Updated: 3 May, 2006
© RESCUE

Conservation principles for the sustainable management of the historic environment

A response by RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust

Introduction

Before proceeding to addressing the questions posed in Conservation principles for the sustainable management of the historic environment (hereafter referred to as Conservation Principles ), RESCUE would like to make a number of general points regarding the document. These are numbered for the sake of reference later in the document.

1. RESCUE is able to welcome this document, most of which it finds to be helpful. We welcome particularly the attempt to produce a set of standard definitions for terms in common use.
   
2. Having said this, we would point out that there are problems with such a generalized statement of principles, some of which could prove misleading. Most notably it is important to state that the various approaches defined are not equally applicable to all aspects of the historic environment. Thus one cannot ‘enhance' archaeological strata as they exist in situ . They can only be preserved or excavated. If preservation is not feasible then the choice is between abandonment, possibly to destruction, and recording by excavation and record. While the latter has much to recommend it (unexcavated strata are, by their very nature, not available for interpretation or presentation), it implies investment in the processes of excavation and of study and the provision of adequate resources to curate and make available the archives resulting from the excavation. Again it is generally acceptable to restore a historic garden if suitable evidence is available (e.g. a Repton ‘Red Book' or early illustrations) given the short lifecycle of much planting. Attempted restoration of historic buildings is far more problematic raising issues of authenticity and difficulties of reproducing materials and craftsmanship. Such qualifications should be clearly stated.
   
3. The tone of the document is utopian, most notably in its references to ‘society' and ‘everybody'. Of course everybody can and should comment. The problem is that different segments of society and even different segments of the same community will have different views. At Thornborough, for example, the workers in quarrying and haulage had one view, local residents another and the professional experts were not in agreement as to the nature of the assets under threat. RESCUE would suggest that the key to resolving potential disagreements lies in establishing consultative structures which will allow comments and perspectives to be properly weighed and balanced.
   
4. On a very specific point, RESCUE is concerned with the omission of historic hedgerows from the listing of the historic heritage. Since they were allocated to DEFRA they have disappeared from ODPM, DCMS and EH statements. Yet they remain a major component of our heritage. Surely, ‘joined up government' demands some effort at integration across departments and institutions.
   
5. We would point out that ‘settings' can extend beyond the visual. The setting of an archaeological site may be more archaeology. How is this to be preserved? At the opposite pole the setting of a conservation area might include other sensory perceptions including sound and smell. A harbour conservation area, for example, might well have hitherto been strongly characterized by the smells of tar and fish and the sounds of tasks associated with shipping and fishing. How are such diverse manifestations of a sense of place to be evoked?

Responses to the questions posed in Conservation Principles

Question 1a

Yes

Question 1b

Yes. It is for this reason that the historic environment in its widest sense requires protection from those who would destroy, damage or otherwise compromise its integrity for short-term gain

With reference to principle 1.2, we would add that the historic environment not only reflects the ‘evolving knowledge, beliefs and traditions of multiple communities' but also the social practices of those communities which were in large part responsible for their distinctive impact on the contemporary environment and, consequently, on the nature of the environment as it is perceived and experienced today. It is these social practices which are to a large extent responsible for the specific material traces which are recovered through the practice of archaeology.

We would also wish to see the emphasis on the instrumental aspects of the historic environment, embodied in principle 1.2, balanced by an assertion of the value of research in its own right as a contribution to the sum of knowledge, whether this is strictly historical or archaeological in nature or represents a combination of the two.

Question 2a

Yes, although in terms of archaeology, we would emphasis the point made in section 2 of the introduction to these responses, regarding the specific nature of archaeological assets with reference to the term ‘enhance'.

Question 2b

Yes. RESCUE has campaigned consistently for the rights of concerned communities to have a role in determining the future of local and regional heritage assets, irrespective of the narrow legal definition of ownership.

Question 3a

Yes, RESCUE is in agreement with the principle of encouraging participation and engagement with the historic environment. We are particularly keen that practitioners and the wider community should have the opportunity to communicate their own particular perspectives, and for this reason we welcome particularly Principles 3.2 and 3.3. With reference to these Principles, we would note the concerns expressed in the past by both RESCUE and by other bodies at the decline in the provision of lifelong learning opportunities with the closure of university and college extra-mural courses in archaeology and history. The importance of ‘joined-up government' mentioned in section 4 of the introduction, is again of relevance here. Appreciation and enjoyment of the historic environment is greatly enhanced if people are able to learn about its many dimensions through both practical engagement and an understanding of the techniques and principles employed in the interpretation of archaeological and historical data.

