational stability in order for the
many changes of the last few years to take effect and for the new ways of working and the
increased remit of the organisation to stabilise. "Constant Revolution" is a discredited policy
which undermines the morale of staff and damages the effectiveness of institutions. RESCUE
is aware, from information supplied confidentially by English Heritage employees, of the
negative effects on morale of staff of the recent rapid and often contradictory changes within
the organisation. Such matters, although difficult to quantify or define in any precise way,
have a profound effect on the effectiveness of any organisation. English Heritage has lost
many effective and experienced members of staff in recent years and there may well be
problems in coming years in persuading new high quality staff to join the organisation. We
believe that now that new organisational structures and a plan for the next five years have
been put in place (English Heritage 2005a, 2005b, 2005c), the organisation must be given
time to stabilise and to implement its new policies. We would hope that, in the next few
years, it will be possible for English Heritage to seek to recruit individuals with recent
research experience from universities and to seek to attract back some of those who have left
to join the commercial sector. Job security and an environment in which excellence in both
the academic and fieldwork areas of endeavour and proven research ability is recognised and
rewarded are essential if the ambitious plans recently outlined are to bear fruit. In order to
do this, we would suggest that the following steps should be taken:
• — The DCMS should support the recently announced five year Research Strategy
and should maintain a "hands-off" policy with regard to the structure and functioning of
English Heritage until the effects of recent changes to the organisation can be fully assessed
and evaluated;
• — Existing budgets must be maintained as a basic minimum and increases which

exceed the rate of inflation should be sought as a matter of urgency in order to allow
expansion in the research and development areas of the organisation. A greater proportion of
the resources available to English Heritage should go directly into the investigation of the
past so that new, innovative and exciting perspectives can be developed and, ultimately,
presented to the public;
79
• — The budget for English Heritage should be guaranteed against the potentially
adverse effects of the Olympic bid and other bids for the hosting of large-scale sporting
events. Work required to deal with the negative impact of such events on the historic
environment should be funded over and above the existing commitments and should be
viewed as an additional burden upon English Heritage, not something to be dealt with out of
existing budgets. A levy on the already amply funded sporting sector (and its related media
industries) should perhaps be considered as a source of funding for these activities.
RESCUE is in the process of completing an assessment of the English Heritage Research

Agenda and the proposals for a UK-wide research strategy. We will be happy to supply copies
of these to the Committee, should they be considered to be of relevance.
Question 3: The balance between heritage and development needs in planning

policy
RESCUE is deeply concerned about the balance between the needs of the development
industry and the historic environment. We are particularly concerned by the fact that the
demands of the former are generally assigned a much higher priority than the latter.
Inevitably, the investigation of any archaeological site or landscape will always involve
compromises in terms of the detail of the fieldwork and post-excavation analyses undertaken,
but RESCUE believes that, at present, the advantage is weighted towards the interests of the
developer and against that of the historic environment and the public benefit which can be
derived from it. As an example of this, we would cite the case of the current controversy
surrounding the proposals to extend gravel quarrying in the immediate vicinity of the
Thornborough Henge complex in North Yorkshire. Although the henges themselves are
Scheduled Ancient Monuments, the area around them enjoys no protection at all, rendering it
susceptible to inappropriate and destructive quarrying which will not only destroy
archaeological evidence pertaining to activities around the henges (which are generally
believed to be the focal point of ritual and communal activities, linked to religious rites) but
will also destroy the unique landscape setting of the henges, something which is essential if
visitors are to appreciate the henges themselves. The area involved is something less than
four square miles in extent and represents only a small fraction of the areas of sand and
gravel suitable for extraction in the wider region. We would argue that in cases such as this
(a relatively small number when considered on a national basis) the interests of the historic
environment should be accorded a higher value than those of commercial development;
Thornborough Henges and their setting are unique while sand and gravel are relatively widely
available resources.
As outlined above, RESCUE has long advocated that Historic Environment Records be placed
upon a statutory footing in order to give additional weight to the limited powers currently
available to development control staff (also known as archaeological curators) within the local
authority planning system. We have also advocated the drafting of strengthened versions of
the existing PPG 15 and PPG 16 guidance notes and the translation of these into law, again
as a matter or urgency. The adoption of these two long overdue measures would go some
way to giving the historic environment parity with the development industry.
In terms of the detail of planning policy, the principle of preservation in situ, (which
underlies PPG 16 as it operates at present) while it is not without its merits, has become a
restraint upon the investigation of archaeological sites threatened by development. It is
widely used as a way of decreasing the financial responsibility of developers towards the
wider society of which they are a part. Excavation should not be limited to the minimum
necessary in any given case but should be adequate to investigate a given site as fully as is
needed in archaeological terms.
RESCUE is also concerned about the implications of the emergence of a class of commercial
archaeological practitioners known as "archaeological consultants". Often operating under the
aegis of larger civil engineering companies, consultants are employed to act for the interests
80
of the development industry, their role being to undermine and limit the conditions attached
to planning permission for specific developments and to constrain the work being carried out
by archaeological contractors. As they are paid directly by the developers, they are clearly not
independent of their employers and they cannot be considered to be in a position of offering
independent or impartial advice. While we recognise that many consultants struggle to find a
balance between the demands of their professional responsibilities towards the historic
environment and their financial responsibility towards their clients, we are deeply concerned
about reports which suggest that, on occasion, a small number of companies find it
advantageous to lean more towards the interests of their clients than towards the wider
public benefit represented by the historic environment. The absence of any effective
professional body within archaeology (comparable to the Law Society or the British Medical
Association) means that there is no method of internal self-regulation and so no effective
recourse for those who have legitimate complaints against archaeological consultants or
contractors.
The wider implications of the role of consultants and the nature of the consultant—client
relationship have attracted some comment in the archaeological literature (eg Cumberpatch
and Blinkhorn 2001), but the powerful influence wielded by consultants (exercised through
their central role in the awarding of contracts for fieldwork and post-excavation work) has
tended to restrict discussion of these issues to the margins of conferences and to informal
gatherings of archaeological practitioners. RESCUE is aware of situations in which the
influence of consultants has been detrimental to the full investigation of archaeological sites.
Concrete examples of such cases are difficult to substantiate because of the unwillingness of
individual archaeological contractors to risk the displeasure of consultancy companies and the
loss of potentially lucrative contracts.
At the more general level, it seems that the fees paid to consultants are included in the
calculations of the sums coming into archaeology under the PPG 16 regime. These are not
translated into tangible archaeological outcomes as the money does not go into the costs of
fieldwork or post-excavation analysis, but rather into the provision of advice at the
managerial level. The outcome of this is that fieldwork and post-excavation work is under-
funded while consultants, who, in the overwhelming majority of cases, make no direct
contribution to the investigation of the archaeological deposits on a given site, take a
disproportionate segment of the total available budget. The expenditure of these sums of
money does not translate directly into the quality of the archaeological outcomes in spite of
the fact that it appears to have been spent on archaeological fieldwork. No figures exist for
the sums thus used, but RESCUE believes them to be high.
RESCUE believes that the strengthening of the powers available to curatorial and
development control archaeologists working within Sites and Monuments Records and/or
Historic Environment records together with the restatement of their position as the only truly
independent monitors of work undertaken under the PPG 16 regime might be a way of
reducing the current undue influence of consultants on the conduct of archaeological
fieldwork. It might, additionally, have the effect of bringing more money into archaeology
through the PPG 16 regime without increasing the liabilities of developers to any degree. We
stress this last point, because we are not arguing for an increased financial burden to be
placed upon developers, but rather for greater efficiency in the use of currently available
resources.
Question 4: Access to heritage and the position of heritage as a cultural asset in

the community
• — The amateur/voluntary sector
Britain has one of the most active and effective amateur/voluntary archaeological sectors in
the world, a result of the unique social conditions which were responsible for the emergence
of archaeology as a discipline in the later 18th and 19th centuries. For many years the
81
voluntary/amateur sector was organised through a network of local societies and field clubs
(often based in local and regional museums), but recent years have seen the diversification of
the sector as a wider range of community groups have taken on heritage-related projects and
the scope of what is considered to be archaeology has broadened and deepened. The recent
availability of funds from a number of Lottery-related institutions (notably the Heritage
Lottery Fund) has allowed a much greater degree of collaborative work between
amateur/voluntary groups and the professional sector. This has given the voluntary/amateur
sector the ability to commission specialist work from professionals to answer questions which
have arisen as a result of their own fieldwork projects. RESCUE welcomes such developments
enthusiastically and sees such collaboration as an enormously positive step in that it connects
the interests of local communities with the skills and abilities of professionals. In our
experience both sides benefit greatly from such collaboration and the net effect is to enhance
the public understanding and enjoyment of the historic environment by improving the levels
of involvement and the quality of the outcomes.
Amateur/voluntary projects not only involve a greater number of individuals in the

