Updated: 7 March, 2006
© RESCUE

English Heritage Research Strategy 2005 – 2010 and a proposal to develop a UK-wide strategy for research

Responses by RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust

January 2006

The new English Heritage Research Strategy intended to cover the years 2005 – 2010 was launched in October 2005 together with a more general proposal for a research strategy for the whole of the United Kingdom , to be developed with organisations from Wales , Scotland and Northern Ireland , under the aegis of the UK Historic Environment Group (UKHERG). As part of the process organisations and individuals were invited to give their views on the documents. The responses produced by RESCUE are given here in full. The documents to which they refer are as follows:

English Heritage 2005a Discovering the past, shaping the future: Research Strategy 2005 – 2010 . http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.8652 English Heritage.

English Heritage 2005b English Heritage Research Agenda: An introduction to English heritage's research themes and programmes .

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.8652 English Heritage.

Fidler, J. 2005 A proposal to develop a UK-wide research strategy for the historic environment and its sustainable management.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Proposal_UKResearch_Strategy.pdf

English Heritage Research Strategy 2005 – 2010

A response by RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust

Introduction

This is a response by RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust to the first two questions posed by English Heritage in relation to the 2005 – 2010 Research Strategy (English Heritage 2005a, 2005b) and follows our earlier submission of a response to the questions relating to the proposals for a UK-wide research strategy.

Before addressing the specific questions posed in relation to the Strategy, we would make a number of observations on the document as a whole and on issues arising from it.

Archaeology within English Heritage

It would seem from the overall tone of the document that archaeology, as a discrete and distinct discipline, has lost the position it formerly enjoyed within the wider structure of English Heritage. The effective abolition of the post of Chief Archaeologist, the subsuming of archaeology into the wider theme of the historic environment and the foregrounding of the built environment (both urban and rural) would appear to have significant implications for archaeology. RESCUE acknowledges that there are great opportunities for archaeology to develop within this new environment, but also notes the possibility of the subject (as defined by its distinctive methodologies and theoretical stance) losing ground to higher profile concerns, notably the built environment. RESCUE will monitor the balance struck between archaeology and other areas of concern and will highlight issues of concern as and when they arise.

Archaeology: the study of material culture and human society

The omission of virtually all mention of the study of material culture as a specific area of interest within the historic environment is, in the view of RESCUE, a serious oversight. Archaeology is, above all, the study of human society through the material traces left behind by human beings. While this broad definition certainly includes landscapes (rural and urban) and buildings (which receive ample attention within the research agenda documents, not least in the illustrations chosen to accompany the text), RESCUE is concerned by the omission from the documents of virtually all mention of the huge variety of artefacts which constitute such a vital and informative source of insight into past human society. We look for this omission to be rectified in future documents and for the study of material culture in its broadest aspects to be made a central feature of English Heritage policy with regard to archaeology. We would be extremely concerned if any sort of split of division of responsibility was to develop between the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) and English Heritage in respect of the study of material culture, given that the PAS is primarily a reporting and recording structure and does not have a central research-orientated remit. Artefacts are most informative when considered within their archaeological context (which includes their stratigraphic context) and as such should be a central component of any strategies developed by English Heritage.

We particularly regret the absence of specific mention of material culture in sections 3.12 (Research Theme A) and in section 5.

