English Heritage Research Strategy 2005 – 2010

A response by RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust

RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust

15a Bull Plain
Hertford
Hertfordshire
SG14 1DX

Telephone: (01992) 553377

E-Mail: rescue@rescue-archaeology.freeserve.co.uk
Website: www.rescue-archaeology.freeserve.co.uk

Chairman
Mr. Roy Friendship-Taylor M.Phil., MAAIS., AIFA
Tel. (01604) 870312
E-Mail: roy@friendship-taylor.freeserve.co.uk

Secretary
Dr Chris Cumberpatch
Tel. (0114) 2310051
E-Mail: cgc@ccumberpatch.freeserve.co.uk

January 2006
 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.

Bibliography
English Heritage 2005a Discovering the past, shaping the future: Research Strategy 2005 –
2010. English Heritage.

English Heritage 2005b English Heritage Research Agenda: An introduction to English

heritage’s research themes and programmes. English Heritage.