excitement and immediacy of archaeological fieldwork and post-excavation analysis, but also
increase wider public access to the historic environment through open days and exhibitions.
Such events are now a regular feature of weekends in many parts of the country and it is
rare that we hear of such an event which attracts less than a thousand visitors over a
weekend, even where there is an admission charge. The following quotation, one of many
which we could present, comes from a volunteer involved in a project near Oldham in
Lancashire:
• We held an open weekend at which over a thousand people attended. It was free
entrance so you can't really compare with a site which charges, but then there was almost no
publicity either. The site is one of the many 16th century and later halls which met its end in
the years immediately prior to the Second World War. It was bulldozed by the predecessor of
the very council which is now so enthusiastic about digging up the remains. The dig
continues next year, under the auspices of a very well organised local history society. There
were almost no small finds but that didn't prevent me from being allocated the job of
presenting such finds as there were to the public on the open weekend. I've never spent so
much time talking about early lemonade bottles!
Other, larger, projects such as Dig Manchester have achieved remarkable results in
increasing community cohesion, reducing local crime rates and engaging a broad cross-
section of the community in investigations of their own past. An excavation at Northenden
Mill in southern Manchester, part of the Dig Manchester initiative, saw a team of seven
professional archaeologists working with a total of 512 adult volunteers and 528 children
from 13 local schools, including a special needs school and teenagers from a local pupil
referral unit (Redhead 2005). Such a ratio of professionals to amateurs surely indicates a
highly effective use of public resources (in this case a grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund)
and amply refutes the charge, made by some, that the professional sector is siphoning off
funds for its own benefit under the guise of public benefit.
Equally importantly from the strictly archaeological point of view, such projects make a real
contribution to our understanding of the historic environment. The collaborative project at
Mellor near Stockport which involves the local Mellor Archaeological Trust, the University of
Manchester Archaeological Unit, Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit and Stockport
Museum attracted 1,410 visitors to an Open Weekend in September 2005. It has also
involved the production of an accessible but scholarly volume consisting of interim reports on
aspects of the project and the wider later prehistoric and Roman periods in the region (Nevell
and Redhead 2005) which has been sold widely to visitors and professionals alike.
This is not the place to try to summarise the country-wide success of recent public-
professional partnerships and initiatives but RESCUE has good reason to believe that the
picture from Manchester is repeated elsewhere and could be extended throughout the
82
country, given the availability of suitable funds. The crucial factor is that the volunteers are
aware that they are participating in genuinely original research while visitors to the site are
seeing the past of their local community revealed before their eyes (and those who visit one
year often become more directly involved in later years). In some cases (such as Mellor) the
opening of a new museum dedicated to the history of Stockport will allow the finds from
earlier years to be displayed while new work continues on the site above the town.
The DCMS seems, belatedly, to be recognising the value of initiatives such as those
described above (and we welcome David Lammy's visit to Shoreditch in the summer of 2005),
but it is clear from the content of Tessa Jowell's essays Government and the value of culture
and Better places to live, that there was, until recently, widespread ignorance of the level of
popular involvement in such projects and the level of public enthusiasm for them within the
Department. Ms Jowell is eloquent in her own enthusiasm for theatre, opera and dance, but
seems unable to appreciate that such events are inaccessible or unattractive to many people
who would rather spend their time in activities which involve the acquisition of new skills and
new knowledge for themselves rather than the passive appreciation of relatively arcane skills
practised by others. Clearly the DCMS has a remit to oversee the whole range of cultural
activities within the country and we are certainly not seeking to detract from the importance
of the provision of a wide variety of cultural pursuits, but we would expect the Department to
accept that while traditional theatrical and artistic events no doubt have wide appeal, they
are not to the taste of all and that active participation in the production of the past is
considered by many to be both more exciting and also more relevant to their own lives and
experiences.
In addition to the examples cited above, RESCUE will be happy to supply further examples
of publicly funded projects which have had a real and lasting impact on the communities
which have participated in them, should this be required.
Question 5: Funding, with particular reference to the adequacy of the budget for English
Heritage and for museums and galleries, the impact of the London 2012 Olympics on Lottery
funding for heritage projects, and forthcoming decisions on the sharing of funds from Lottery
sources between good causes
Much of what has been stated in the previous section is of relevance to the question of
budgets and funding. The examples quoted above clearly demonstrate the importance of
ensuring a secure future for the Lottery funded collaborative projects involving the
professional and amateur/voluntary sector, as well as for those which involve the amateur
sector alone. This section calls for a wider consideration of funding, however and the various
aspects cannot be subsumed into each other.
ENGLISH HERITAGE
As noted above, we believe that the recent programme of cuts to English Heritage budgets
have been both deep and savage. Further cuts will, we believe, damage the institution
severely and probably irreparably both through their direct impact on staffing levels and on
the nature of the work undertaken by English Heritage staff. Equally significantly, further cuts
will cause further damage to morale within the organisation and this will contribute to
problems in recruiting high quality staff. No one, we suggest, would relish working within an
organisation in which the overall theme is constant decline and this will have a direct impact
on recruitment. The recent publication of the corporate plan and the five year research
agenda should, we believe, mark the end of cumulative year-on-year cuts to English Heritage
budgets and should be seen as the start of the resurgence of English Heritage as the
country's leading institution concerned with the historic environment. We believe that funding
should be increased at a rate above that of inflation in order to fund an expansion of the
research capabilities of English Heritage to support the principles embodied in the research
agenda.
83
MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES
RESCUE has been active in highlighting the progressive run-down of local and regional
museums throughout the country over the last five years. The present funding arrangements,
whereby museums and galleries must compete with social services, education, police, fire
and civil defence requirements for a share of local authority budgets is wholly inadequate and
requires reforming. The funds made available via the HLF, Renaissance in the Regions and
similar project-orientated initiatives are no substitute for reliable core funding for institutions
which have fixed staff costs, a need to conserve, maintain and make accessible permanent
collections of local, regional and national importance and to carry out or to facilitate research
into these collections.
The success of the PPG 15/16 regime in ensuring that the "polluter pays" for damage to,
and the destruction of, archaeological assets, while effectively bringing more money into
archaeology, has failed to lead to an increase in funding for the curation and care of the
archives resulting from such fieldwork or to expanded opportunities for research based upon
these archives.
The inability of the present system to support the creation of appropriate new facilities for
the storage and study of material recovered from new excavations is a matter of extremely
grave concern as it contributes directly to a failure to maintain the link between excavation,
post-excavation research and analysis and the process of publication whereby new
knowledge gained from excavation and survey is translated directly into public awareness via
publication.
While educational and presentational facilities have been created (often to very good effect)
in a wide variety of museums, heritage centres and visitor attractions, the infrastructure
which supports educational outreach work and the presentation of new discoveries and new
interpretations has been neglected. The extent of this neglect cannot be over-estimated.
Collections and archives of national and international importance are rendered virtually
inaccessible through their storage in inappropriate and inconvenient buildings. In some cases
it is difficult for curatorial staff to maintain basic standards of access with the result that new
and innovative work is difficult or impossible. As it is only through such work that our
understanding of the past in enhanced, this has a direct effect on the types of information
communicated to the public and thus on public perception of the past and its relationship to
the present.
RESCUE sees the establishment of a new and improved means of delivering appropriate
resources to local and regional museums as an urgent priority and one that should be given
careful consideration by the Committee.
THE IMPACT OF THE OLYMPIC BID ON FUNDING OF HERITAGE PROJECTS
. . . it is community archaeology projects that provide a way forward to engage with the
public in all sorts of proactive and stimulating ways. Many thousands of people have taken
part in archaeological excavations in Greater Manchester this summer. Community schemes
are also flourishing in other parts of the country, for example the Chester Amphitheatre
project (Redhead 2005).
The availability of funds administered by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) has increased the
ability of the archaeological profession to undertake work alongside the traditional voluntary
sector. Perhaps more importantly it has allowed the professional sector to engage with many
people who have, hitherto, had little or no opportunity to participate in archaeological
investigations and research (and we should not be afraid of characterising such work as
research, even though the word appears to be anathema to many, largely because they have
little notion of what it actually entails). RESCUE is not in favour of using HLF or other public
funds to replace or support work which should be carried out under the "polluter pays"
84
principle of PPG 15/PPG 16. We believe that the opportunity to bring the benefits of
archaeology (including the many diverse skills that must be learnt in order to carry out
fieldwork and post-excavation analysis effectively) to a wider public should be seized and
acted upon. HLF funding represents an opportunity to do this and after such a promising start
over the last few years, the prospect of losing that opportunity for whatever reason is
profoundly disturbing. We would argue that the prospect of hosting the Olympic Games or
other high-profile sporting events should not be allowed to have any impact on the provision
of funds for other activities, particularly those associated with the historic environment.
RESCUE is not anti-sport and we are not opposed to the holding of the Olympic Games in
London in 2012, but we believe that the revenue generated through the Lottery should be
used in diverse and complementary ways and should not be devoted to a single, relatively
narrow range of activities such as sport. We look to the Committee and to Parliament
generally to ensure that Lottery revenue is spent equitably and wisely for the benefit of the
country and society as a whole and not solely for the benefit of one region or for one sector
of the population. The sports and media industries (which effectively combine to form an
extremely powerful lobby group) have a revenue-raising potential far in excess of that of the
voluntary/amateur archaeology and heritage sectors and this should be recognised in the
appropriate allocation of funds. We believe that such a policy will have social benefits far
beyond those which will accrue from the Olympic Games alone. We shall oppose any
reduction in the funding available to the heritage sector generally between now and 2012 on
the grounds that investment in one area of activity should not be allowed to have a negative
impact on unrelated areas. We would suggest that as the sports broadcasting and
merchandising industries are worth vastly in excess of the costs of work related to the historic
environment, that a levy on these activities should be employed to provide any additional
funds to support sporting activity in the UK, allowing other funds to be devoted to other areas
of public interest.
Question 6: What the roles and responsibilities should be for English Heritage, the
Heritage Lottery Fund, local authorities, museums and galleries, charitable and
other non-Governmental organisations in maintaining the nation's heritage
ENGLISH HERITAGE
As stated above RESCUE believes that after several years of "continual revolution" English
Heritage should be allowed a period of stability in order to be able to put into operation the
ambitious plans outlined in the five-year corporate strategy and Research Agenda. The role of
the organisation has been extended beyond that originally conceived of at the time of its
establishment and this expansion has been accompanied by a period of reduced budgets and
staffing. We look to the Committee to ensure that English Heritage is given the opportunity to
re-establish and renew itself before any further changes to its remit or responsibilities are
considered.
HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND
As noted above, RESCUE believes that the Heritage Lottery Fund has played a vital part in
facilitating and expansion in popular participation in archaeological and historical research.
We believe that this is an enormously positive development and something that should be
encouraged. We therefore look to the Committee to act to safeguard existing levels of
investment in community archaeology and partnership schemes involving the archaeological
profession and local communities with a view to engaging the interest of people in the active
researching of the history and archaeology of their own communities.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
As outlined above, RESCUE has argued consistently for the creation of a statutory
responsibility on local authorities to maintain and make accessible Sites and Monuments
85
Records/Historic Environment Records as an integral part of the planning process and to