Archaeology: the research priorities

RESCUE is somewhat concerned by the apparent move towards ‘investing more in providing the evidence-base for policy development' (2005b:6) and will view with concern any significant diversion of resources away from direct investigations of archaeological problems, issues and research themes towards an essentially bureaucratic and managerial role. Theoretical and methodological advances over the last twenty to thirty years have placed British archaeology at the forefront of practice within the discipline on a global scale and we believe that investment in innovative and creative research using these methodological and theoretical tools is essential if their benefits are to be realised in terms of the quality of our understandings of the past. We would therefore emphasise our support for Research Themes A, D and E over themes B, C and G. The world of commercial archaeology is a difficult and sometimes hostile environment in which to undertake research and we have yet to see any change in the university system where research abroad is prioritised above research on British material via the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). English Heritage has, we believe, an obligation to commit itself to programmes of research which will make use of the important bodies of data which are emerging from commercial archaeology but which lie underused and under-appreciated in Trust, Unit and Museum stores. This material represents the raw material for the kinds of detailed analysis and interpretation upon which new, innovative and exciting presentations of the past must be developed. Such research should inform not only our understandings of the nature of past societies, but also the historical roots of modern society at both the national and the global levels. It is unfortunate that in section 5 (English Heritage 2005a), no specific mention is made of ways that the organisation might look to support the work of those in the commercial sector who are attempting to carry out research within an often disinterested and sometimes actively hostile environment. This is of particular significance at a time when this element of the wider sector is the main provider of jobs and careers within archaeology, including those for many who in former times would have secured jobs within English Heritage itself or within the academic field.

We look to English Heritage to focus on practical and cost-effective means of carrying forward such research over the next five years and will be monitoring the annual reports for evidence of this.

The need for stability: English Heritage and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport

RESCUE recognises that the Research Strategy represents a significant departure for English Heritage and hopes that the organisation will be given the opportunity to put it into operation before it is compelled to carry out further restructuring or downsizing exercises by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). We have emphasised the importance of this in our submission to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and have pointed out that ‘continual revolution' is an unsatisfactory (and discredited) policy for any organisation, particularly one which depends upon the kind of sophisticated skill base such as is required by modern archaeology. We are looking for assurances from the DCMS that English Heritage, after suffering budget and staff cuts which have severely affected its ability to function effectively, will be permitted to develop the ideas within the Research Strategy without having to make further compromises on staffing levels and budgets. We view the ongoing under-funding of English Heritage and the resulting negative effects on staff recruitment, retention and morale as the major threat to the successful implementation of the Research Strategy.

English Heritage and the wider archaeological sector

RESCUE recognises that English Heritage is focussed on its own long term survival and future development and that the Research Strategy is an important element within this. This has important consequences for the rest of archaeology, whether academic, commercial or voluntary / amateur. We would suggest that these sectors, which are, by their nature, far less focussed than a centralised organisation such as English Heritage, should be prepared to engage with issues of strategy as well as with tactics in relation to single sites, landscapes, research issues and commercial credibility. RESCUE has attempted to open up discussion on such issues through its annual open meetings but looks to other organisations to support this through the development of open debates on a diversity of strategic issues. In this sense, the Research Agenda represents a challenge to the rest of the sector which we must all endeavour to meet.

Overall, RESCUE broadly welcomes the Research Agenda (subject to the issues raised in this response) and notes that the five years of its life will be critical for the future of archaeology in England . We shall be monitoring the effects and consequences (intended and unintended) of the adoption of the Strategy and commenting on them as and when we see fit. We look to the DCMS to provide the financial and practical support necessary for the full implementation of the Research Strategy.

The following brief comments address specific issues within the principal document, Discovering the past, shaping the future: Research Strategy 2005 – 2010 (English Heritage 2005a);

Page 2 : The introduction omits any mention of ‘society' or ‘societies', preferring instead to refer to the historic environment. We would suggest that archaeology is an essentially social discipline, part of a group of disciplines which include history, sociology and anthropology in which the focus is on the employment of a range of distinctive methodologies and practices which are orientated towards understanding human society, its structures and practices and the role of human agency. We look for a clear statement from English Heritage which acknowledges this.

Page 5, section 1.5 : While acknowledging the important roles played by the agencies and bodies listed in section 1.5, we regret the omission of the amateur / voluntary sector and of the commercial sector. While it is true that research within the commercial sector is limited in extent and scope, it does take place and should be recognised, if for no other reason than to acknowledge its need for encouragement and resourcing. The opportunity to use Lottery funding to develop collaborative projects between the amateur/voluntary sector and the academic and commercial sectors might also be mentioned in this context. At present, this section appears to exclude these two important components of the sector.

