The CBA is currently working with a branding agency to review its branding, marketing and messages and they’re inviting people to submit comments of their own, So here are ours….
The CBA’s current “mission statement” is expressed in its strap line – “archaeology for all”. Similarly its current “role” (as defined by Don Henson in Friend or Enemy – Community archaeology in the United Kingdom) is to ensure that archaeology is “open to all”. That couldn’t be clearer, Archaeology is “for all” and should be “open to all”. Who’d disagree? Well me for one. And their Director, Dr Mike Heyworth for another as he quite properly tweeted that “only responsible detecting is acceptable”. So when CBA refers to “archaeology for all” it actually doesn’t mean “for all” at all. It means “for some“.
Of course, “archaeology for some” sounds vaguely ignoble in a post-PAS world where inclusive is good and exclusive is bad but it’s perfectly OK if the “some” are properly defined – and that’s easy to do as the “some” are specified in two other CBA definitions: one of their “objects” is “to advance public understanding and care of the historic environment” and their “vision” is stated to be “We want everyone to know that they can take part in enjoying, understanding and caring for the historic environment and why it matters“. So it’s “Caring”! The “some” are defined by whether they are “caring”!
So, to better express what it believes (and to better hammer it home) the CBA might do well to amend its strap line from “archaeology for all” to “archaeology for all who care for it”. This isn’t mere nitpicking, the current wording has a demonstrably negative effect. There are those that don’t care that use CBA’s core message as their cover. For example, metal detectorists that don’t practice responsible detecting (or the hen’s-teeth-rarer version, non-faux ethical detecting) and others who regard archaeology as purely theirs to exploit love to cite CBA’s core message as their justification! Ironic but true (go see their forums).
The basic claim is that “If archaeology is for all I’m entitled to take my share of it”. Of course, that’s not what the CBA means and no doubt it is usually a misinterpretation of convenience but it can’t be right that the CBA has provided such a convenient message to misinterpret. Why not leave them with NO philosophical basis to justify what they do? There’s a plausible case for saying that a failure to properly define is a failure to properly defend. It needs sorting, does it not? If the CBA of all institutions can’t be relied upon to clearly and loudly express what’s right and wrong about the moral ownership and treatment of Archaeology in big letters across the front of their website and publications then who on earth can the public rely on? The Government? PAS? David Lammy?
The Heritage Journal 
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
02/02/2012 at 10:01
Mike Heyworth
I take your point, and I’m always grateful for discussion relating to the role of the CBA, but in this case I would suggest that you are forgetting the meaning of the word ‘archaeology’.
By using ‘archaeology for all’ we are making a deliberate statement that everyone can have a role in studying and caring for the material remains of the past. This definition does not include treasure/artefact hunters who have no interest in the archaeological context of their finds and usually focus on personal financial gain resulting in a loss of archaeological knowledge.
So I remain happy to defend ‘archaeology for all’ as the CBA’s mission statement, and I’m equally determined to point out that treasure/artefact hunting is not archaeology.
02/02/2012 at 15:56
Nigel
Yes I do understand that “Archaeology for all” is intended to be “a deliberate statement that everyone can have a role in studying and caring for the material remains of the past”. However, my problem with it is that it doesn’t say that and no-one can know you mean that without delving into the website, so it’s open to misinterpretation or misrepresentation – which is the last thing thing one might want a good front-end mission statement to enable.
As it happens, I think our own mission statement “Ordinary people caring for extraordinary places” conforms to the clear and unequivocal nature such things need but in addition it happens to contain the crucial “caring for” phrase that the CBA means but doesn’t express in its own. No artefact hunter or other sans-care-workers could ever think or claim our statement validated what they do whereas they seem to do it regularly with the CBA one and (I presume) put it to farmers that they are the “all” that are entitled to the stuff in the ground. I wish they couldn’t.
Incidentally, it isn’t just the fact that “all” isn’t visibly qualified that I find problematical. It’s also that, in addition, far from “forgetting the meaning of the word ‘archaeology’” I think that that word also is not made clear in your mission statement. It is capitalised because you mean Archaeology the study not archaeology the stuff (I presume) but it is also capitalised because it is the start of the line – so I feel there’s no way people can know you mean the study not the stuff. And there are plenty that are keen for it to mean the stuff. But that’s another problem that our suggestion solves. Adding “who care for it” to “Archaeology for all” qualifies or defines both “archaeology” AND “all” in the way you intend and without risk of any misinterpretation.