facilitate access by the public to information about the historic environment. We look for a
situation in which the Historic Environment is accorded the kind of importance that surveys of
popular attitudes indicate that it deserves. Local authorities play a central part in this through
their responsibility for the local planning system and their role in local and regional
development. We are particularly concerned that staffing levels within local authority
archaeological services should be brought up to and maintained at a level which will allow the
effective monitoring of planning applications and the provision of high quality and well-
informed advice to local authorities. Staffing levels should also be sufficient to ensure the
maintenance of full and up-to-date records. These records are the backbone of any effective
Sites and Monuments Record/Historic Environment Record and play an important role in both
the provision of advice in respect of planning matters and are also unique educational
resources. We welcome the increasing move towards public accessibility through
computerisation, but note that this is an expensive and time-consuming process which
requires investment and support from both local and national government. We look to the
Committee to emphasise the role of local authorities as curators with responsibilities for the
Historic Environment in the medium and long term, and to emphasise that this responsibility
requires effective investment in both staff and facilities.
MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES
Our concerns about the current state of museum provision for the curation and long-term
protection of archaeological archives has been described above. We have evidence that in
some areas of the country archiving facilities are no longer sufficient to cope with the volume
of material being generated by fieldwork undertaken under the PPG 16 regime. We look to
the Committee to investigate this matter and in particular to look at novel and innovative
ways to deal with the situation that do not involve the destruction, dispersal or discard of
existing collections. The re-use of suitable surplus military sites (notably bunkers and other
structures built during the Cold War) might be one avenue worth investigating. Another might
be collaboration with the warehousing and logistics industry which has considerable
experience in the field of space and cost-effective bulk storage in relatively low-cost facilities
which may be applicable to the storage of archaeological archives. At the very minimum we
would hope that future investment in new museums and galleries is matched by investment
in storage and research facilities. The results of improved access to collections will be
increased public appreciation and understanding of the past and an improved level of
communication between historic environment professionals and the public to the benefit of
both.
CHARITABLE AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS
Charitable and non-governmental organisations play an important role in the safeguarding,

investigation and safeguarding of the nations heritage and historic environment. RESCUE is
not aware of any specific issues surrounding the ways in which these activities are currently
conducted, although we have consistently argued (along with virtually all organisations active
in the historic environment field) for the reform of the VAT regime which currently favours
demolition and rebuilding over the repair and reuse of historic buildings. While we appreciate
that the resolution of this matter involves negotiations with the European Community, we do
not feel that such essentially bureaucratic considerations should stand in the way of the
reform of a system which actively encourages the destruction of parts of our historic
landscape. This VAT burden falls unfairly on charitable and non-governmental organisations
and should be removed as a matter of priority.
86
Question 7: Whether there is an adequate supply of professionals with

conservation skills; the priority placed by planning authorities on conservation;
and means of making conservation expertise more accessible to planning officers,
councillors and the general public.
Although the question is aimed at conservation specifically, RESCUE would argue that
archaeology should be included within its remit. We note that the Institute of Conservation
Archaeology Group (ICON-AG) will be making a separate and independent submission to the
Committee and for this reason we will limit ourselves to comments on archaeology.
Conservation of the historic environment is one important aspect of the heritage sector, but
there is a need for improvements in all aspects of the sector, particularly with regard to pay
and conditions within both publicly funded and commercial archaeology.
Data pertaining to pay and conditions within archaeology and related sectors have been
presented in two editions of Profiling the Profession (Aitchison 1999, Aitchison and Edwards
2003) and these provide a useful snapshot of the state of the profession at the dates of
publication. No significant change has been noted since the publication of the 2002-03 edition
of this authoritative survey.
RESCUE is concerned that the relatively low rates of pay within the profession (particularly
marked within commercial sector) and the lack of clear career structures are damaging to the
recruitment of individuals of ability. We are particularly concerned that the combination of
these two factors means that recruitment remains largely limited to a relatively narrow
section of the population and we are convinced that the combination of low pay and limited
opportunities for professional advancement and development are a major factor in
perpetuating this state of affairs. The perceived lack of social inclusivity within the heritage
sector has been noted by the DCMS on a number of occasions. RESCUE agrees that this is a
serious problem but notes that the DCMS has failed to address the fundamental reasons for
this problem which lie within the area of career opportunities, pay and conditions. These are
problems which must be tackled both by the profession itself and also by other agencies,
including English Heritage and local government. A clear lead from the DCMS is required in
this area. The shrinking of staffing levels in both English Heritage and the local and regional
museum sector means that opportunities for new entrants to the profession are increasingly
limited as "downsizing" reduces staff numbers and the opportunities for promotion.
RESCUE is particularly concerned that the cuts to English Heritage budgets have had (and
continue to have) an adverse effect on training and professional development. This means
that there is an ever shrinking core body of experienced professionals, available for
employment within both the public and the commercial sectors with the skills that are
developed through experience outside higher education. While a first degree and,
increasingly, a post-graduate qualification are essential first steps towards employment in the
heritage sector, academic qualification is but one aspect of the range of skills needed within
the sector. The acquisition of experience and knowledge of the type that comes from
cumulative "on-the-job" experience and close engagement with the archaeology of a
particular region or geographical area are still as vital within archaeology as they ever were,
something that is probably unique to the discipline. Existing structures of employment based
upon short term contracts, the contract-tender system and commercial competitiveness are
inadequate for the creation and maintenance of the kind of skilled and experienced workforce
which is required if the heritage sector is to fulfil its potential. Members of RESCUE have
direct personal experience of the problems which are arising on an increasing basis as a
result of the withering away of the relatively informal but effective training regimes which
hitherto characterised archaeology. These problems affect both the commercial and the
publicly funded sectors and require immediate attention if they are to be remedied.
The structure of the commercial archaeology sector is such that there is extremely limited
provision for the training of the next generation of professional archaeologists. Britain has a
87
reputation throughout the world as a leader in the theory and practice of archaeology, but
this position (which results in our archaeologists working all over the world, taking a lead in
the excavation, conservation and presentation of World Heritage and other sites of global
importance) cannot be sustained under the present funding arrangements. At present the
provision for effective career structures for researchers and skilled professionals in the fields
of excavation, survey, artefact research, paleo-environmental research and other areas of
specialisation are wholly inadequate to sustain the present levels of innovative and original
thought upon which the sector relies.
RESCUE regards this issue as an extremely serious one which requires urgent action if it is
to be rectified before the present older generation of practitioners retires.
88
Memorandum submitted by Wessex Archaeology
INTRODUCTION
1. Wessex Archaeology is a multi-disciplinary charitable company working across the

