Quote:Community archaeology in Britain is growing rapidly, but local government archaeology has a lot of catching up to do. Instead of encouraging or supporting public involvement in archaeology, county archaeologists' offices and their equivalents constrain community archaeologists within a structure designed to monitor developerfunded work. Many seem determined to actively discourage community involvement in archaeology- witness the vicious opposition to Time Team's Big Dig in 2003. The system as it stands is at best restrictive, at worst actively obstructionist, and often completely irrelevant. We believe that a completely different approach is urgently needed.

Community archaeology aims to involve people of all ages and backgrounds in studying the history and archaeology of their local area. While a small minority of community archaeology projects are indistinguishable from smaller research or rescue excavations, the vast majority take place on a very small scale as part of museum open-days or education and outreach projects. The state monitoring of archaeology at local government level (geared towards PPG16 work) is ill equipped to deal with, let alone nurture, this ldnd of community archaeology. The circumstances, aims, methods and constraints of community archaeology differ so greatly from those of rescue archaeology that it is perverse to apply the same processes and standards. In community archaeology the emphasis is primarily on the process rather than the result. Most excavations are test-pits or very small evaluation trenches, dug by hand to a shallow &ipth, aiming to recover artefacts rather than features, and take place on marginal ground or relatively recent sites rather'than known archaeological deposits or Scheduled Monuments. At present a conscientious archaeologist who wanted to test-pit some wasteground for a few days with a school group would be required to complete an absurd amount of utterly pointless paperwork, including a lengthy project design and a detailed site report. This dreary process can only discourage people from engaging in community archaeology, while contributing virtually nothing to the archaeological record. Furthermore it comes with no payoff: local government archaeologists rarely if ever volunteer money, manpower, equipment or advice to community archaeology projects. Why should we continue to play our part in this bureaucratic pantomime?

We are faced with three options:
community archaeologists can earnestly continue to record their meagre scraps of clay pipe and CBM in unreadable grey literature, expending time and effort better employed elsewhere. Alternatively, we could ignore these procedures altogether, exchange professionalism for expediency, and take up residence in the twilight zone of public archaeology alongside rogue detectorists and dowsers. The third option is for community archaeologists to work with local government archaeologists to develop a set of guidelines, processes and resources to make the system more flexible and relevant and to encourage independent community archaeology. This could include the following:

A streamlined system for registering and recording finds and sites to satisfy the basic demands of the Historic Environment Record, but simple enough to be used in teaching, which at present they most certainly are not.
A simple and easy to use project design template and other useful proformas available as free downloads from the web.
A local contact who can offer basic advice on community archaeology projects in the same way FLOs do with finds.

Community archaeologists work for love and little (if any) money. Along with our skills we pass on our enthusiasm, particularly to young people, potentially the next generation of amateur and professional archaeologists. We will teach them excavation skills, surveying and drawing, geophysics and standing building recording. For now, we will leave project designs, impact assessments and regional research agendas for those who are already enthused. After all, if we achieve the impossible and make archaeology truly boring, the public won't care whether or not adequate recording takes place. Revision or replacement of PPG16 is long overdue. When this time comes (and may it be in our days), community archaeology must become part of the framework. The archaeological sector's response to last year's Culture Media and Sport Select Committee inquiry (Protecting and Preserving our Heritage) forcefully made this point to Parliament. The CBA is already showing the way forward with its excellent Community Archaeology Forum website.

Community archaeology in Britain is doing just fine, but only because of the energy, skill and commitment of specific groups and individuals. If official intransigence and obstructionism could be transformed into cooperation and support within a clearly defined common ground, Britain could become a world leader in community archaeology. Admittedly, funding will always be a problem but our appeal is to the hearts and minds, rather than the chequebooks, of the archaeology authorities. But a warning to the official guardians of national heritage: if you fail to evolve with us, we will leave you behind.