Page 14, sections 4.4 to 4.6 : These sections represent a less than enthusiastic endorsement of the role and significance of research. From the point of view of the reader, the impression is given that research is something to be carried out only under the prompting of urgent necessity, rather than being the most exciting, innovative and dynamic area of archaeology. Section 4.5 appears to relate primarily to technical solutions to pressing problems while 4.6 appears grudging in its acknowledgement that circumstances arise in which research can and must take place. The examples cited, Boxgrove and the Holme-next-the-Sea timber circle are both examples of projects which should be presented as opportunities for the investigation of fascinating aspects of our past rather than unfortunate situations which arose and had to be managed as a result. We look for a restatement of the potential of research projects to fire the imagination of the archaeological profession, the amateur/voluntary sector and the general public. Management may be an important component of any strategy but it remains essentially conservative, reactive and authoritarian in its nature and as such hardly contributes to the uniquely exciting character of archaeology, envisaged as an investigative and question-driven enterprise.

Page 17, section 7.3 : RESCUE is in broad agreement with the weaknesses of the sector outlined here and looks for collaboration across the profession / discipline as a whole in order to tackle these issues.

Page 19, sections 8.4 and 8.5 : While we understand the pressure to adopt the terminology of the market in order to communicate with government, we are unhappy that the significance of research within archaeology is envisaged as being limited to the groups and bodies named. We would expect a document such as this to have a more robust and outgoing view of the importance of research, given that archaeology is a research driven discipline whose entire raison d'etre is the writing of accounts of past human societies based upon the interpretation of complex data pertaining to those societies. This is insufficiently acknowledged in this and related sections of the document.

Page 40, section 6.1 : We would like to see contribution to theoretical debate within archaeology included as one of the explicit criteria for the evaluation of the success of a research project, above that of contributions to the advancement of policy. We see no need for archaeology to follow other elements in society down the road of anti-intellectualism and popularism and every need to uphold standards of informed debate and discussion.

Q.1 Does English Heritage's first five-year plan of action support our business, government priorities and the historic environment sector?

The Research Strategy would certainly appear to have the potential to contribute to supporting English Heritage's own business proprieties, but given that the document is one produced by English Heritage staff, we would be disturbed if this was not to be the case.

Government priorities with regard to the historic environment often seem confused and somewhat incoherent and this situation has, in our view, been exacerbated by the apparent failure of the DCMS to understand the nature and scope of archaeology as a discipline. Given this, complete support for government policies would hardly seem to be a valid aim in any other sense than the need to conciliate ministers and to ensure the retention of funding. Having said this, we are encouraged by the efforts currently being made by David Lammy to engage more closely with archaeology and hope that these will continue in the future.

As to the levels of support for the historic environment sector, we have outlined some of our reservations in this respect above and would like to see a greater degree of explicit support for research throughout the sector, with the emphasis on the application of the theoretical and practical innovations developed over the last twenty years or more. With the advance of commercialism and the commercial ethos within archaeology, research is widely under valued and under appreciated within the profession. We look to English Heritage to act as an advocate for the importance of research as a defining feature of archaeology, considered in its broadest aspect as a social practice.

Q.2 Is your organisation interested in working with us on any of the research areas identified in the strategy?

RESCUE is always keen to work with other organisations to further research in all aspects of archaeology and the historic environment. We believe that, while archaeology is a diverse discipline in both its areas of interest and its methodologies, there are many areas in which collaborative working can be of very great benefit. We are therefore more than willing to work with English Heritage on areas of mutual concern, where our objectives overlap or are congruent with those of English Heritage. This having been said, RESCUE is primarily a campaigning organisation, concerned with highlighting areas of concern within archaeology and the archaeological response to development both rural and urban. We therefore see ourselves as ‘critical friend' of English Heritage (and also of other organisations), willing and able to raise issues of broad concern without fear or favour. We would hope that our critical stance in certain instances or on certain subjects will be seen as positively inspired and intended to improve standards and practice within the discipline.