heritage sector, one of the largest practices in Europe. Provision of a comprehensive range of
heritage services to local, national and international clients, including Governments, across
the UK and abroad enables us to fund our educational objects "to promote the education of
the public in the subjects of arts, culture, heritage and science through the pursuit of
archaeology". In addition to providing heritage and education services, we also participate in,
amongst other areas, the development of sector policy, strategic development and standards,
through supporting and leading national cultural and heritage organisations (such as the
Institute of Field Archaeologists and the UK National Commission for UNESCO Culture
Committee).
2. We warmly welcome the CMS Select Committee Inquiry on our nation's heritage, which
offers the first opportunity for independent review of Government, and sector, performance
on the actions outlined in The Historic Environment: A Force for our Future—(published in
2001) which remains the current Government policy. The scope of the Inquiry, covering
management of the historic environment, roles, skills & resources, museums and most
importantly access and public engagement, is particularly welcome.
3. The UK has a very rich and diverse cultural heritage which needs protection balanced
with public accessibility and sound management of change. Much of our heritage is of
international significance, as well as of great importance to individual local communities. A
key issue is the promotion of a practicable and integrated approach to our heritage across
Government and the sector. We look for better and more widespread recognition of the value
of heritage across Government and better recognition of the public benefit of heritage in
society today.
4. As a final general introductory comment, we would encourage the Inquiry to include

consideration of the UK's international responsibilities to heritage and its leadership role, and
the importance of UK expertise abroad. The UK is, and is recognised as a key player in
international heritage matters and has much to offer globally in the sustainable management
of cultural heritage, including capacity-building and standard-setting.
WHAT THE DEPARTMENT FOR CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT SHOULD IDENTIFY
AS PRIORITIES IN THE FORTHCOMING HERITAGE WHITE PAPER
5. A key priority is the reform of the present regimes for protection of our nation's heritage,
from various forms of registers of historic assets into a unified system encompassing
scheduled monuments and listed buildings. Such a unified system would better reflect the
need for an holistic approach to understanding, protecting and managing the historic
environment and provide more clarity and transparency. The reform should include
consideration of the system of class consents, where flaws include the continuing damage to
important archaeological sites such as Verulamium through inappropriate agricultural
practice,
6. The White Paper provides an opportunity for the enhancement of existing national and
local registers—Sites and Monuments Records—to a more comprehensive system of Historic
Environment Records (HER), reflecting the need for holistic management of the historic
environment in which we live and providing a greater degree of public benefit, including
public access. These HERs should be made statutory, and conform to a standard level of
89
content and accessibility across the country. These facilities form a critical foundation for
decision-making in the planning process and as a portal for public access.
7. The timing of the White Paper is important in terms of the review of non-statutory
Planning Policy Guidance, which can provide a framework to ensure best practice in the
quality of design, delivery and communication of development-lead historic environment
investigations. The present guidance (PPG 15 and PPG 16) works reasonably well, but there
is an opportunity to ensure greater public benefit through:
• — requirements for better public access and involvement, where practicable and
safe in fieldwork, and including for example the provision of more "popular" literature and
web-based information;
• — clearer requirements for the storage, conservation and display (or access to)
material recovered and lodged;
• — encouraging local planning authorities, and national bodies, to specify a better

and more consistent quality of archaeological work carried out in accordance with accredited
standards and lead by accredited organisations or individuals. This approach (investigation,
recording and accessibility) should apply equally to investigations of below-ground remains
and to historic buildings and landscapes;
• — encouraging a more integrated approach to the designation of Conservation

Areas;
• — encouraging and resourcing the synthesis of the results of development-lead work

(which are primarily descriptive and site focused) to feed back into the management system
and to make general information more readily accessible.
The above measures, and any system of managing development with protection of the
historic environment and our heritage must provide for a balanced approach which is
reasonable, robust and sustainable.
8. The White Paper should also address the critical matter of resourcing, (financial and
skills) the implementation of reformed legislation and the planning system, at both national
and local levels, which is a cause for concern. A reformed approach, in the public interest, will
require strengthened skills in community involvement and participation by local authorities
and building capacity of heritage groups. It is also an opportunity to review the role,
contribution and capacity of the voluntary sector in an inclusive approach to managing our
heritage.
THE REMIT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF DCMS, ENGLISH HERITAGE AND OTHER RELEVANT
ORGANISATIONS IN REPRESENTING HERITAGE INTERESTS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE
GOVERNMENT
9. Our cultural heritage, and the historic environment which is part of it, are central to the
social and economic fabric of our nation, in providing, for example, community identity and
cohesion, enhancing quality of life, and contributing to the economy through cultural tourism.
Heritage should be at the centre of government policy, local and national, and represent a
positive driver for change, and should not be seen as an impediment.
10. Heritage is central to many aspects of our life and hence to many Government
Departments. It is imperative that it is championed more effectively and more consistently
across all sectors, and the role of DCMS is critical in this respect. Whilst there have been
many positive changes, for example within DEFRA, there is a strong case for some form of
high-level Inter-Departmental Committee on the stewardship of heritage and historic
environment, to support an integrated approach to management.
90
11. The role and remit of the DCMS is wide, appropriately reflecting the diverse nature of
our heritage and social fabric. But we would look for a more effective and more public role as
champion within Government, and a more effective engagement with the professional and
voluntary sectors on policy and implementation. There is much support for the work of DCMS,
and more advantage could be taken of the expertise within the wider sector. We would look
for a more inclusive approach and more consultation with the wider heritage sector, to
provide support and initiative. The DCMS, in liaison with other bodies such as the UK National
Commission for UNESCO, also has a key role to play in the recognition of the importance of
the intangible heritage, and recent projects such as those by Culture Online are to be
welcomed in this respect.
12. English Heritage appears over recent times to have been distracted by internal reform
and re-structuring, and its reputation has suffered accordingly, which is unfortunate. It has a
key role in policy, co-ordination and standard-setting, as well as in public education and
access, but there is some confusion about the new structures, the relationship between the
centre and the regions. As a result the organisation is not seen as a strong sector leader,
particularly in relation to engaging the professional and voluntary sectors. One recent
example was the lack of consultation in the development of the recently-published Research
Strategy, which was launched in late 2005. There appears to have been little or no
preliminary consultation, and there was a strong emphasis on a somewhat inward-looking
approach for the future, giving little cognisance to the expertise and strengths of the wider
professional, commercial and voluntary sectors, which can support English Heritage and
Government in achieving their goals.
13. We would look for a stronger approach from English Heritage in supporting the wider
sector, encouraging its development and contribution to policy development. This could
include more open meetings and seminars, and more presentation of policy proposals in
regional meetings (such as the recent presentations on the Heritage Protection Review). In
summary we seek a more inclusive approach to policy development and research strategy,
which benefits from a wide participation particularly from those working at "grassroots" level.
THE BALANCE BETWEEN HERITAGE AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS IN PLANNING POLICY
14. Our main concern is the apparent ongoing tension between preserving and protecting
our heritage assets and promoting development and social regeneration, where heritage is
seen as a barrier to change, not as a central driver for change. Broadly the current system for
balancing the needs of protection and preservation with development works, though there is
potential to improve the system with the new Planning Policy Statement for the Historic
Environment. The system fails where there are extreme views (on either side) which are
inflexible, or inconsistent approaches.
15. There needs to be a more mature debate and promotion of understanding of the
benefits of heritage and historic assets to social and economic regeneration. For example
adaptive uses of historic assets provide a sense of stability and continuity for communities as
well as providing new resources for their use. This brings us back to the point of heritage as
central to change rather than peripheral as it can sometimes be seen.
ACCESS TO HERITAGE AND THE POSITION OF HERITAGE AS A CULTURAL ASSET IN THE

