In our Comments section we’ve just had some very interesting constructive criticism. Since it makes such a refreshing change from quite a bit of the abuse that gets left we’re reproducing it here followed by our response.
From “Middenmaid”:
“There is a lot of confusion as the role of archaeology and archaeologists on this Blog. Here is the OED definition of Archaeologist
The study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artefacts and other physical remains.
Archaeologists are not the ultimate guardian of monuments as they seem to be perceived on this site. We can’t be as it is not within our remit nor within our area of specialism. Whilst I and other appreciate the reverence you give us it does concern me that the finger is often pointed in the direction of archaeology as being the holy grail holders of the immensely diverse historic sector. We aren’t. Archaeology can discover the past and interpret ate it but archaeology is transient in that it moves on to another project leaving the resultant custodial elements to other areas of historic custody.
As for the issue of brandalism, it really is personal rather than professional dialogue on the subject when discussed by archaeologists. The post excavation arena of history are those charged with policy development and adoption and the practical management of our historic record but I rarely see acknowledgement of these other sectors and their role on the articles that appear on here. These other areas of post excavation custodial activity really are the people you should align with as a conservation minded group.
i often see this confusion displayed as the misunderstanding of local history groups being seen as amateur archaeology groups. they aren’t. Appreciating and exploring known local or national history is not archaeology and this is where the CBA really does need to ensure that Archaeology is not misunderstood and therefore diluted as a discipline.”
……………………..
Thanks for your comments.We accept the criticism, we do tend to give the impression that archaeologists should be heritage champions and prevent destruction when in fact that’s mostly not their role and beyond their ability. On the other hand we know that many of them do have strong opinions (as shown on the BAJR thread on brandalism) and that probably most of them agree with our concern that the development/conservation scales have tipped too far in favour of developers and too far away from conservation.
So we wish more of them said so in public, professionals have more sway than amateurs. The list of prominent archaeologists and academics standing up to be counted at Oswestry just might make a difference but it doesn’t happen enough (with the honourable exception of the likes of Rescue). Most fights are mostly conducted by amateurs and are mostly lost. So not only have the scales been rigged by the Government, the weight of participants on the conservation side is not as great as it might be.
We understand about the implications of the sources of finance for archaeology and that it’s not a good career move to rock the boat. It’s often retired or independent archaeologists who speak out. We also realise why some of the things we say get only a private nod of approval from archaeologists but understanding the public silence doesn’t make it feel OK or make the rigged scales more acceptable. EH are billed as England’s “Heritage Champions” but in many ways they act as Government fixers, which is the opposite so it’s hard for us to hear you say archaeology is transient in that it moves on to another project leaving the resultant custodial elements to other areas of historic custody (which reads like a sort of shrug) and “Archaeologists are not the ultimate guardian of monuments” – because if EH aren’t (and NT certainly aren’t lately) and archaeologists in general aren’t, then who is?
The Heritage Journal 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
16/10/2015 at 12:06
Middenmaid
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment, however you have side stepped the points I raised in your response. I was hoping that you may have explored the greater hierarchy of the history sector and how archaeologists are are part of the bigger picture and the influencing interaction between the various elements. The term ‘archaeologist’ has become somewhat of a millstone around the neck as it is perceived that ANYONE involved in the history sector is automatically an archaeologist. I pointed this out in reference to you referring to local history group member being amateur archaeologists when they are not.
16/10/2015 at 12:13
heritageaction
Well I suppose we were thinking of “those who indulge in amateur archaeology” (who, ex officio, are other things as well) but yes, point taken.
19/10/2015 at 11:16
Rob
I think Middenmaid takes a rather narrower view of the definition of archaeology and archaeologists than I and many of my colleagues would. For example: “archaeology is transient in that it moves on to another project leaving the resultant custodial elements to other areas of historic custody”, well, whilst its true that contractors may move on, planning archaeologists and archaeological advisory services have an ongoing commitment and responsibility, and they’re no less archaeologists just because they don’t dig holes. And the boundaries between local ‘history’ and ‘archaeology’ groups and societies are complex and blurred, as indeed are the distinctions between the two fields.
That said, the broader point is well made. I don’t think, generally speaking, the ‘silence’ from many archaeologists on individual cases is anything to do with not wishing to jeopardise funding or rock the boat – it’s simply that professional archaeologists have to work within frameworks. We know those frameworks are often flawed, and there’s no shortage of UK archaeologists lobbying publicly and vocally for the safeguarding of the historic environment in the planning system.
It is undoubtedly true that “Most fights are mostly conducted by amateurs”, and many are lost. Public pressure is an extremely powerful weapon, though, and can have much more sway than the opinion of professionals. I’d argue the best thing professional archaeologists can do is to educate and empower local people to get involved and become activists and advocates, by helping them to understand the sometimes labyrinthine ways in which heritage is managed and dealt with in the planning system. Too many well-intentioned campaigns fail because few people (even professionals) understand the powers available to them and the influence they can have. So, I’d urge anyone who cares to get involved with the CBA’s Local Heritage Engagement Network: http://new.archaeologyuk.org/local-heritage-engagement-network/
There’s a training event in Worcester on 14th November: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/local-heritage-network-training-advocacy-activism-and-supporting-your-heritage-tickets-18601937897
19/10/2015 at 15:10
Alan S.
Rob, we’re certainly aware of the LHEN initiative, and indeed intend to run an article in future about their Advocacy Toolkit, which is freely downloadable from the CBA website. See http://new.archaeologyuk.org/lhen-toolkit for the current range of documents available. It all looks like good stuff!
20/10/2015 at 16:34
Middenmaid
Good points well made Rob. It is a hugely complex area with many blurred lines to add to the confusion by the public. Combined with the mindset that the public think Indiana Jones is an archaeologist, we need to clarify archaeology more clearly to the public.