Open Letter on Cuts and working together.

[moreno]

Hesitation comes to mind when responding to what has been set out in an "Open Letter on Cuts and working together" and BAJR's "MY initial reply". My hesitation to respond is soley down to revisiting and redigesting this immense issue. Many here in the forum (and elsewhere) are cognisant of the complex and polarising issues (see various posts on cuts etc). My initial reaction and I say reaction as I digest and mull the situation and circumstances regarding action, is how daunting a task it is to get people to sign up to and embrace the same vision. For now, all I can offer is support. I have no qualms putting myself forward to assist in however I can. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that there are many individuals grappling with this topic.

[kevin wooldridge]

You might not like the title, you might not like the connotations, but if Polly Toynbee (surely the epitome of the 'white middle classes', tell us in the Guardian that the Tories are engaged in class war, then we are engaged in 'class war'..

Personally I prefer the more simplistic Marxist approach that a political and doctrinaire struggle is by default a class struggle. If you believe this is just about money, I think you need to study the recent speeches of one E.Pickles or a certain J.Hunt...

[Tache]

Amazing...I have personally felt that over the last few weeks there has definitely been a positive push in the right direction towards some real action. The time for change certainly seems to have come. The problem is how we move this onwards without getting lost. As already pointed out by BAJR, there has been a lot of talk over the years but very little has got done. That is not to say that there haven't been any solutions to the problems, they just haven't gone anywhere.
I will be honest. I often get confused on this forum struggling to understand the various issues and ideas due to the wealth of problems and their varying contributing factors. I also feel that sometimes this can be made a little worse when translated into historical analogies. I don't wish to criticise any efforts to improve our situation but I do believe that we need to keep things simple and focussed.
May I suggest that we start by making a simple list of the problems that are facing us at the moment. The BAJR website has years of issues and possible solutions to each of them but they all seem to get lost in the noise of our various problems. Taking this simple list as a starting point we can then think about how we deal with these problems, be it starting a campaign, facebook group, whatever. . If nothing else this would help me get my head around what we want to do...

[MarionRavenwood]

'Wartime Prime Minister', sounds familiar!

Practically speaking, the CBA and the IfA need to merge. Having both organisations separate from each other dilutes our presence. Plus, if there is going to be someone in charge, how can that happen with these two functions are not aligned? It doesn't matter how well the people in charge of the organisations get along and whether they are friends - that does not add up to constructive business partnership. Seamlessness between the professional arm and the major advocating body is needed, with one clear leader at the top, pushing the whole thing forward. Then there can be an uninterrupted momentum. Otherwise, it's going to be more standing around and waiting to see who is brave enough to be first on the dance floor.

And let's face it, all the amazing work referred to by Andy Brockman, BAJR and others needs something to hang itself to. The problem in not ground-up; it's top-down. Everyone is working their asses off - for what? What does it add up to? Right now, we have a pocket full of 100 1p coins that does not equal a pound. It's like a Cadbury egg without the creme - no substance. If there was one united movement forward, one umbrella to all stand under, everything would be easier, have more meaning and ultimately add up to a pound....or more.:face-approve:

[Unitof1]

vote for bajr

[BAJR]

no thanks ......

[destroyingangel]

Maybe we need a high-office advocate (an archaeological or... dare I say it... heritage... champion) who actually cares about what what we deal with, what we are and what we do. Maybe they need to be independant and representative of all (not just some clique or quango). Someone who has a bit of clout, will speak for us, or about our reason for being here in the first place (the heritage we so care about). We certainly don't need a sit-on-the-fence nimby who is just glad of the attention and just wants to justify their wages (and expenses). Whoever it is needs to actually have some concern (passion?) regarding the state of this nations (and other nations) heritage.

Other countries have a direct "Minister for Heritage"... we have a "Minister of Tourism and Heritage". I note tourism comes before (gets star billing) heritage, like it is some tag-on.

[BAJR]

Indeed a National Council of Antiquites or similar, that is the mouthpiece for all organisations and consisting of all organisations. With... wait for it! A clear objective ... Can you describe why archaeology matters in 200 words or less?

To help continue and stimulate discussion - and as you can't see the email debate. here is the next one from Andy:

Lets here it for Mortimer!


<STARTS>

Can I just offer a couple of clarifications and comments on the discussion thus far and add a more developed tuppence worth on a possible way forward which could run in tandem with Martin's article.

The clarifications first...