COMMUNITY
16. Wessex Archaeology is a charitable company, working to promote the education of the
public in arts, culture, heritage and science through the process of archaeology. Public access
to heritage and historic assets and information are critical in our activities. Archaeological
investigations and research are only valid if its results are made available to a wider public
audience and public benefits flow from it clearly and transparently. The widespread interest in
our heritage, promoted by significant media coverage reflects its importance to the public.
91
19. The planning system should promote better public access to local (and national)
discoveries, and the new PPS should provide strong guidance on the critical importance of
communicating results to the public. It should require practitioners and developers to make
information accessible at the appropriate time and emphasise the benefits of this approach,
of constructive partnerships, between heritage conservation and development.
20. Archaeology—the process of understanding about past peoples and their landscapes, of
our current (and future) environment—has much to contribute to individual and community
identity and social cohesion. We strongly support moves to promote learning outside the
classroom, and would also urge a greater use of heritage and historic assets within the
curriculum. The sensitisation of young people and also immigrants to the heritage around
them is key to the protection and appreciation of our heritage and environment in the future.
But the provision of continuing access through life-long learning is also important, and the
apparent decline of archaeology and heritage courses for adults is a matter of concern.
21. Government needs to promote and support heritage communities in providing training
for teachers on how the heritage and historic environment can be used as a key resource for
learning and enhancing quality of life. It should also continue to emphasise the economic,
social, educative, community and regenerative impacts which heritage projects can deliver.
FUNDING, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE BUDGET FOR

ENGLISH HERITAGE AND FOR MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES, THE IMPACT OF THE LONDON
2012 OLYMPICS ON LOTTERY FUNDING FOR HERITAGE PROJECTS, AND FORTHCOMING
DECISIONS ON THE SHARING OF FUNDS FROM LOTTERY SOURCES BETWEEN GOOD
CAUSES
22. Funding remains a central issue for the whole sector. We are concerned to find
solutions to alleviate pressure on funding including that of the Heritage Lottery Fund, and the
potential diversion of funds from heritage to the Olympics. The HLF has been fundamental in
promoting community access to heritage and has provide great public benefit. To this end the
HLF share of funds for heritage projects should be protected, as should direct Government
funding for heritage matters. Consideration should be given to resources for capacity-building
as a priority for maintaining standards in policy making and practice.
23. Funding for museums (local and national) is critical and stretched. The impacts of the
planning guidance on museums have not been fully appreciated, and there is a substantive
issue of the costs of storage on both museums and heritage service providers. Such material
also needs to be accessible to the public. It would be an appropriate time for an independent
review of the state of public collections and their relationship to historic environment
stewardship in contemporary society.
WHAT THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES SHOULD BE FOR ENGLISH HERITAGE, THE
HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND, LOCAL AUTHORITIES, MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES, CHARITABLE
AND OTHER NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS IN MAINTAINING THE NATION'S
HERITAGE
24. Having restructured and recently published its strategic plan, it is important for English
Heritage to have a period of stability to deliver its core strategic objectives with adequate
resources in place to do so. English Heritage's key roles are in policy-making, advice to
Government and standard-setting as well as providing education and access for the public.
English Heritage has a good reputation for leadership in the international field, which should
be maintained (though not at a cost to its national responsibility), and which should also
promote the expertise available in England and the UK generally. It should take advantage of
the range of sector skills in developing policy and practice using an inclusive consultative
approach. It should provide support to the profession and voluntary sector in developing
those skills and sector capacity.
92
25. The Heritage Lottery should retain its separate identity and share of the Lottery fund
for heritage projects, where it has a very sound track record and has successfully engaged
public participation through supporting archaeology and historic environment works.
26. The voluntary sector and private sector have crucial roles to play in complementing the
work of English Heritage and the HLF, not least in engaging with a modernised planning and
heritage management system. These sectors operate at grassroots level and are sensitive to
public opinion and engagement with heritage matters. They are key links between
Government policy and implementation, and should be encouraged and supported by
Government, English Heritage and the HLF. A more inclusive working environment needs to
be established.
27. The role of owners of historic assets should also be considered. A substantial amount of
the nation's built heritage is owned and managed by them and they also need to be engaged
with a modernised system, through participation in policy development and by promoting
understanding of the benefits of active and sustainable management.
WHETHER THERE IS AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PROFESSIONALS WITH CONSERVATION

SKILLS; THE PRIORITY PLACED BY PLANNING AUTHORITIES ON CONSERVATION; AND
MEANS OF MAKING CONSERVATION EXPERTISE MORE ACCESSIBLE TO PLANNING
OFFICERS, COUNCILLORS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC
28. This is an issue which is equally applicable to the whole heritage sector, not just to
those directly concerned with the management of built heritage. There are shortfalls in
capacity and skills deficits across the sector, particularly at local authority level, as recent
surveys have shown (Heritage Links 2005). Bodies such as the Archaeology Training Forum,
the Institute of Field Archaeologists, English Heritage, and the Sector Skills Council have
begun to address this, but the demands of new standards of delivery for local services will
make this shortfall more acute.
29. Careers in the heritage sector are seen to be hampered by poor pay and conditions and
lack of status, which could be seen at least in part as reflecting the importance placed on
heritage in policy-making. Some form of effective and robust continuing professional
development programme for all those working in the heritage and historic environment
sectors could be considered as a matter of urgency. Skills' building in local communities is
also an essential complementary move, and may be best achieved by local professional and
voluntary sector groups. The support of the national agencies will be essential to the work of
professional bodies and the voluntary sector in achieving these aims.
93
Memorandum submitted to British Archaeological Jobs

Resource
The British Archaeological Jobs and Resources Organisation was set up in 1999 to meet the
needs of archaeological employment in the UK. Since then the website has expanded to cover
all heritage based Organisations, provide Guidance in aspects of archaeology from fieldwork
to Health and safety and has provided a framework for pay and responsibility which is now
accepted by most archaeological and heritage agencies.
The daily visitor report suggests that over 5000 individuals visit the site to keep up to date
with jobs, policies and events. The BAJR forum has over 500 members and from this group of
people who include Curators, Contractors, Government Heritage advisors, Heritage
Professionals, Academics and interested members of the public, it has been possible to create
a response based on a request for comments. The comments are based on a number of
responses received and edited prior to public consultation and submission.
The Director of BAJR, David Connolly MAAIS FSA Scot is a County Development Control
Archaeologist, Contractor and Freelance Consultant for TPS Planning Ltd, with over 25 years
experience of all aspects of archaeology in the UK and abroad.
1. What the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should identify as priorities in the
forthcoming Heritage White Paper
• (a) Improve scheduled monument legislation to remove loopholes and exemptions,

such as the current exemption of ploughing. This should already be taking place within the
Heritage Protection Review.
• (b) Re-vamp the now outdated and mostly obsolete AAI section.
• (c) Put pressure/legal obligation on LPAs to actually use the PPGs properly, including
of courses PPG16, rather than ignoring them when they are inconvenient.
• (d) In any other area guidelines are meant to be followed but this seems to be an
exception when it comes to planning with the problem that archaeology is always seen as
something which can be ignored. With no statutory power there is no requirement for
archaeology, and councils are not keen to follow up breaches when the site has been
damaged already. Even fines of up to £1,000 for breach of conditions can be seen as
"cheaper" than actually having archaeological investigation.
• (e) To implement some of the APPAG recommendations. The APPAG

recommendations were applauded when it came out, however since then we have seen
almost no movement at all, making me professionals and public more cynical about the gulf
between talk and action on heritage issues.
• (f) Re-working of scheduled and listing procedures and rules. Removing class
consent which is still allowing ploughing to continue on scheduled monuments.
• (g) The main thrust should be to implement the recommendations of APPAG.

2. The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English Heritage and other relevant organisations in
• (a) Reformation of the RCHME to provide the sector with a body that can dedicate
itself to the monitoring and surveying of monuments. EH could then dedicate itself to the
formation of policy and providing guidance.
94
• (b) DCMS and EH should provide firmer leadership to the LPAs to ensure that they
do their job according to guidelines.
• (c) Accommodation should be reached between EH and the National Trust so that
neither body duplicates the work of the other. Also, if they remain as two bodies, there
should be a single membership scheme covering all sites and properties. That a more
democratic system is introduced to appoint members to the board, or commissions, of each
organisation.
• (d) EH does need to put more of its resources into earthwork surveys, architectural
surveys and research into the state of the historic environment.
• (e) Understanding of the changing needs of the public. Heritage should no longer be
seen as a backdrop to franchised teashops and centred on "national" sites. If these
organisations wish to represent heritage in the government then a clear idea of what they are
representing, why they are representing it and its relevance to the public who both live near
and/or visit. For example, EH has categorised the Thornborough Henges as a site of national
importance, but without showing it the same financial and resource support as Stonehenge it
is seen as preferential and unequal.
3. The balance between heritage and development needs in planning policy
• (a) There has to be some way for planning officials to be made to listen to EH when
is confirms a site is nationally important (maybe a clear definition of nationally important
needs to be given).
• (b) Heritage is under the greatest pressure from development ever, and more
emphasis needs to be put on full excavation (rather than watching briefs) and preservation
in-situ. Although PPG16 already states this, it is just a mater of application.
• (c) Review of PPG16 badly overdue.
• (d) The original PPG16 was a step forward but it is now outdated and needs
reviewing. Archaeology has been transformed from a search for knowledge (in general) to
providing a step to granting of planning conditions. This makes most archaeology one of
excavating areas where there is development rather than archaeology. The public are also
(again in general) excluded from the process rather than being part of it. There are notable
exceptions of course, but the rise of the Archaeological Contractor (nearly 200 contractors
and some 5-6000 archaeologists in the UK—in Estonia for example there are 40
archaeologists and three companies) is based on development rather than archaeology.
• (e) Increased development produces increased workload for LPA and there is no
overall increase in funding, (in many cases there are cutbacks), with the duty of monitoring
falling on a group of curators and development control archaeologists who have to create
non-standard specifications for working standards. This in turn causes problems for
contractors who may be able to carry out work to one standard in one county but will be
subjected to differing criteria in another.
4. Access to heritage and the position of heritage as a cultural asset in the community
• (a) Heritage is a vital asset to the community and, although there are constraints on
its use, should be accessible where the site allows.
• (b) Heritage tourism brings revenue to the country and a pride in our past to the
people on both a national and local level. Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in
95
the world and one of the biggest money-makers for this country. The past could be brought
to life and used it to spread employment to both archaeologists and the local communities.
• (c) More money needs to be put into making sites and records accessible, starting
with a heritage outreach officer in every SMR/HER office.
• (d) Governments talk about lack of funds but can find money for their own pet
projects.
• (e) Definitely more money for SMRs/HERs—integration and better communication

