The Council for British Archaeology has been keen to promote the wonderful idea of “Archaeology for all” – and who could disagree with such a sentiment? Well us actually. We complained that although “Archaeology” (the study of the past) is “for all” the wording could also be taken as suggesting “archaeology” (the stuff) was available for “all” to dig up and lay claim to.
What to do? We had a huge point. The logo could be read two ways and it was simply inconceivable that the Council for British Archaeology of all bodies should leave itself open to claims it supported what it didn’t. Its Director Mike Heyworth signalled in a Comment he made on the Journal that he was well aware of the problem:
“In my language, archaeology is always the study, not the stuff, but these are subtleties which inevitably are lost on many people. This is exactly what we are discussing with branding experts at the moment, so maybe we’ll be back with some different words soon …”
In the event, a genius found the perfect solution. Not different words but different spacing! If it was the branding agency they were worth every penny. If it was the CBA’s Director he deserves a raise. Here’s the new logo:
So whats the point of that strange spacing? Well, in ancient Greek, archaeo is old and logia is study. In modern Britspeak an ology is a study. Either way, by splitting the word into two the CBA has made its meaning crystal clear:
The study of old stuff is for all. The old stuff isn’t.
Bravo!
The Heritage Journal 
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
16/08/2012 at 11:54
James
Just looks like they ran out of space within the box. Easier solution would have been CBA – All for Archaeology.
Can’t believe the CBA wastes money on a branding agency
16/08/2012 at 12:10
heritageaction
I disagree. “All for Archaeology” implies “all care for Archaeology” which is patently untrue.
I think the message is well worth the money – especially in a country that has lost sight of the message.
Think of it as the right outreach at the right price, unlike some….
16/08/2012 at 12:43
James
No it doesn’t. You could say “i’m all for the preservation of Heritage”. All for Archaeology implies that the CBA is all for Archaeology which it obviously is.
regardless, the new logo it still says “archaeology for all” regardless.
16/08/2012 at 12:56
heritageaction
The fact we are disagreeing about the interpretation of “All for Archaeology” illustrates it’s capable of several interpretations and is therefore unsuitable!
I disagree that the new logo still says archaeology for all. It clearly says “the STUDY of archaeology for all” and absolutely nothing else, which is dead right. It might only be a space but its priceless, if you value the public’s right to its heritage.
The awful thing is, in other countries theres no need to buy spaces. The French Culture Minister has just issued a leaflet making it very clear that excavating archaeology is for professionals, not amateur profiteers. Imagine the British Culture Minister daring to say that!
16/08/2012 at 13:30
James
This has got me thinking. Ology is to study. Archeo means ancient. Archeology is therefore the study of ancient things – All ok so far….
So perhaps we should stop referring to the actual items in the ground as archeology and clearly they are not archeology, but in fact remains/evidence etc. We often hear about ‘hidden archaeology’ or ‘Archeological remains’ but they are clearly by definition, not so.
Perhaps the CBA’s outreach should include a programme to teach the public the difference between the two. Only when it is being studied does something become archaeology. Anything else are mere items from the past.
16/08/2012 at 13:45
heritageaction
“Only when it is being studied does something become archaeology. Anything else are mere items from the past.”
If its in the ground it certainly IS archaeology and available for full study whereas items removed from their context are mere items of desire, mere objects of value and mere evidence of destroyed Archaeology. Perhaps we should call them Lost Archaeology?!
17/08/2012 at 20:14
Jan
I can see what James is saying. A surgeon performs surgery but a gaping wound is not surgery. An archaeologist performs archaeology but the items being studied are not archaeology, they are what they are. The term ‘Archaeology’ defined by the OED as
noun
The study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artefacts and other physical remains.
“Archaeology for all” actually means that the study of artefacts and remains as a scientific study is for all. It doesn’t mean “artefacts or remains for all”
Perhaps the term ‘Archaeology’ needs to be re defined to what it is and it would end a lot of confusion with the general public because as it stands, just about everything from metal detecting to finding a pot sherd in the garden is often seen by the public as archaeology when it clearly isn’t and the archaeological community are probably the worst offenders for this confusion by using the term archeology so willy nilly
20/08/2012 at 23:25
David Gill
“Ology” as in Beattie … remember those BT ads … ?