It was commented to me that an archaeologist with thirty years professional experience is not like an archaeologist with one day on a community site. That is, of course, absolutely right. Part of what I am asking for is a respect for professionalism from those outside this profession and sector, and perhaps from some within it too. However what I do think is that, at root, anyone who professes an interest in or love for archaeology is an archaeologist. Hence the use of the collective noun "Archaeologists." It is just that the the child on a community dig and the thirty year professional are at different points on the spectrum of experience and we owe each other and the wider community, the opportunity to venture onto that spectrum and end up where ever they wish to upon it. Also, in purely cynical, tactical terms we must not create classes of worth and alienate potential allies who perceive, however wrongly they are regarded as of lower worth on grounds of having less formal experience.

The second clarification leads on from Mike Heyworth's perfectly correct point about not needing additional voices in a small sector. I am absolutely not calling for CBA, IfA, RESCUE and even the RAI to fold their tents and not to campaign. Equally, I am certainly not asking anyone to create a new body which would be potentially bureaucratic, and which could not respond quickly to what is a fast moving political situation.

For broad campaigning purposes I am asking that our various voices agree to become one voice and point of contact with the purpose of mobilising anyone who cares about archaeology to promote and defend it as part of our national life. Here is why.

Effective mobilisation of people who had not been mobilised before is one reason Barrack Obama got elected in 2008 and then, for good or ill, got bounced by the Tea Party movement. In UK we saw the same thing in the student protests where the Met's finest were wrong footed by Twitter, Facebook and the Sukie initiative [who took the kettle off]. Indeed, ex President Mubarak is enjoying his extended Red Sea vacation partly thanks to campaigns in New and Social Media.

As I hope to show below, I also think we are not necessarily that small a sector if we choose our pitch and our allies effectively.

Back to the issue of how to undertake this campaign...

It is particularly encouraging and timely that Martin has the chance to head up the debate on one of the main comment strands in the Grauniad. After the Archaeology Special that Mike Pitts edited for G2 and today's two pages on the Not the Roman Road, suggest there is an obvious avenue to work on there in terms of future coverage. However, we must extend our reach. It was when the Forests Privatisation began to play badly in the Telegraph and Mail the problems really began for the Government's PR operation and I think that is what we must replicate if we want our voice to be heard.

I agree that there are a number of organisations and valuable campaigns already running which address some of this positive archaeological agenda. My point is that what we have at the moment is a shot gun effect. We recognise issues "In House," and scatter our ideas, but there is little penetration into the heart of the wider debate in society and politics. A campaign led by one body is just that and would tend to influence only those who already follow and value that particular body. Surely the lesson of 38 Degrees and campaigns like it, such as the Burma Campaign, is that they draw on a much wider catchment of concerned, often lay, individuals who are moved to participate because a wrong has been brought to their attention which they feel needs to be righted and that their signature and comment might help to right it.

Inclusivity of the concerned, flexibility of action and speed of reaction is key and we need to build that lean, mean, infrastructure now so the backstory can be put in place and allow us to respond quickly and effectively when the next really big issue hits. All we can be sure of is we won't know what it is and when it will be, until it hits us and that the government will spin it to minimise the opportunities and time for lobbying and mobilising opposition.


"...weigh in at critical moments when our values are at stake and we can make a difference."

So, as David Connolly says in his post, in one respect my thinking has moved on the the light of your responses and comments to my original piece. I initially suggested a mouthpiece which campaigns on the good we do. I still believe that backstory is necessary, indeed central to what we do, but I now think we also have the opportunity to couple that with something which can also campaign directly drawing support from across the sector on individual issues such as the loss of the Aggregate Levy Fund or the future of local museums. A sort of 38 Degrees for Archaeology and Heritage "owned" by us collectively and, if you like, delegated to speak and campaign by the sector.

For those of you who are not familiar with it, this is how 38 Degrees describes its MO.


"How does 38 Degrees work?
38 Degrees members take simple, powerful actions to weigh in at critical moments when our values are at stake and we can make a difference. We use the latest technologies and techniques for organising in the 21st century. Sometimes we act online, like signing a petition or emailing an MP or corporate leader. Sometimes we act offline, like calling an MP or visiting a surgery."

http://38degrees.org.uk/pages/about/

It doe it through a small core staff and volunteers using a simple, un-cluttered, no frills Web site and Blog which highlights specific campaigns and attempts to mobilise wider support plus a Facebook presence and Twitter Feed. For campaigners and journalists it is a one stop shop, easy to find and easy to use.

And the real beauty of it is that such operations can be set up relatively swiftly and cheaply. They need to be.