between all SMRs and the NMR. Money for computerisation and use of GIS where not
presently in place. Support, training and resources to allow SMRs to respond adequately to
the new environmental stewardship schemes (funding from DEFRA?)
• (f) Very often the community are seen as the end user, but no real thought goes
into how this is achieved, an SMR/HER that is truly accessible and tied into other aspects of
life and tourism. Sites to visit, places to stay, other venues to visit, heritage and heritage or
arts based events.
• (g) Requirements for public involvement with archaeology, adopting monuments,

learning about the past in the local area and how to appreciate and enjoy it, even as far as
getting involved with recording new sites, monitoring present ones, provisions should be
made to utilise the British interest in the past rather than sidelining the amateur involvement.
5. Funding, with particular reference to the adequacy of the budget for English Heritage and
for museums and galleries, the impact of the London 2012 Olympics on Lottery funding for
between good causes
• (a) It seems EH needs more funding as do museums etc. A lot of heritage is only
conserved with the assistance of Lottery funding so this should be a priority. The Olympics
will bring large amounts of revenue to the areas holding the events. There should be as much
private funding from these areas as possible (remember partnerships work).
• (b) More permanent sources of funding need to be found, rather than potentially
temporary ones such as the Olympics.
• (c) The Olympics will mean LESS money for other parts of the DCMS—EH is at the
bottom of the pile at the bottom of DCMS and DCMS is at the bottom of the pile for the
treasury. We need to be funded by more than one government department (we are closely
linked to ODPM, DEFRA etc too). Olympics may mean more money in terms of commercial
contracts however.
• (d) Commercial interest and requirements will be weighted in favour of development

rather than archaeological interest.
6. What the roles and responsibilities should be for English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery
Fund, local authorities, museums and galleries, charitable and other non-Governmental
organisations in maintaining the nation's heritage
• (a) EH's role is a protector of heritage so why should that change. Local authorities
are also charged with protecting heritage for the community so that should be enforced in
stronger legislation.
• (b) A scheme of "join one get membership of the other for a discount" is probably
do-able if there is the political will within EH and the National Trust. Probably most people
who are members of one are members of the other. It was a cheeky but successful decision
96
for the former Ministry of Works to offer "membership" to the public of a body that is
technically part of the state and therefore already owned by the people.
• (c) I think that some kind of accommodation should be reached between EH and the
National Trust so that neither body duplicates the work of the other. Also that if they remain
as two bodies, there should be a single membership scheme covering all sites and properties.
Also that a more democratic system is introduced to appoint members to the board or
commissions of each organisation.
• (d) EH concentrates on its core role of protection and study of national heritage
rather than promotion of events and scenic castles. In recent years, the distinct impression is
that EH has been mutating into a second-rate imitation of the NT; all tea rooms and castles,
and seems to have lost interest in the more serious archaeological, planning and
sustainability issues facing heritage in the UK.
7. Whether there is an adequate supply of professionals with conservation skills; the priority
• (a) In our opinion you can never have too many professionals with conservation
skills. Conservation should play an important part in planning decisions. There needs to be
more education of conservation given to the whole community but especially planning
authorities, this will make more people aware of conservation needs.
• (b) Without an awareness raising exercise in both Local and National Govt of the
importance of the historic environment and its place in the community it will be difficult to
understand or justify the short term expense (though long term benefit) of having
professionals with appropriate skills. Why rebuild walls using traditional techniques, why use
lime mortar, why use skilled carpenters.. these can only be justified if the public realise the
benefit to the society.
TO SUMMARISE
The main organisations charged with protecting "our" heritage should have clearly defined
roles and be backed by appropriate legislation. These include (but are not limited to) English
Heritage, the National Trust, Local Authority Planning Archaeologists within ALGAO, the
Council for British Archaeology, the Institute for Field Archaeologists, RESCUE, Institute of
Historic Building Conservation, British Archaeological Jobs &
Resources organisation.
The PPG16 document should be revised as a matter of urgency.

The recommendations set out in APPAG should be enacted.
Community involvement and integration should be encouraged wherever possible.
A national policy for utilising the heritage resource in tourism and local potential.
Support for standards in all heritage work, ensuring a consistent guidance for the UK.
97
Memorandum submitted by the Association of

Local Government Archaeological Officers
SUMMARY
— The historic environment is an irreplaceable asset, and a key component of people's

"sense of place".
— ALGAO members are responsible for the conservation of over 90% of England's
archaeological resource.
— There should be a firm commitment by government to adequate resourcing of local

authority historic environment services.
— The White Paper should include a commitment to Statutory status for Local Authority
Historic Environment Record Services. This is necessary to ensure that all of the historic
environment is adequately conserved and that there is public access to information about the
historic environment.
— The White Paper should propose better protection for statutory and non-statutory
archaeological sites.
— The role of English Heritage after the new heritage protection system is introduced in
2010 should be made clearer and more explicit.
— English Heritage should be adequately resourced to fulfil its strategic role.
I write on behalf of ALGAO (the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers) in

response to the invitation for submissions to the above inquiry by the Culture, Media & Sport
Committee. This submission has been prepared specifically for the inquiry and our response
follows the questions and areas of interest that you have set out. ALGAO will be very happy
to provide amplification of any points if required, and to provide supplementary or oral
evidence if this would be helpful.
The role of the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (ALGAO)
ALGAO is the national body representing local government archaeological services on behalf
of County, District, Unitary and National Park authorities. ALGAO co-ordinates the views of
member authorities (110 in total) and presents them to government and to other national
organisations. It also acts as an advisor to the Local Government Association on
archaeological matters.
Individually, in the course of their work for their Authorities, our members are responsible
for archaeological records, archaeological inputs to the development planning process and to
agri-environment and forestry consultations, the conduct of rescue excavations and their
subsequent publication, the management of archaeological sites and landscapes, and liaison
with local voluntary heritage groups, museums and other bodies. We thus have a key role in
the protection of the country's historic resources, and through our members we are closely in
touch with current developments (and pressures) in the sector. Our evidence below is
informed by this experience.
98
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
Britain's historic environment, and in particular the physical fabric of its archaeological sites,
field boundaries etc, represents a non-renewable resource. Many of its components (round
barrows, hillforts etc) have survived for thousands of years, but can be destroyed in a single
afternoon, or slowly destroyed by processes of attrition. Individual sites of more recent date
such as castles or mills preserve valuable and irreplaceable archaeological information, but,
perhaps more importantly still, both they and the heterogeneous sites, features, field
boundaries and so on that make up the fabric of our towns and our agricultural landscapes
contribute a very substantial part of what is perceived subliminally as "sense of place", as has
recently been recognised by the Secretary of State for DCMS.
However, the continuing survival for future generations of this rich resource is dependent
upon our preventing, now, its destruction by current activity. Decisions made now last for all
time. Unlike our stewardship of the natural world, losses now can never be made good in the
future by "restoration", "enhancement" or by breeding programmes or habitat improvement.
The protection of our heritage has to be achieved both formally and informally—both by
mechanisms such as the planning process and by engaging the intuitive enthusiasm of local
communities, landowners and others. The potential of the historic environment as a resource
for all can and should be expanded and enhanced. In all such tasks our members play a key
role.
This background informs the following response:
What should the Department for Culture, Media and Sport identify as priorities in the
forthcoming Heritage White Paper?
• — Support for local authority historic environment services.
For the majority of the areas of work outlined above, the brunt of the task (well over 90%)
of protecting the archaeological resource is borne by our members in local authorities.
Indeed, if the proposals of the Heritage Protection Review are implemented, local authorities
will also be taking responsibility for casework and consent procedures relating to Designated
sites (Scheduled Monuments). It is clear that a strong body of public service archaeologists is
necessary to deliver even the basic conservation essentials outlined above, as well as the
important outreach agenda. The workload of local authority archaeologists has already
expanded substantially in recent years (ALGAO 2005[4]), but under current conditions of
financing for local government, historic environment services are coming under increasing
pressure. Some services that have been standard bearers for public service archaeology are
at this present moment threatened with savage cuts. We would therefore argue that a proper
mechanism for protection of the historic environment can only be achieved by a firm
commitment by government to adequate resourcing of local authority historic environment
services.
• — Statutory Status for Historic Environment Record Services.
The objectives outlined above require both a critical mass of good quality and committed
staff (for which see further below) and also a sound information base to inform this work.
This base is provided by the network of Historic Environment Records (formerly Sites and
Monuments Records) created and maintained by local authorities since the 1970s.
Government has made statutory status for Local Authority Historic Environment Records a
key element of its 2004 proposals for the White Paper in the publication Review of Heritage
Protection: The Way Forward. This says that all local authorities should be required either to
maintain an Historic Environment Record (HER) or have access to one. We strongly urge that
this provision (which is in itself revenue-neutral) be included in the White Paper.
99
• — A commitment to the protection of non-statutorily protected archaeology, both