A proposal to develop a UK-wide research strategy for the historic environment and its sustainable management

A response by RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust

Introduction

RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust is pleased to offer broad support to the proposal for the development of a UK-wide research strategy for the historic environment. There are clearly many issues which will benefit from a nationwide approach and it would seem likely that economies of scale will result from such an approach. Perhaps more importantly there are research themes which require tackling at this scale rather than at the scale of the devolved polities constituting the United Kingdom . RESCUE offers the following comments on the outline document (Fidler 2005) in a positive spirit. The comments made below relate specifically to archaeology but in some cases may be more widely applicable. The comments arise from the seven bullet points outlined in section 6 of the outline document and are numbered accordingly.

Response to section 6

Point 1 : There is a need to involve the period and subject study groups and special interest groups in the ‘refreshment' of the research frameworks. These groups, whose memberships cover a very wide range of the components of the archaeological sector, are in the unique position of being engaged on a day-to-day basis with the data which constitute the archaeology of the United Kingdom . RESCUE would urge that every effort is made to involve these groups at the earliest stage of the process and to take full account of the views expressed by their members.

Point 3 : The concordat agreed between English Heritage and the AHRC is most welcome and there is no doubt that the theme of ‘Landscape and Environment' will be of very great interest to many practitioners within archaeology. RESCUE would suggest that there is a need for further close liaison between English Heritage and the AHRC on a variety of other topics, specifically those involving material culture, a core area of archaeological research. British universities have attracted a considerable measure of criticism within the archaeological community for their acceptance of the RAE guidelines which grant greater status and prestige to research carried out abroad, in contrast to research on British material. RESCUE would urge English Heritage to use the contacts with the AHRC (and similar bodies) to try to reverse this policy. Better liaison between the university sector, English Heritage and commercial archaeology are essential if the potential offered by ongoing technical and philosophical developments within archaeology and allied disciplines are to contribute to the continued improvements to the understanding and interpretation of the data which constitutes the archaeological record.

Point 5 : RESCUE recognises the contribution being made by the UK Historic Environment Research Group (UKHERG) but notes that there appears to be no mechanism to give a voice to those within the commercial sector who are carrying out research, whether this is in the form of developer-funded investigations or privately by individuals working within the commercial sector who have no access to funding from either the public or private sector.

While the expertise represented by the members of the UKHERG cannot be questioned (‘non-departmental public bodies, agencies and charities'), it is notable that other major elements of the archaeological sector are not represented in this list, most notably those involved with research into material culture in its many and diverse aspects. RESCUE would argue for the rectification of this apparent omission in order to give a voice to one of the most dynamic and innovative areas of the archaeological sector.

Point 6 : RESCUE welcomes the establishment of the Historic Environment Research Meeting and the opportunity that this will offer for improved communication between participants. Having said this, RESCUE notes the narrow membership of the Meeting and the absence of any role for the many period and regional study groups or the many archaeological practitioners who now work in the commercial sector (there being no practical alternative to this for most archaeological practitioners). The impression is of a group that will act (albeit unwittingly) to exacerbate the current move towards two-tier archaeology with an elite group (English Heritage and the academic research bodies) and an unrepresented but growing body of professionals within the commercial field whose work is expected to be devoid of any research element. As we shall outline in greater detail in our response to the English Heritage Research Strategy (English Heritage 2005), we believe that research lies at the core of any effective, dynamic archaeological sector and that efforts should be made to overcome the schisms that have developed in the profession / discipline since the adoption of a commercial framework for practice in archaeology. We would urge English Heritage to take a lead in reconnecting the disparate parts of the profession / discipline through a restatement of the essential place of research within archaeology and archaeological practice. We also look to English Heritage to take a lead in providing support for those in the commercial sector who are currently isolated from the resources necessary to undertake effective research.

RESCUE notes that Point 6 appears to break off in mid sentence, raising the question of where the argument in this section was leading.

Two specific questions were posed on the response form handed out at the launch of the 2005 – 2010 Research Strategy and these will be addressed here, although there may be some overlap with the points made above:

3. Who should be involved in the development of the UK-wide Strategy?

RESCUE would urge the widest possible involvement in the Strategy. As a minimum this should include the many diverse study groups and special interest groups including those which are material based (such as the pottery study groups, Lithic Studies Group etc), and period-based (Prehistoric Society, Society for Medieval Archaeology, Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology etc) as well as those with more general interests (such as the Society of Antiquaries). This will ensure ‘grass roots' involvement in the formulation of the Strategy and will contribute to its effectiveness and its inclusiveness, the latter an important factor in a profession / discipline which derives much of its effectiveness and value from the breadth of interests and skills of its practitioners.