The public part of the Forests debate was over in a few weeks. In that time 38 Degrees mobilised a mass on line lobby and petition, created and followed up a national news story which achieved coverage across the media and created an environment where a minister could not appear on TV without being asked about U-Turns and back of a fag packet decision making. It was able to do so because it had imagination, access to the range of social media and a streamlined responsive operation organised by people with commitment, knowledge and contacts. Archaeologists do not have a mechanism which can respond that quickly and mobilise the concerned non specialists that effectively and we must have it, or we are dead in the water when the big torpedo is launched at us.

A hypothetical question: With the economy in continuing recession and under pressure for more cuts from No 11, Jeremy Hunt proposes a four week consultation over the abolition of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in return for safeguarding the rest of the BM's grant. How would we respond?

Hypothetical- sorry, we have already been there over the abolition of the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Scheme- a scheme which was audited as producing good value for money and potentially excellent value for money and which English Heritage described as a "Godsend" to maritime archaeology. The closure was announced by Defra just before Christmas and it ends on 31 March. There was no consultation, but there was a three month window to work with and nothing has happened. That when even the Industry body the MPA, wanted the ALSF to continue.

As colleagues have mentioned, reaching out to allies is also crucial. It is not just organisation we need to ally with though. Out there, beyond the specifically archaeological organisations from local societies up to the IfA, RESCUE and CBA/YAC are 700,000 members of English Heritage, the 1 million members of the RSPB and the 3.7 million members of the National Trust and that is without reference to the equivalent groups in the constituent nations. Even allowing for cross membership that is a lot of people who might respond to a perceived threat to the environment and many of whom, demographics indicate, will be committed voters. Equally, in the schools and universities are students who, the record shows, care about the environment and are prepared to campaign on issues, if not for organisations or parties, but are not so well represented on our existing committees and in our existing structures. As the ARCH initiative has also so rightly recognised, threats to the heritage environment are also threats to the natural environment and here we might add pleasure in the natural environment is also pleasure in the heritage environment and a one stop, web based operation such as this has to be the most effective way to reach all those memberships, potential allies and concerned individuals.

In the end we must recognise that campaigning is increasingly taking the form of issue based groups, often only holding a virtual existence on line with minimal back office operations and working outside of traditional formats. I understand why it is difficult for organisations with a back offices and democratic structures to work this way, but at least in campaigning terms, those are now old models which need to be supplemented and organisations like Friends of the Earth and Amnesty have shown how to combine the best of both approaches.

I feel we need a bit of positively directed anarchy. We need to free up all the various memberships and interested parties to talk, shout, scream the house down if they want to, in real time over real issues that impact archaeology and they should be able to do this through a joint initiative "owned" by the Archaeological Sector and facilitated by the Archaeological Sector. Particularly as another beauty of this method of working is that it would enable anyone from IfA and CBA, to the local societies and even an individual to suggest a campaign and if you look at 38 Degrees the campaigns then link back to external sites for more in depth information if people want it. We could offer the same.

Of course we need to continue to lobby and lunch in the traditional way, but in the end, unless our political masters see value in our lobbying or a political price to be paid for ignoring it, that lobby session or lunch is just another chit to go on expenses. At the moment the price to government [as it would be under any colour of government] is in PR embarrassments and votes lost and we aren't even close to extracting it.


"Mortimer"

One last thought- In the tradition of that highly successful TV Channel branding "Dave," and Red Molotov's "What Would Clement [Atlee] Do" T-shirt, perhaps we could brand this archaeological campaigning project/web voice "Mortimer" after our first great popular, media savvy archaeologist.

Some of his personality traits might have been less than admirable and he was of his time, but he did pioneer working with students on excavations, creating public and media friendly projects and through his work in India and Pakistan, allowing a population to take ownership of its own archaeology. He also coined that great archaeological truism "Archaeology is digging up people." which is what this is all about [and he has a great face for a logo-especially with the pipe]. As Sir David Attenborough recalled in a talk at Cambridge University in 2009, he also wanted to win. The experts on "Animal, Vegetable, Mineral," were not above visiting the museums supplying the objects to the BBC to see what had been temporarily removed ...

So folks as the T Shirt and site logo might say- "Archaeology Under Threat- What would Mortimer Tweet?"

perhaps "...all good archaeologists must live and plan adventurously for the future."?
Sir Mortimer Wheeler- Still Digging p240

As ever

Andy B

Andy Brockman MA

[P Prentice]

and the cry goes out "what do we want?" and the resounding response is "we dont know"

[Sith]

Sir Mortimer would not 'tweet'. He would write strongly worded letters to the Times and politely bend the ear of a few influential persons at his club over a convivial lunch. The latter course might have been hampered by the fact that a large proportion of today's political class appear to be distinctly un-clubbable.