above and below-ground, that is at least as good as the present system provided by Planning
Policy Guidance Notes 15 and 16 (PPGs 15 and 16).
Only a relatively small proportion of nationally important archaeological remains (including

buildings) are protected by statutory designations. The rest, as well as regionally and locally
important archaeological sites, are protected in part through the planning system, both
through Environmental Assessment and Development Plans and, in advance of development,
following the guidance in PPG 16. It is vital for the conservation of this resource, which
includes over one million known sites, that the provisions of PPG 16, especially that
preservation of archaeological remains in situ is a material consideration, are retained in any
new legislation. Both PPG 16 (Archaeology and Planning) and PPG15 (Planning and the
Historic Environment) are due to be replaced by a new Planning Policy Statement, although
this seems to be stalled at present. It is essential that the provisions of the earlier PPGs are
not weakened, and indeed we would wish to see the force of this "advice" strengthened by
government, particularly with regard to the public dissemination of the results of work carried
out under the provisions of the PPGs.
There is also considerable potential to enhance the protection of archaeological remains,

including nationally important remains, by more effectively using provisions within the current
regulatory framework for planning. These could include, for instance, local authorities being
encouraged to remove some Permitted Development rights in circumstances such as where
this could enhance the protection of nationally important remains that are not covered by
statutory designations. However, there would need to be a clear steer from government to
encourage local planning authorities to maximise use of such measures.
• — Greater rationality and consistency in the system for the protection of nationally
designated archaeological sites.
The present Heritage Protection Review (to which we are contributing) may change the
processes for designation and consents, but without a more fundamental reform of what is
permitted and what is not, many sites (even those acknowledged by Scheduling to be sites of
national importance) will continue to suffer irreversible degradation. The principal,
longstanding issue here is the system of "Class Consents", which provide exemptions from
the general restrictions imposed by Scheduling of archaeological sites and which continues to
allow damaging activities such as ploughing on some protected sites—although permission for
a farmer to erect a single fence-post on a Scheduled Monument still requires formal approval
from the Secretary of State!
• — Positive measures for the protection and management of designated and non-
designated rural archaeological sites.
For archaeological sites and landscapes whose survival is not directly affected by the
development process, we would wish to see a firm commitment to the continued (and
expanded) use of the principles of agri-environment schemes such as Environmental
Stewardship and Tir Gofal and Tir Cynnal in Wales in seeking to ensure the proper
management of archaeological sites in the farmed landscape.
• — DCMS should support the characterisation approach.
The technique of "characterisation" (the analysis of the visual and historic qualities of
landscapes or townscapes) is a relatively new concept for the historic environment but it has
considerable potential to improve the effectiveness of conservation policy and casework,
especially for the important, currently non-designated parts of the historic environment which
make up over 90% of the whole. For example, the characterisation of the 19th and 20th
century historic built heritage of urban areas could allow much better, and faster, decisions to
100
be made about its conservation. The White Paper should therefore consider the potential of
characterisation to complement the proposed system of national and local designation.
• — DCMS and English Heritage should ensure that local government is fully engaged
in the process of preparing new legislation, including appropriate representation on
management/agreements and executive bodies.
ALGAO is fully committed to the introduction of new legislation as proposed in the

Government Statement Review of Heritage Protection: The Way Forward. However, we
believe that its success will be dependent upon the active engagement of local government—
which will be required to deliver much of the new system—in the drafting of the legislation.
• — English Heritage should provide appropriate advice and support to local

government with emphasis on the value of informed decision-making and pre-determination
assessment.
It is important that English Heritage should continue to provide appropriate advice and
support for local government, and that its capacity to do so should be expanded rather than
diminished. English Heritage's expertise in the area of archaeology should not be further
weakened.
The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English Heritage and other relevant organisations in
• — DCMS needs a better and more effective role working with ODPM on planning and
local government issues, and with Defra on rural ones. We are conscious that the voice of
DCMS within government is not always as powerful as the well-being of the historic
environment would require. DCMS's resources are limited, and the Committee's following
question reflects our own concern at the potential for changing demands within the
department to weaken the emphasis on the historic environment.
• — English Heritage needs firmer support and guidance from Government, with joint
sponsorship from DCMS, ODPM and DEFRA, concerning both its role and that of the sector
across a wide range of policy areas.
• — English Heritage needs to develop a clear and consistent voice for conservation of
the historic environment in partnership with local authorities. There should be explicit
recognition that the conservation of over 90% of historic environment is the responsibility of
local government.
• — The structure of English Heritage should be reviewed as the respective roles and
relationships of the regions and the centre remain opaque.
The balance between heritage and development needs in planning policy
In our experience, comparatively few conflicts between conservation and development are
incapable of resolution if there is an adequate policy framework and early consideration of
historic environment issues by potential developers and others. However, the new LDF-
focussed planning system currently lacks strong policy guidance from Government and
English Heritage for the historic environment, while recent research by ourselves (PLANARCH
200[5]) demonstrates the current weakness of the Environmental Impact Assessment
process, despite its potential to address such issues well. We therefore believe that the
following points should be addressed by Government:
• — Within the "new" planning system, the weight that should be applied to historic
environment considerations, and the points in the plan preparation process at which it should
be explicitly integrated, should be made more clear. Local Planning Authorities are currently
101
adopting a wide range of models in the preparation of new Strategic and Local Development
Framework Plans, and it is our perception that not all are addressing historic environment
issues in a way that will provide the coherence of the best of the "old" Strategic and Local
Plans. While some general guidance has recently been prepared by English Heritage and its
partners, there is a need for explicit guidance to be issued by ODPM and DCMS on this.
• — There should be closer scrutiny of the adequacy of the historic environment

elements of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). The results and recommendations of
the important PLANARCH research in UK and Europe on the effectiveness of EIAs with
respect to the historic environment should be used to inform this process (PLANARCH
2005[6]).
• — Utilities, statutory undertakers and public bodies need to be better regulated.