21/08/2012 at 07:55
heritageaction
We should all have Grandmas like that!
21/08/2012 at 19:06
Henry Young
It is true that using the term Archeology so widely does cause confusion and belittles the actual science behind it. Take Paleontology for example. Paleontologists don’t say “there is Paleontology over there”, they use much more descriptive terms and use them in a context to describe what they want to convey.
If Archaeology wants to raise its public profile, it would be better to use the term correctly and with the respect that is due to it, so the public become more conscious of what they are, what they do, and what they don’t do.
Currently, the term archaeology is so used and abused that to the greater public, anything that involves something old is archaeology, regardless of the people doing it, what they are doing and why they are doing it.
22/08/2012 at 10:09
Nigel
“If Archaeology wants to raise its public profile, it would be better to use the term correctly”
Or at least, keep banging home the differences between Archaeology and non-archaeology. Trouble is, in Britain there’s a socio-political conspiracy to gloss over the differences. Having set up PAS it really wouldn’t do to say their partners aren’t cousins of archaeologists, the whole exercise would look awfully like a gigantic original mistake!
But if you want proof there really IS a conspiracy of silence you need look no further than the Code of Responsible Metal Detecting. Detecting that way is ostensibly OK according to the archaeological bodies that endorsed it – but if they truly thought that they’d surely have called it
“The Code of Responsible Archaeological Metal Detecting”
… would they not?
(QED?!….)
25/08/2012 at 19:12
Paul
How can Archeology be for all?. you have to have studied to become an archaeologist so it can’t be for all, can it?
“Knowledge for all” would be a better slogan and they can have that one for free, without paying silly brand consultants.
26/08/2012 at 10:37
heritageaction
You say Archaeology (which is knowledge) cant be for all but knowledge can be for all….
26/08/2012 at 12:28
Paul
Knowledge is the end result of Archaeology. Archeology is not knowledge as it is the study part. Archeologists do the study but the knowledge they impart is disseminated to all. The knowledge imparted is not archeology, it is history.
It is easy to see how jo public (and even Heritage Action) gets confused over the definition of archaeology.
26/08/2012 at 12:41
heritageaction
Aaah!
Well, you’ll find that Archaeology doesn’t lead to knowledge for all at all, only theories.
“Archaeology: theories for all”, would that cover it?
26/08/2012 at 15:07
Paul
I’m sure we could go on and on about this but what it really illustrates very well is that the term ‘Archaeology’ is bandied about so recklessly by one and all that it has lost its true meaning and is then hijacked by those outside the profession to their own ends. Combine this with a dis informed media and it’s no wander just about everyone in the UK is seen as either a professional or amateur archaeologist, regardless of what they do.
As for archaeology being theories, well that again illustrates this blurred distinction. Archaeology is a science. A theory is unproved, so up until the point something becomes proven, it sits in this limbo that is not scientifically proven, but just a theory someone has, waiting to be proved or disproved. History is based on proven facts, discovered through the process of archaeology.
Some people theorise that Stonehenge is some sort of portal for aliens who visited us thousands of years ago. This is a theory, it is not archaeology.
Time the CBA did some outreach to reclaim the term ‘Archaeology’ and end this mess.
26/09/2012 at 23:23
Jeff Hatt
‘History is based on proven facts, discovered through the process of archaeology.’
Methinks you are all at sea here, matey. This is not the case at all…
History’s written by the victor, but archaeology is study of the victor’s lost pencil…
I do believe that one comes long before the other?
Which is just as well, as we don’t want archeologists actually putting pencils in victor’s pockets do we?
God Forbid!
27/09/2012 at 10:06
heritageaction
Your meaning is hard to work out but if there’s an intention to suggest “The study of old stuff is for all. The old stuff isn’t” is somehow wrong we’d have to disagree.