2nd November 2010, 03:21 PM
In respect of EH, clearly there are going to be a number of significant negative impacts as in-house specialist advisors are made redundant. Whether this will be balanced by these then becoming freelance consultants acting in an advisory capacity to EH is one thing; whether this would be a good thing is another important question to be asking. What will be the cost? What will be the impact on the passing on of knowledge and skills? What will come of applying apparently unrelated scientific techniques into the discipline? The potential for loss of this resource is immeasurable, as cutting will require further investment just to bring us back to where we are now; in the meantime we shall have moved forward: the catch-up will be proportionately longer.
The loss of EH funding will presumably impact on Heritage Gateway, OASIS, rescue and research funding for sites. Most other European nations have largely centralised mechanisms for management of the heritage industry; the plethora of volunteer bodies we have here is discouraged to some extent by the national heritage boards. Whether this is a good thing or not is largely in the eye of the beholder. But in those countries where the national body oversees the industry you tend to have better work conditions (for example, winter and summer kit provided by employer; better statutory working conditions; and where museums are by and large not free – access to museums either as employee or as union/professional body member). The private sector will not provide these benefits without stringent national or EU laws being not only applied, but also monitored. While such a union of national (CADW, HS, NIDoE, EH) would not only offend the sensibilities of one or two BAJRites, given the current struggle for national liberation in Wales and Scotland they are hardly like to yoke themselves to such a potentially un-nationalistic project whatever the long-term benefits – although given that Dave and Sarko have taken the first step to combining the British and French services, perhaps a joint heritage body for Europe is the way forward, but with regionalisation for the various parts of the union? However, that too is, I suspect, a step too far; notwithstanding the sense of combining the National Monuments Board with the rest of the regional boards of the Atlantic Islands. However, history is long and imperialism not easily forgotten.
I myself would be in favour of an Europe-wide board – which’ll cost (ha!) – using something like the Swedish IntraSis HER system. But that in itself would require county HERs to be wound down, replaced by ‘national’ HERs, which in turn would be tied into the European network of such. Clearly, that – on the Atlantic Islands – we have only peripheral contact with the rest of Europe, apart from in the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Ages, Iron age, Roman period(what have the Romans ever done for us, eh?), Saxon and medieval periods only demonstrates that this would be yet another EU-project to take the Englishman’s hard-earned pennies as another unfair tax, some might say. However, that aside, the practical benefits of an oline fully searchable catalogue of find-spots, excavated and unexcavated sites (the former including the entire site archive as in OA/WA Heathrow viewer), historic maps and so on such as IntraSis are, I believe, not yet fully understood in terms of the analytical potential. But, as ever, whatever is done – bar the total elimination of CASs, EH and any other bodies – the only intelligent way forward is investment – both inward into these bodies, and outward into other bodies which are developing the technology to make some of the tasks which we do easier.
To conclude, and to return to your opening paragraphs. I fear the return of the YOPs and MSC programmes. The benefits were fantastic – although it is easier to remember the good people who were involved and to forget the mad, the problem drinkers, the drug-users, the unwilling forced to work for a small hike in their benefits or lose everything – but in the meantime we now have a workforce where people have invested huge sums of money to be archaeologists – which has accompanied the professionalisation of so much of modern life (including most of the charitable sector which the blessed Dave thinks can be run on volunteers) – and a sector which is struggling to prove itself professional, in which diggers are desperate to be seen as professional, as specialist indeed, as any other part of the discipline. I feel returning to the days where uninterested and unmotivated individuals are only on-site to fill in the hours is wrong; notwithstanding, as you point out it was a fantastic entrypoint for others. But now, watching briefs are a significant part of the workload, evals come through consultants and you have to deal with more than other archaeologists during the working day. If we are to show we are professional and we should be treated and paid as such, running jobs on a shoestring and using volunteers or a conscripted workforce is not the way forward. To this end, I say ‘Yes’ where the bloody hell are Prospect, Unite, IfA ALGAO and all the other relevant bodies in our and their time of need?
The loss of EH funding will presumably impact on Heritage Gateway, OASIS, rescue and research funding for sites. Most other European nations have largely centralised mechanisms for management of the heritage industry; the plethora of volunteer bodies we have here is discouraged to some extent by the national heritage boards. Whether this is a good thing or not is largely in the eye of the beholder. But in those countries where the national body oversees the industry you tend to have better work conditions (for example, winter and summer kit provided by employer; better statutory working conditions; and where museums are by and large not free – access to museums either as employee or as union/professional body member). The private sector will not provide these benefits without stringent national or EU laws being not only applied, but also monitored. While such a union of national (CADW, HS, NIDoE, EH) would not only offend the sensibilities of one or two BAJRites, given the current struggle for national liberation in Wales and Scotland they are hardly like to yoke themselves to such a potentially un-nationalistic project whatever the long-term benefits – although given that Dave and Sarko have taken the first step to combining the British and French services, perhaps a joint heritage body for Europe is the way forward, but with regionalisation for the various parts of the union? However, that too is, I suspect, a step too far; notwithstanding the sense of combining the National Monuments Board with the rest of the regional boards of the Atlantic Islands. However, history is long and imperialism not easily forgotten.
I myself would be in favour of an Europe-wide board – which’ll cost (ha!) – using something like the Swedish IntraSis HER system. But that in itself would require county HERs to be wound down, replaced by ‘national’ HERs, which in turn would be tied into the European network of such. Clearly, that – on the Atlantic Islands – we have only peripheral contact with the rest of Europe, apart from in the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Ages, Iron age, Roman period(what have the Romans ever done for us, eh?), Saxon and medieval periods only demonstrates that this would be yet another EU-project to take the Englishman’s hard-earned pennies as another unfair tax, some might say. However, that aside, the practical benefits of an oline fully searchable catalogue of find-spots, excavated and unexcavated sites (the former including the entire site archive as in OA/WA Heathrow viewer), historic maps and so on such as IntraSis are, I believe, not yet fully understood in terms of the analytical potential. But, as ever, whatever is done – bar the total elimination of CASs, EH and any other bodies – the only intelligent way forward is investment – both inward into these bodies, and outward into other bodies which are developing the technology to make some of the tasks which we do easier.
To conclude, and to return to your opening paragraphs. I fear the return of the YOPs and MSC programmes. The benefits were fantastic – although it is easier to remember the good people who were involved and to forget the mad, the problem drinkers, the drug-users, the unwilling forced to work for a small hike in their benefits or lose everything – but in the meantime we now have a workforce where people have invested huge sums of money to be archaeologists – which has accompanied the professionalisation of so much of modern life (including most of the charitable sector which the blessed Dave thinks can be run on volunteers) – and a sector which is struggling to prove itself professional, in which diggers are desperate to be seen as professional, as specialist indeed, as any other part of the discipline. I feel returning to the days where uninterested and unmotivated individuals are only on-site to fill in the hours is wrong; notwithstanding, as you point out it was a fantastic entrypoint for others. But now, watching briefs are a significant part of the workload, evals come through consultants and you have to deal with more than other archaeologists during the working day. If we are to show we are professional and we should be treated and paid as such, running jobs on a shoestring and using volunteers or a conscripted workforce is not the way forward. To this end, I say ‘Yes’ where the bloody hell are Prospect, Unite, IfA ALGAO and all the other relevant bodies in our and their time of need?
Your Courage Your Cheerfulness Your Resolution
Will Bring US Victory
Will Bring US Victory