Their activities should be brought within the regulatory regime which pertains to other forms
of development.
• — The conservation of the historic environment needs enhanced recognition in the

government's Sustainable Communities Plan.
• — As discussed above, the role of the historic environment in providing a sense of

place for local communities needs to be recognised and articulated by Government and
included within government policy on the creation of Sustainable Communities. At present,
consideration of the historic environment by government is inconsistent and generally poor
within the Growth Areas and Pathfinder Areas of the Sustainable Communities Plan. Best
practice for the consideration of the historic environment is currently provided by the Thames
Gateway Growth Area.
• — Finally, the need for consideration of the non-planning based impacts upon the
historic environment must be borne in mind.
Access to heritage and the position of heritage as a cultural asset in the community
• — The role of the historic environment as a cultural asset should be explicitly

recognised in the Heritage White Paper. The DCMS document The Historic Environment: A
Force for Our Future discusses this, and we hope that firm proposals will be put forward to
develop this theme.
• — The national network of local authority Historic Environment Records (HERs)

provide a key means by which the pubic can gain access to information about the historic
environment. Information from HERs is also actively used to promote sense of place and
stewardship of local heritage by communities. Statutory Status for HERs (see above) together
with continued support from HLF and others is necessary to develop this role particularly in
respect to the Community Planning agenda.
• — We would in passing like to remark that while the concentration upon the `new'
audience for heritage is understandable and proper, some of our members are also conscious
of the need to ensure that isolated indigenous rural communities should equally not be left to
feel disenfranchised.
• — The economic potential of the historic environment should receive explicit

recognition in the White Paper, linked to developing measures and mechanisms such as
Heritage Counts, the annual State of the Historic Environment report.
Funding, with particular reference to the adequacy of the budget for English Heritage and for
museums and galleries, the impact of the London 2012 Olympics on Lottery funding for
between good causes
102
• — English Heritage should be resourced appropriately to enable it to fulfil its

obligations as lead agency working in partnership with local authorities and other agencies.
Specific resources should be made available for delivery of the Heritage Protection Review.
• — English Heritage has seen below-inflation increases in its funding in recent years,
and should not suffer further diminution in its resources. Recent changes have obliged it to
move away from some of its proper duties before any formal provision for other bodies (ie
local government) to cover its present casework responsibility has been set in place. Our
members are conscious of having to fill this gap. The role of English Heritage and its
relationship with local authorities after 2010, when the new Heritage Protection system is due
to begin, needs to be made clear.
• — Funding regimes should recognise that the historic environment is an asset which
is experienced on a daily basis by all members of society. Enhancement of public awareness
of and participation in the richness and diversity of that environment will lead to greater
social cohesion, local pride of place, enhanced protection and crime reduction. Impacts such
as the London 2012 Olympics or the sharing of Lottery funds will be mitigated if the
importance of the historic environment to all endeavours is explicitly recognised.
• — However, as emphasised above, the bulk of day to day work in the care of the
historic environment is carried out by local authority staff—both archaeologists and
conservation officers. The pressures on the budgets of local authorities is having a very
negative effect on these services at just the time when the value of the historic environment
is being recognised more than ever before, and arguably this factor is more important for the
overall care of the nation's heritage than those mentioned in the Committee's question. We
would hope to see this acknowledged by government.
What the roles and responsibilities should be for English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund,
local authorities, museums and galleries, charitable and other non-Governmental
organisations in maintaining the nation's heritage
• — English Heritage must remain the lead agency for historic environment policy. It
has an important strategic research and standards role which should be enhanced and it
should develop partnerships links with, and support of, local authority historic environment
services.
• — The Heritage Lottery Fund should maintain its programmes which facilitate
considerable beneficial work within the historic environment by the independent sector.
Specifically, smaller programmes such as Your Heritage and the Local Heritage Initiative have
contributed much to enhancement of local awareness and amenities and should continue to
be fostered. We are aware of a number of excellent pieces of community archaeology and
heritage research that have been made possible by LHI grants, and now hope that after its
impending demise this (less daunting) model of access to modest grants will be continued
under another grant heading.
• — The review (DCMS 2004[7]) published by DCMS in 2004 has addressed the issue
of the division of responsibilities between English Heritage and HLF.
• — The role of local authorities in the protection and promotion of our heritage is
discussed throughout this paper. The Heritage Protection Review proposes major impacts
upon local authorities. Resource provision for these impacts needs to be determined.
• — DCMS has shown a welcome awareness in recent years of the needs of Museums
& Galleries and the continued development of the renaissance in the regions programme
would be welcome. DCMS support for the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) should be
sustained but there needs to be greater awareness that local authority historic environment
services are much more broadly based than merely recording and, where possible, curating
103
artefacts and that, if government wishes to both develop audiences and engage currently
disadvantaged groups, it needs to support these broadly-based services through local
government initiatives. There needs to be closer integration between the work of the PAS and
mainstream archaeological services.
• — We are conscious of the increasing pressure upon museum storage capacity as a

result of the increase in rescue excavation of recent years. Posterity will not be well served if
material "rescued" from development sites is not in the future well stored and accessible for
study. This is a major continuing problem for the museum sector, which impacts directly
upon our capacity to ensure that programmes of excavation necessitated by development are
completed for the public benefit.
• — There is a long-standing and important strand of volunteer and charity

engagement in archaeology which has shaped the modern discipline. For example, the role of
bodies such as the Council for British Archaeology and its sister amenity societies in reviewing
applications for Listed Building Consent is written into statute, while all these bodies serve the
subject by their informed comment on government proposals. Traditionally, the publication of
archaeological reports (without which no excavation or survey can really be said to be
completed) has been very largely in the hands of charitable scholarly or local (mainly county-
based) societies, and this is a role they continue to play despite increasing pressures on
resources. At a local level, local societies, whether technically charities or not, form the
framework for much amateur and volunteer effort, and can provide the springboard for other
community and outreach endeavours. This element of the national and local archaeological
scene should be cherished and supported and enabled to forge stronger links with local
authority historic environment services.
Whether there is an adequate supply of professionals with conservation skills; the priority
• — ALGAO, together with English Heritage and the sector as a whole, recognises that
there is a skills shortage. English Heritage has sought to address this by initiatives such as
the Archaeology Training Forum. Such initiatives need continued support, together with
encouragement to local authorities to enhance training.
• — The problem goes deeper than just a skills shortage, as there is a considerable
problem of retention of competent professional staff. There is a real need for building
absolute capacity within the public heritage services as a whole, both in expertise and in
actual numbers. For good and positive reasons workloads are increasing, and this should be
explicitly recognised and addressed.
• — Historic environment conservation will not be taken seriously by local councillors,

or indeed by the general public, unless greater emphasis is placed upon its importance by
government. Historic environment professionals have worked hard in recent years to
demonstrate that work within this sector is not a constraint upon development but actually
enables and enhances sustainable development. It is a positive discipline, working with one
of the nation's greatest assets. It deserves explicit government recognition of its proactive
and important role in helping to create a modern and dynamic society.
104

BAJR Conference 2006 Papers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAJR Conference 2006 Papers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

:: Conference Papers 2006 ::

:: YORK :: 9th September 2006

Introduction to BAJR Conference ....................................................................................... 1

1 - The History and Future of Private Sector Archaeologists ................................................. 2

2 - Archaeology For All Does it Stop At The Classroom. ..................................................... 13

3 - Ever-widening circles; communities for archaeology..................................................... 20

6 - Parliamentary Progress? Culture, Cuts and Conservation (and other tales)..................... 45

8 - DIGGERS – Role Still Unrecognized Sixteen Years On ................................................... 53

Appendix 1 – Submissions to Department for Culture, Media and Sport .............................. 60

Introduction to BAJR Conference

1 - The History and Future of Private Sector Archaeologists

The History and Future of Private Sector Archaeologists

Chris Musson in Rescue archaeology said:

“… may be the growth of freelance professional teams accepting commissions after

The Volunteer Years

The Charity Years

The MSC years.

Drongos - Minions - Oiks - Lackey

The Rise of Commercialism and Developer Funding.

The Pre-PPG 15 era. The Crisis years.

So back to the digger’s lot:

In fact the site assistant was high up the hierarchy.

Task 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 2006

The job descriptions tell the story.

The issues of today for diggers are:

If this “norm” is recognised as such there would be at least:

There is a trend towards this in any event.

The need for a representative body.

Lack of career structure and Training.

Standards, what Standards?

All of these things were acceptable in the period 1970-1988.

This analysis showed the opposite of what I thought.

So that was the past. Here is the future.

I think we will see a polarisation of the size of units.

Here are things that I think won’t happen:

Let us compare the salary of a contractors’ banksman compared to an archaeologist doing a

Thus the real question is where does the money go?

2 - Archaeology For All Does it Stop At The Classroom.

In my undergraduate archaeological training, I was encouraged to participate, but I was

Here are a few pages from the Inclusive, Accessible

Figure 1 : Disability and Archaeological Fieldwork Report

To quote from the Inclusive Accessible Archaeology site:

From Anita's Story [she has MS]

“….Major concerns of employers are

“Disabled employees are

Sensation – to feel objects under knees or hands

Hand Eye coordination

Take this advert for example:

“Archaeologist/Museum Technician $14 per hour. Savannah Georgia

Serves as Technician for Curatorial Dept of Savannah History Museum and

Some examples of disabled archaeologists and their experiences are as follows;

From Disabled Students in University of Reading, UK:

Restricted mobility: rotated femur

Diabetic, and RSI (recent onset)

MA in archaeology; car accident mid-career. Works for Gov’t agency

So what are Reasonable Limitations?

“Applicants must be physically fit and willing to work in challenging conditions.”

“Ongoing excavations in Desert Hot Springs, where the temperature is climbing.”

and the favorite!

Between November 8 2005 and August 26 2006,

One archaeological company in the USA stated;

Comments from other archaeologists (in the UK)

A: “Don’t tell them you’re disabled”

C: “It’s a question of liability: an employer is responsible if a disabled employee gets hurt.”