I feel quite strongly about this (for a couple of reasons). Perhaps either I or HA should join CBA and try to table it as a motion?! 😉 It’s the money though, what with me being retired and all. Perhaps it will have to wait until I get a good beep?
02/02/2012 at 17:40
Mike Heyworth
I take your point Nigel, and share the aim of your sentiments, but perhaps the answer is that we need to get out there more and ensure that everyone understands what archaeology involves (a job for our newly advertised post of Head of Communications & Marketing?!). Clearly we need to explain this better to DCMS Ministers who apparently equate all detectorists with amateur archaeologists or “heritage heroes” (sic).
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 …
Incidentally, I’m not entirely taken with the HA mission statement either as I am not keen on the description of anyone as ‘ordinary’. Everyone is extraordinary in their own way! 🙂
02/02/2012 at 18:06
Mims
I’m sorry but I am actually laughing at this. Nigel, you are a worrier aren’t you?. I have never seen so much pedantry over a strap line.
OED Definition of Archaeology is;
archaeology (archae|ology)
Pronunciation: /ˌɑːkɪˈɒlədʒi/(US also archeology)
noun
[mass noun]the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artefacts and other physical remains.
As you can see, it is a very broad church indeed!.
To be totally correct and descriptive, the CBA would have to use ‘ Archaeology for Archaeologists’. Not very catching or all encompassing for the masses.
So, Archaeology is the science and study and is performed by archaeologists. The rest is History as they say!.
History for all………..
Mims
02/02/2012 at 20:08
Nigel
Hi Mims, don’t apologise for laughing, I’m glad to be of service! Yes, I am a bit of a worrier. Have you ever stood on the Oxfordshire Ridgeway and watched a four-day, two-thousand strong, ten-nation, 3-continent metal detecting rally taking place and then found a few days later that a taxpayer-funded government quango was telling the world it was a spiffing event?
Pedantry isn’t necessarily worthless you know. Sometimes it helps sort out wrong impressions created by a too-hasty reading of the dictionary. I feel you may have been misled by the definition you quote. Archaeology is indeed “the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites” but it is a broad church only in terms of the “study” element, not the excavation. I myself am interested in and study archaeology. However, I am in that broad church not through the excavation of sites but by studying the books of those who are qualified so to do with minimal damage and maximum knowledge gain. (You would surely not want it any other way would you?)
Assuming not, I presume you would have to agree that while studying is for “all”, the digging to facilitate the studying is more appropriate for people who are formally qualified through exam or experience to be competent at such work (archaeologists) or who work under the supervision or guidelines of archaeologists and who (in either case) are aware of and anxious about and obliged to recognise a civic responsibiliuty to minimise the damage and maximise the communal gain. In neither archaeological excavation nor brain surgery should there be a democratic right to just have a go in a random or unstructured or secretive fashion. Democratising either of them is damaging – as is recognised in every country but one!
People are always moaning that the CBA is elitist. Nah and yes. They don’t wear bow ties but they DO think the likes of me shouldn’t go digging in archaeological contexts. I agree with them. The difference between me and metal detectorists is that I’m humble enough to accept I’d cause damage whereas they’re too arrogant or selfish to admit it. So who are the REAL elitists?!
02/02/2012 at 20:29
Nigel
Hi Mike –
“so maybe we’ll be back with some different words soon …”
I’ll look forward to that.
As to us being not ordinary, that’s the problem isn’t it? We’re not ordinary, we’re rare. If your new Head of Communications could inspire a hundred thousand more people to become Heritage busybodies things would be a lot better.
02/02/2012 at 21:42
Mike Heyworth
We can both drink to that Nigel 🙂
05/02/2012 at 13:05
Paul Barford
All well and fine, I hope therefore that top of the job description of this head of communication will be that every time the British media, among other things, call an artefact hunter an “amateur archaeologist” the editor will get a strongly worded letter from the CBA with a demand to print a more accurate description in at least the online updates.
We know of at least one UK archaeologist who uses “archaeology for all” to refer to “digging up archaeological finds for all” – perhaps he too should get a letter of explanation where he is using the slogan misleadingly and asked to find his own slogan.
Also what to do about the “archaeological outreach” of a certain organization (“archaeology’s biggest public outreach”) which insists on giving the public the message that archaeology is pictures and lists of found “portable antiquities” and making up trite news stories about them for the media?
This too has been happening on the CBA’s watch, has it not?