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.
“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?