Constructive thoughts on the effect of cuts to archaeology and heritage

[moreno]

BAJR has promoted general support for archaeology (Open letter #1 and letter therein, #3, #36 and Constructive thoughts #7). After reading the many posts, I gather it’s safe to assume that we pretty much agree.

As the many posts attest, the issues raised under the umbrella of archaeology are many. Would it not serve our purpose better to break these issues into related components, simply as an organisational tool? In doing so, we can focus on solutions.

Its obvious many “posters” have an understanding of the issues we are facing. We need to focus this into addressing the core issues. Incorporating media, T.V., radio, news etc has been mentioned in several posts, but what is the message “we” want them to convey? Raising the public’s awareness about the importance of archaeology seems to be a key factor, yet “we” can’t seem to pin down a succinct statement to convey this message.

The public involvement has provided success in keeping a Roman hoard of coins in Somerset http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-12800098, granted this involvement was related to a specific issue. Ideally, is this not the sort of support we're after?

[Jeff S]

Been following this debate with interest and many good ideas posted. I thought I'd put up this link to a report by HEACS (Historic Environment Advisory Council) from 2009: http://www.heacs.org.uk/documents/2009/e...impact.pdf - an attempt to quantify the economic impact of the Historic Environment in Scotland (in 'robust' economic terms so not including aspects such as 'well-being' etc). Among the main findings:

“ Overall, the historic environment sector is
estimated to contribute in excess of ?2.3
billion to Scotland’s national GVA (gross
value added”

Figures like that are useful to include when making the case for archaeology (as part of a wider Historic Environment sector) - I'm guessing the figure for the UK as a whole would be be a similar percentage of the national gva.