Updated: 21 June, 2005
© RESCUE

Of the various organisations promoting archaeology in Britain, RESCUE has the only entirely independent national voice. It is therefore free to offer a more radical programme for archaeology than the CBA, IFA, SCAUM, ALGAO etc.

Thus the aim of RESCUE in the coming years will be to shift the archaeological agenda by offering fundamental alternatives to the status quo.

Key Issues - Purpose of Archaeology - Funding and Structure
Preservation - Research Frameworks - Employment
Fragmentation

KEY ISSUES
We have identified six major issues confronting British archaeology at the end of the 20th century. What follows are outline suggestions as to how to confront these problems, but this manifesto does not put forward detailed policies, nor does it seek to make any had and fast demands.

PURPOSE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
RESCUE believes that archaeology in Britain s lost its sense of purpose. Through increasing bureaucracy and the constraints of the contracting system, the importance of archaeology to society has been eclipsed by the administrative demands of planners and the financial needs of developers. Indeed the recent English Heritage Research Agenda document reminds us that PPG16 and its ilk offer planning guidance not archaeological guidance.

Archaeological remains are a fundamental part of our culture, not just as a monument to the past, but also as an essential component of our future. This means that they must be conserved for future generations and that the public at large has a right to be consulted and informed about the history and prehistory of each locality or region. Archaeology should have a firm basis within the practice and intent of each Local Agenda 21, as a component of community involvement in the negotiation of sustainable futures. (See Local Government Management Board 1994 Local Agenda 21 Roundtable Guidance: Community Participation in Local Agenda 21. Luton: LGMB)

FUNDING AND STRUCTURE
RESCUE believes that there are fundamental flaws in the funding of archaeology in the UK. We call on the current and successive governments to review the developer funding system.

Whilst it is RESCUE's view that competition is not in itself a bad thing, we feel that there should be competition on quality not price, Too many contracts are currently awarded on the basis of the latter. Archaeological contract work should not be judged by how cheaply an organisation can tender, but on the scholarly and informative quality of evaluation, excavation and post-excavation work (see below). We feel that consideration should be given to separating the funding of archaeology from specific developments to break the link between the developer's financial goals and the adequacy of archaeological recording and preservation. This might be accomplished through a development tax which, like other environmental taxes, would apply proportionately to the size of the development. However other solutions may also exist and suggestions are invited.

RESCUE believes that archaeological field practice should be administered by professionals within an independent agency. The current structure too often puts archaeological decisions under the direct control of planners and those who will have other priorities. We propose a National Heritage Agency, which would be independent of commercial concerns and local authorities, and hence protected as far as possible from both financial and political pressures on decisions. Such an agency could have largely autonomous regional offices fulfilling the curatorial role.

PRESERVATION
The issue of preservation is of crucial importance. The principle of preservation in situ, conceived at the height of the 60's and 70's rescue boom, does not work effectively. It is all too often used to smooth the developer's path; preservation under tons of concrete is against the spirit, if not the letter, of the principle. Moreover there is insufficient evidence concerning the destructive effects of such "preservation" measures.

RESCUE believes first, that a thorough review of the potential damage to archaeology by current "preservation" practice is needed, and second, that the process by which development is permitted as a result of such "mitigation" measures needs to be reviewed, with a stronger case for the prevention of development where proper preservation cannot be ensured.

RESEARCH FRAMEWORKS
RESCUE contends that research questions should be the primary motivating force behind all archaeological fieldwork. (A similar point is made by the English Heritage Research Agenda document). While current Planning Policy Guidance goes some way towards containing the destruction of archaeological remains, too much archaeological field evaluation is carried out simply to meet planning conditions and does not address any intellectual issues. This situation too often produces scrappy and fragmentary results that are of little use to researchers or the public at large.

We suggest that all design briefs should set research questions to be answered by developer funded work, and that the meeting of planning conditions should be judged against the effectiveness with which these questions have been addressed. This could well mean that some excavations might extend outside the development area and equally that some archaeological material within the development area would be assigned a lower level of recording where research issues required other priorities.

The criteria for such research agenda should be formulated by archaeologists within the proposed Heritage Agency (with some in-put from academic archaeologists), with different levels within the organisation formulating national, regional and local agenda for research.

EMPLOYMENT
Largely because of the current problems with funding archaeology, employment in the profession has remained erratic and is still poorly paid. Archaeologists are extremely skilled professionals and should be treated as such.

We argue that a firmer base for funding archaeology and a better administrative structure would create more stable and better-organised career structures. This would prevent the archaeological "cowboys" from practising and bringing the profession into disrepute. At the same time we would like to see much better terms and conditions of employment in the profession, as called for in the IFA Code of Conduct. Such measures might also mitigate what some see as a forthcoming skills' shortage in the profession. For example, financial and other pressures have created a dwindling population of finds specialists, because there are now so few opportunities for full time employment and effective training of new staff.

We also argue for a climate in which critical views and political values can be expressed without fear of repercussions. RESCUE contends that one major cause of archaeology's current state is the reluctance of many people to speak out, simply because they are afraid of the consequences.

FRAGMENTATION
Archaeology has become a highly fragmented profession. There are academics, museum archaeologists, field contractors, curators, specialists, not to mention the amateurs or independents, none of whom seem to speak to each other or, at any rate, to communicate effectively. RESCUE believes that steps should be taken to re-integrate the profession, and that a more coherent structure for archaeology in the UK could aid such a re-integration.

We argue that greater integration, the possibility of moving between areas of practice, retraining and a general levelling of conditions and status between different areas of the profession would aid both archaeological work and those who practice it. Such a re-integration should also make space for amateurs and the public at large to participate more fully in the recording, conservation and understanding of the past.

Anyone who is interested in or concerned by these issues is invited to comment on this draft manifesto. We will attempt to incorporate your views in the final version but in order to do this we need to know what they are.

Please send comments to RESCUE, 12a Bull Plain, Hertford, Herts SG14 IDX or by e-mail to: RESCUE