4. What issues should the UK-wide Strategy address?

It is far from clear whether this question is intended to produce a detailed answer setting out specific research themes or whether some more general statements are expected. There are so many and so varied a range of potential research questions facing archaeology that it would be impossible to list them comprehensively in a brief response such as this. We assume therefore that this is not a request for a detailed research agenda for British archaeology as a whole but for general lines of enquiry which might have wide applicability.

At the general, strategic, level RESCUE is concerned (as noted above) that archaeology is becoming a divided discipline, even at a time when the notion of ‘Historic Environment' should serve as an integrative structuring principle within the discipline. We note particularly the growing divide between commercial archaeology (specifically the consultancy sector) with its disavowal of the significance of research (paradoxically, even while those carrying out fieldwork within the commercial sector are involved, de facto , in research, albeit of a limited and restricted nature) and the need to undertake innovative and original research in order to inform the efforts of the museum and educational sectors of the discipline as well as to contribute to the intellectual growth of the discipline as a whole. RESCUE is extremely concerned that the nature of archaeology both generally as a social practice and specifically as a method of investigating aspects of the past, is not understood within government or even within some of the agencies that are instrumental in delivering funding to the discipline. We are particularly concerned that this lack of understanding has a direct effect on the funding of archaeological projects and that research is disadvantaged in relation to (for example) education and public access. We believe that it is necessary that the fundamental nature of research be re-established; without research there is no basis for interpretation, presentation or the formulation of educational strategies based upon archaeological material. Such research requires adequate funding and the establishment of structures which reflect this fact. We look for this elementary point to be conveyed to those to whom it should be of central concern.

In the light of these points, RESCUE will look for a strategy to be delivered which addresses such concerns and sets out in unequivocal terms the importance of adequately funded research on existing and new archaeological collections, data and archives and identifies funding and resources appropriate for this task.

At the more specific level, we suggest the following themes as examples of the kind of approach which might have both social and political relevance but which are also be based upon the kind of critical, innovative and practical archaeological research that British archaeologists have excelled in over the last twenty-five to thirty years:

Archaeologies of inhabitation : An approach to the built environment which moves away from the self-referential arcana of traditional architectural studies and approaches the built environment as an arena within which human beings live and interact (thus drawing on themes developed in landscape archaeology which will, we assume, play a significant part in the EH / AHRC ‘Landscape and Environment' research theme). An archaeological approach to the inhabitation of the built environment should focus on material culture at all scales from the structures of buildings, the created land- and townscapes within which they exist and as far as the deployment of portable material culture which plays such a large part in the creation of cultural meaning within constructed spaces.

We see this as a highly significant theme, given the very evident need to reconnect the increasingly disparate elements within archaeology and, with specific reference to the unresolved tensions between the fields of built and buried archaeology.

The archaeology of global transformation : While we would not advocate the unthinking pursuit of cultural and political fashions, it is clear that there is an increasing interest in (and political concern with) the process of globalisation and with the social transformations that are entailed in this process. We would suggest that archaeology has a good deal to offer both in relation to the growth of the European empires from the 16 th century onwards and also with reference to other examples of human social and economic expansion. There will clearly be a great deal of effort focussed on the 200 th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in 2007 and amongst the archaeological responses to this should be the establishment of the broader context within which the African / New World slave trade arose, flourished and was ultimately abolished. There is a clear danger that popular initiatives and educational programmes will offer superficial accounts of the slave trade and associated activities, largely divorced from the broader global context. Archaeology has the potential to correct such perspectives by emphasising the transformative nature of the large scale social and technological changes that characterised the post-medieval and early modern periods. A considerable amount of effort in post-medieval and historical archaeology is currently focussed on these subjects and it would be appropriate for the Strategy to assess the range and scope of such work during 2006 with the object with the intention of contributing to informed debate around these matters.