Question 3b

RESCUE agrees with the note of caution inherent in question 3b. There must be some limits to openness given the prevalence of looting from archaeological sites. It is a regrettable fact of life that archaeological sites are, to some people, ‘artefact mines' from which saleable objects can be obtained with relative ease. These people may be a small minority, but they are a highly destructive minority and a seemingly well organised one. The limited scope and present laxity in the enforcement of existing statutes means that, in effect, there is little that is being done to curb such activity and so some care is needed in the dissemination of information. A rather different dimension to this is the possibility of unscrupulous developers (again, perhaps a minority but a potentially destructive one) pushing ahead to develop sites before they can be protected or adequately investigated.

Question 4a

Yes, RESCUE would agree with the tone of this question, but we would also note that a shared acknowledgement of significance does not always imply a shared acknowledgement of the correct way to proceed when a site, monument, building or landscape is under threat. The case of the timber circle at Holme-next-the Sea (aka Seahenge) is a case in point. Both archaeologists and mystics agreed that the site was of significance, but differed radically in their response to the threat posed to it by natural processes of coastal erosion. Without getting sidetracked into an exploration of the specific issues involved in that case, RESCUE would emphasise the need for robust and practical methods of conflict resolution which acknowledge the fact that contradictory and seemingly irreconcilable differences in perception, value and practice exist within all human communities.

Question 4b

Principle 4.3 is difficult to evaluate in the absence of concrete examples. It also omits the responsibility that we living today have to generations as yet unborn. We would like to see this discussed in greater detail in the proposed Policies and Guidance document referred to in the Aims section of Conservation Principles . Such discussion could, with advantage, review a range of past cases where outcomes have been both satisfactory and unsatisfactory to different constituencies. We shall reserve further comment until the proposed document is available for review and discussion.

Question 5a

Yes, given that the terms ‘sustain' and ‘enhance' can include properly conducted archaeological investigation, including excavation, which may be necessary to understand the full complexity of a site, landscape, monument or building.

Question 5b

Yes. Archaeological excavation is an example of an irreversible intervention which countless examples prove is absolutely essential if we are to properly understand sites, monuments, landscapes and buildings in terms other than aesthetics or mere mysticism.

Question 6a

In general terms we believe that the document represents a useful and positive attempt to enumerate the factors that must be balanced in coming to potentially far-reaching conclusions. The real question will arise when real-life examples are considered and the effect of the presently overwhelming power of Capital is brought into the equation. The emphasis on dialogue, while praiseworthy (and wholeheartedly supported by RESCUE), must be maintained when issues of the future of investment in an area arise. We look for future statements which deal in detail with the practicalities of negotiation and the relative degree of influence given to the views of parties in any dispute.

Question 6b

As with question 6a, we agree but look for concrete proposals as to the ways in which different and possibly contradictory values can be measured against each other.

Question 7a

Yes, RESCUE strongly supports the Principle 7 and agrees with the point made in question 7a. We would, however, suggest that the words ‘made publicly available' be added after ‘investigation and recording'. RESCUE has repeatedly highlighted the problems currently experienced in many parts of the United Kingdom by the closure of existing museums and the failure to provide adequate facilities for the storage, curation and study of existing collections, most particularly those resulting from investigations undertaken under the aegis of PPG 16.

Question 7b

RESCUE strongly supports this. We have repeatedly urged the establishment of this principle as a statutory one rather than a merely advisory one. We shall not, in the present context, reiterate our concerns regarding the precise details of the current system as these have been fully set out elsewhere.

Question 8

In general terms, yes, although the lack of detail in some parts of the document (mentioned above) leaves a number of areas open to question. In attempting to produce a general statement of principles, areas of possible contention and division have been glossed over. We look forward to a more detailed discussion of these in future documents.

Question 9

The principle area omitted is that of material culture as the emphasis seems to be on landscapes and buildings. RESCUE has highlighted its concerns in this regard in our comments on the English Heritage Research Agenda 2005 – 2010 and would reiterate these here. Archaeology is most certainly about landscapes and buildings, but it is also about tools, domestic utensils, food, plant and animal remains, refuse and the diverse minutiae of everyday life and death. In addition it is about the processes and practices that archaeologists can infer from the evidence provided by the contexts in which these are found and the relationships between these objects and their archaeological context. We would look for some explicit acknowledgement of this in future drafts of these Principles and in the documents which will arise from them.