Cuts to CBA funding

[GPStone]

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.

I'm not convinced they have as much contact with real people beyond enabling people who come to them (i.e. that section of the public who are already signed up supporters of and participators in achaeology) to link up with the sort of service they're looking for e.g. a local/regional/specialist group, publications or excavations/fieldwork. But surely all organisations who operate within and in association with archaeology and heritage should have this broad public interaction at the centre of their various agendas for exactly the reason you state.

[P Prentice]

is it so easy to dismiss all those regional CBA groups, their publications and their seminars? - by genuine i meant interactive and i'll take 6000 with a passion for archaeology over 3.7 million country house forelock tugging cream teas on my community hlf funded research excavation any day. my original point was that the CBA are ideally placed to have a use beyond their current remit and now i'm, sufficiently stirred to consider joining ...... something

[BAJR]

It's a good discussion, and I think very useful.

Recently I was talking with A CBA regional group (who will remain nameless) and they agreed they could act quite happily with or without the CBA name. If the CBA are ideally placed, where are they? The Community Archaeology Forum has something like about 60 projects. though they recently said there was 2000 groups. Do they talk for members? OR for Archaeology in general. They work with the IfA and others, but - like BAJR - paddle their own canoe too. Take for example the Courses database... lots of funding... (or BAJRs courses database ... no funding) who was it for, what is for? who knows about it? BAJR Guides to help people - free.. written by myself and other archaeologists who want to help and share knowledge - very useful and read by thousands. ( Do you see any sign of these on the CBA website? )

6000 with a passion for archaeology... but where are they. BAJR created a list of groups that are active in archaeology fieldwork - (with websites) circa 170 groups across Britain.

More to the point, if the CBA are well placed, should they be connecting with archaeologists like us? It would be good. I would ask for the meat that goes to the statement the CBA "is the only body with genuine links to, and concerns with actual people". Personally, I think I do quite a good job of that too. So this year I have projects and links that have encompassed Education - both adult and schools ( circa 250 individuals) Excavation... ( circa 50 -100 participants) and Young Archaeologists through both teh YAC club and my own work - including a playground based on an Iron AGe Hillfort and Medieval fields. (40 - 200 people) Plus an exciting year long art/archaeology/ecology project which will engage 100s over the year Thats just me... and there are more like me. We don't get paid top whack, but can often help create projects - projects that work, we write and lecture, participate and train. CBA are A body, but not THE body.... to become THE body, then there is a shift in attitude required.

I support the CBA - don't get me wrong, but like Kevin, I don't know why any more. :face-huh:

[P Prentice]

perhaps i was saying that the CBA should be all of us - for all - even the vested interests trying to make an honest living

[GPStone]

....which is sort of what I'm getting at in a roundabout way. Archaeology (as a broad discipline, not the commercial entity) needs social representation and the sort of services the CBA could have been identified for. That is why I feel any cut to an organisation like the CBA is a hit on archaeology.

But it doesn't mean the CBA can claim to currently be providing those services which are required. I wouldn't dismiss those people who the CBA does currently cater for either, but I personally want to see someone providing a broader and more effective service to society and archaeology - something like what BAJR is doing in communities but with a national remit which I haven't seen the CBA provide in the last decade or so and which I suspect they have now missed the funding boat on, leaving archaeology open to further attacks without that broader consolidated community support base.

[P Prentice]

yup. so if not the CBA then who?

[Unitof1]

http://www.heritagelink.org.uk/our-members/

heres one sir. Look up its lovely cuddly aims and also its gone back to the pre 1998 cba principles of only representing oragnisuations

if you believe in conspiracies you might say that this "new" organisation of organisations might have not had a hand in the funding issues at cba

[P Prentice]

and they provide a great advert for reminding us not to leave it up to them

[GPStone]

http://www.heritagelink.org.uk/our-members/

heres one sir. Look up its lovely cuddly aims and also its gone back to the pre 1998 cba principles of only representing oragnisuations

if you believe in conspiracies you might say that this "new" organisation of organisations might have not had a hand in the funding issues at cba

How very now! !.......

[Unitof1]

have just worked out the consprisy at heritagelink- it says is for non governmental organisations and Englih heritage is not on its list of members

but what the difference between paying a subscription or prividing a grant

Heritage Link?s resources are provided by members?
subscriptions, donations and sponsorship, events,
contributions to overheads from projects, revenue
from the e-bulletin Heritage Link Update and by
an English Heritage National Capacity Building

Programme Grant 2009?12.

cba got one of those? (how much?