Challenges in conducting public engagement in commercial archaeology in the UK.

[Wax]

There is little political will to actively support 'the heritage industry' (for want of a better term) because it doesn't fit with the mantra of profit before everything else. Engaging the public in commercial archaeology, even if it's to a small extent, is not only a good thing in it's own right but will help keep up political pressure to safeguard what we do and love.

You have hit the nail on the head there Mr T. What I would like to see is some research that quantifies how much of our heritage is being lost in the current economic crisis. Especially in those counties that have lost their archaeology service or rejigged the service level agreements.
There is a naive belife amongst the general public that their heritage is protected. The more who are made aware of the thread by which it all hangs the better.

[BAJR]

Unit manages to once again stand alone as a voice of unreason... so moving on ... and just discussing between the grown ups.

This does show how the dislocation between what we do, what we are perceived to do and how we do it.

The new archaeology has to include a level of understanding engagement - and this does not include standing on one side of a Heras fence saying... can't talk... have work to do. !

I spent yesterday going round three communities in Midlothian, where we are looking at a joint memory map that includes poetry, art, photography and archaeology - placing a public importance on the "old" even if it is the 1980s colliery closures... place the past onto the political agenda.,... saving heritage starts with those that value it .

[Unitof1]

Is anybody prepared to accept that there are some members of the public who are not interested in archaeology or the past?

[Tool]

Is anybody prepared to accept that there are some members of the public who are not interested in archaeology or the past?

There are (is?) a large number of people who have no interest in 'celebrity' or football (myself included), despite what the press gets filled with. But that's not what this is about, is it. It's about the vast number who are interested in archaeology and the past. And the fact that the public have a right to know about their past. Much like your signature says.

[kevin wooldridge]

A large proportion of the UK public seem uninterested in democracy (if the turnout at general, local, European elections signifies anything). The solution however is surely to educate the 'illiterate', rather than abandon the principle....the same could be argued for archaeology

[Dinosaur]

So 'Baldric for PM' works on both levels?

[BAJR]

Is anybody prepared to accept that there are some members of the public who are not interested in archaeology or the past?

And the point is? Is there anything that has 100% backing? For me I will continue to make it accessible. make it easy to get involved and/or watch or pass by. my ethos and that of many many others is that archaeology is like marmite. you either like it or you don't, but you should have the opportunity to try it. :face-approve:

[kevin wooldridge]

I think the Marmite analogy is a good one....read the ingredients list for most 'flavoured' crisps in the UK and you will find that one of my main flavouring ingredients is yeast extract (Marmite) and certainly not beef, chicken sausage whatever the flavour claimed on the packet etc. So many more people enjoy Marmite when you don't tell them they are eating it!! Its the same with archaeology, many more people enjoy the results of archaeological research than probably realise it, whether its at the level of keeping us employed or the by-products of our industry and in general that it makes the world a better place when we know something about our past....

[Unitof1]

It's about the vast number who are interested in archaeology and the past. And the fact that the public have a right to know about their past. Much like your signature says

there you lot go again start off by saying that it is a vast number who are interested and then nicely round it up to the public. The thing about celebrity and football is that the government does not rip taxes off you to then spend on forcing you to watch celebrities or football (although they do like to be associated with no doubt). No one would claim that football was demanded by the public they would instead claim that some of the public like football and that was alright because they were willing to pay for the football. I kind of imagine that if anybody was to claim that a vast number of the public was interested in football they would only be doing it to claim some political advantage. I don't believe that there is a vast number of the public who are interested in the past or by what significance the interest of those that do is. Yes its not very interesting is it.

[Tool]

I don't believe that there is a vast number of the public who are interested in the past or by what significance the interest of those that do is. Yes its not very interesting is it.

I can only go on what I've seen. The community projects I've been involved with have had a huge following, and volunteer opportunities tend to be oversubscribed. I'm loathed to mention it, but look at the popularity of Time Team. It's surprising how many people are interested in the past, even if they don't immediately associate it with archaeology. The number who look into their genealogy, want to know the history of their local rugby or football club, visit the local hill fort for a wander, love to look at the old photos on the pub wall... As to the significance, well the ability to play football isn't being constantly eroded by both natural and human actions. The information in the ground that helps us understand who we are, why we are, where we came from etc. is. So I believe the state does have a duty to help protect/record that information. But lets face it, this is about commercial archaeology, not state-funded.