Cuts to CBA funding

[BAJR]

So do you think they should prioritise? Save the publication outlet.

Maybe the lottery ticket it is then.

[geo]

I think the CBA should receive some kind of state funding, perhaps directly through the National Lottery, that reflects its key role in UK heritage affairs......

How can the State be seen to fund a registered charity such as the CBA, without the risk of compromise or loss of independance for that organisation ?. In the real world funding is never without strings attached.

[gwyl]

How can the State be seen to fund a registered charity such as the CBA, without the risk of compromise or loss of independance for that organisation ?. In the real world funding is never without strings attached.

i think you'd be surprised at just how many charities are state-funded; and then there's the nonesense of Gift Aid... which given the professionalisation of the charity sector seems to be a disconnect to my mind - but then again we have seen a similar process of professionalisation in archaeology although, without a commensurate rise in employees wages; perhaps we should all be contributors to the big society and volunteer...
deep breath
Rant over

[kevin wooldridge]

How can the State be seen to fund a registered charity such as the CBA, without the risk of compromise or loss of independance for that organisation ?. In the real world funding is never without strings attached.

I think all forms of funding made through the Heritage Lottery fund come with conditions attached and the funding is granted to plenty of charitable bodies...which doesn't necessarily compromise the aims of the charity or the conditions attached.

In terms of the CBA was thinking in particular about their outreach projects, specifically community archaeology. I can see a future for those projects being directly funded by the HLF, especially where they might suffer not only through cuts to the CBA funding but also through the withdrawal of local authority support. And to my mind it is a far better investment of HL funding than the piss up planned giving it directly or indirectly to sports fanatics to waste on their 2 weeks worth of adoration of buff Olympic steroid abusers in Lycra pants....

[BAJR]

I wish we did know what they were concentrating on. They do seem to be trying to be more open... with a little help from people who really knew about serious outreach. Though all the words in the world don't seem to count for action. Would community archaeology continue? Would it flourish... ? most likely.

Asking archaeologists to join won't cut it. I don't mind the CBA getting funded, as long as it is not just to gain control or stifle, but to support and to acknowledge the work of others. 2 weeks worth of adoration of buff Olympic steroid abusers in Lycra pants.. or out of touch tweedies who have not been in a trench for decades? Lets get together ... thats something I would support. I agree with Oz in that archaeology should really be for all, and has to change, rather than force people to bend to its will.

[P Prentice]

is community archaeology, as funded by the HLF, the future of honest-to-goodness research excavation, able to go where development isn't, able to draw support from a wide range of do-goodin bodies, and presumably then, able to hire in professional standard training and support? Is then the CBA exactly the right body to dole out the grants?

[kevin wooldridge]

is community archaeology, as funded by the HLF, the future of honest-to-goodness research excavation, able to go where development isn't, able to draw support from a wide range of do-goodin bodies, and presumably then, able to hire in professional standard training and support? Is then the CBA exactly the right body to dole out the grants?

I don't necessarily think that CBA would be the WORST body to hand out such grants, but...

.... At the end of the day (and I accept David's general critique), the CBA exists as one of a number of bodies in a field littered with bodies. Quite why it necessary to have the National Triust(s), English Heritage, CADW, Historic Scotland, DoE (NI), CBA, IfA, Societies of Antiquaries, BAA, DCMS, PAS; hundreds of local curators, museums, universities and development archaeologists etc etc all doing much the same thing that one single body could manage to do quite efficiently and effectively has always puzzled me...I support the principle of the CBA and remember with affection and gratitude that in my early days in archaeology (and certainly pre-BAJR) it was an important conduit for finding out about projects and getting work. I suspect however if it were to go now, it would not leave a substantial hole in the ground...certainly not as regards professional archaeology anyway.

But in these troubled times, I subscribe wholeheartedly to the Niemoller Principle (First they came for the CBA and I didn't speak out.....when they came for me there was no-one left to speak out!!) so I don't think that we can stand by and allow archaeology to be diminished by allowing bodies such as CBA to fail due to apathy...

[GPStone]

But in these troubled times, I subscribe wholeheartedly to the Niemoller Principle (First they came for the CBA and I didn't speak out.....when they came for me there was no-one left to speak out!!) so I don't think that we can stand by and allow archaeology to be diminished by allowing bodies such as CBA to fail due to apathy...

I agree. Strategic merging of organisations to make them more efficient and combine to form more effective agendas is one thing. To simply lose organisations which have a significant profile both within and outside of the discipline or to see them have their hands ties behind their backs, certainly doesn't help archaeology or archaeologists (professional or amateur).

I think that there are far to many bodies in archaeology doing similar or subtly different things and diluting the real positive influence that could be exerted. I would like to see the situation simplified into a few really effective and representative organisations, and not sure I can justifiably maintain the stance that the CBA should definitely be one of those. Perhaps that is the view the British Academy has taken as well.

However, I also feel it would be much more beneficial to all of us as archaeologists if such winding-down or reduction in scope (if it were to amount to that - the silence is deafening) originated from a wider, well informed discussion that never really seems to have come to fruition since the emergence and expansion of the 80s.

[P Prentice]

whilst agreeing that there are indeed far too many bodies with vested interests it is worth remembering that the CBA is the only body with genuine links to, and concerns with actual people - you know the public, the ones who really own it.

[kevin wooldridge]

The CBA is one of a number of bodies who have 'genuine links with actual people'...I couldn't say they are the ONLY body.....and I doubt they have more members than EH or the National Trusts. Infact they claim 6000 'general' members and 600 affiliated bodies compared to 3.7 million NT members and 600,000 EH members.

I suspect one of the problems with the CBA is that they actually lack very much contact with the 'real' public, largely because they have concentrated on their perceived raison d'etre for all these years and left EH and the National Trust and the IfA to get on with theirs. In fact until not many years ago it was impossible to join the CBA as a member of the public, you could only 'join' through affiliating an exsiting body.