Updated: 21 June, 2005
© RESCUE

This year's Open Meeting produced three thought-provoking papers followed by a lively debate.

Paul Graves-Brown opened the proceedings and gave a personal view of the relationship between archaeology and wider environmental concerns. He explained how working on pre-PPG16 salvage excavations had highlighted, for him, the destructive nature of development and made him realise that it is not just the archaeology which is being destroyed but whole landscapes; the inescapable conclusion is that archaeological and environmental issues are inseparable.

However change should not necessarily be opposed just for the sake of it. Archaeology is, after all, part of the process of recording mankind's changes to the landscape: the key issue is how that change is managed. Provision for archaeology is generally inadequate; PPG16 is a piece of planning legislation, not a piece of archaeological legislation. The amount of money paid out for archaeology is small in comparison to the huge profits made by developers. Using Wales as an example, Paul Graves-Brown pointed to the gradual disappearance of whole landscapes as a result of open-cast quarrying. Although these areas have been reinstated, this has often meant acres of characterless rye grass.

As, under PPG16 archaeological work is carried out as part of the planning process, there can be problems where no planning process exists. Farming, for example, can destroy archaeological sites. Grubbing out of hedgerows, deep ploughing and sub-soiling all change the landscape and its archaeological heritage.

Another area of concern is the principle of preservation in situ which, Paul Graves-Brown argued, is failing to do what it should. A solution which entails preserving a site under a concrete raft is not a solution at all. English Heritage has recently commented that little archaeology gets dug to their research agenda: this is hardly surprising when most excavations are development-led and deal with small fragments of information from key-hole sites.

One answer to some of the problems facing archaeology might be a development tax - this would clearly separate those who pay for the work from those who take the decisions.

Summing up his paper Paul Graves- Brown commented that archaeologists have much to learn from the environmental movement in their approach to the many problems facing them.

The next speaker, Paul Mobbs, speaking from the point of view of an environmentalist, gave an interesting perspective on the debate. He also used a personal example, from his home town of Banbury, as he looked at ways in which various groups valued archaeology. In his introduction the speaker put forward an interesting definition of archaeology: history is the process of events; the environment is everything, and archaeology is what gets left behind. In an aside to the question posed by the title of the Open Meeting, he pointed out that even environmentalists cannot agree what an environmental issue is.

The local authority view of archaeology varies depending on the priorities of individual developments. For example, an incinerator near Carlisle might be refused planning permission because it is visible from Hadrian's Wall, a World Heritage Site: whilst seven listed buildings can be demolished in Brecon to make way for a larger car-park, superstore and inner relief road because travel by car has a higher priority here than the preservation of listed buildings.

The government view of archaeology is enshrined in PPGs 15 and 16. However, although we hold archaeological remains in trust for the future, we do not know what we hold. Value is an important criterion here and emphasis is often placed on things that have an aesthetic value or that can be placed on display in museums. Using the example of Banbury, Paul Mobbs described his involvement in the production of an environmental history book for the town. Banbury's history is very much one that shows how the environment has helped to shape change, from the Roman use of its iron ore sources through to the transport links of the industrial revolution. However this approach, which gave value to the reasons for change and development, was not viewed sympathetically by the town council who viewed Banbury as a tourist attraction in terms of the existing buildings.

Paul Mobbs concluded that archaeologists and environmentalists can work together, but we need to sort out what we value and how we value it. Giving value to an artefact will not necessarily preserve history.

The final speaker of the afternoon was Rob Young who highlighted the paradoxes faced by many archaeologists whose jobs depend on continuing development, and the difficulties in trying to define sustainable development. He explained the two definitions of sustainability: the weak definition takes environmental considerations into account but allows them to be traded off against other aspects of the development in order to achieve the optimum result; the strong definition means that environmental considerations act as constraints on the achievements of social goals. Resources are either renewable or non-renewable: but archaeology which is a non-renewable resource is being managed under the weak definition of sustainability, which involves the concepts of value and of cost-benefit. There is, however, a dilemma faced by all archaeologists in that by its very nature the practice of archaeology destroys a finite resource. Archaeologists need to excavate in order to attempt to understand the processes of change, and it is not possible to refuse all developments that might involve destruction of archaeological remains. As a result, mitigation, as enshrined in PPG16, becomes the key issue. However PPG16 is not really related to sustainability; it is a way of saving cash to cut taxes. Rob concluded that archaeological issues need to be turned into vote winners by involving the local community.

As might be expected these papers generated lively discussion and debate from the floor. The discussion raised many issues of concern familiar to RESCUE members. Some of the points made by the speakers were questioned for example the assertion that developers make huge profits. The change in government policy towards encouraging development on brownfield sites was also commented on and it was pointed out that many have considerable archaeological potential. Moreover development of these sites may well be economically marginal and high archaeological costs could lead to problems. Other more general points ranged from the huge backlog of material, the lack of synthesis to the need to involve the general public more widely and deeply in the investigation and interpretation of the historic landscape and the environment.

Hester Cooper-Reade
RESCUE Secretary