|
|
Last year, archaeologists and cultural heritage workers from around the country held a conference on the route of the Newbury bypass to draw attention to the destruction of a landscape containing 14 sites, some of national importance. We decided to hold a follow-up conference in Salisbury for two reasons. Our immediate objective was to draw attention to the devastating archaeological impacts of the proposed Salisbury bypass, which have been somewhat neglected recently in favour of other environmental impacts of the road.
The Department of Transport (DoT)'s preferred route passes through a landscape containing 31 known archaeological sites. The route itself is still under negotiation: route R5 involves a realignment further south of Harnham; other proposed modifications include a tighter 'S' bend, moving the route nearer to Britford to avoid direct land-take from East Harnham Meadows SSSI. The archaeological impacts of all route alternatives have not been fully assessed, despite promises made at the Public Inquiry.
Arguably, Salisbury is the capital city of archaeology. According to the Department of Transport's Environmental Statement: "The whole area is rich in archaeology with many scheduled ancient monuments and has one of the greatest concentrations of prehistoric and Romano-British sites in Britain." The key point is not whether individual sites will be "hit" or "missed", but that the landscape setting will be destroyed. This vital point, frequently ignored, is nevertheless enshrined in Government policy as PPG16:
"...where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by a proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ, i.e., a presumption against proposals which would involve significant alteration or cause damage, or which would have a significant impact on the setting or on the visible remains."
As reported in Salisbury's environmental newspaper, the Sarum Gleaner (Issue 23), English Heritage now firmly opposes the Salisbury bypass for these and other reasons, suggesting "that a more holistic approach to traffic management in South Wiltshire is required, which would avoid the need to build the bypass in the immediate vicinity of Salisbury. Such an approach... does seem to us to be worth support in the interests of the man-made heritage". This view was overwhelmingly endorsed by the conference.
The Salisbury bypass was our prime motivation for meeting again. But the other reason for holding the conference was to draw attention to the wider crisis in archaeology that allows developments like the Salisbury bypass to proceed with relatively little organized opposition from the archaeological profession. There are various reasons for this. The statutory body, English Heritage -- like English Nature and the Environment Agency -- operates in a political climate in which bureaucratic, government watchdogs are afraid to bark. PPG16 is a weak, advisory instrument and other legislation fares no better. European Directive 85/337/EEC on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requires the consideration of cultural heritage, but has been politically bulldozed in many recent cases, including Twyford Down, Newbury, and the M77 extension through the Pollok Estate in Glasgow.
The problems are not merely legal and political, however. Archaeological work is carried out by archaeological units, which operate an increasingly competitive tendering system, where the cheapest, quickest bid wins -- often to the detriment of the remains. The practice of "rescue archaeology" involves a hasty inspection of sites before they are damaged or destroyed entirely by roads or supermarkets; the focus is on a sample of sites, rather than on the preservation of an intact landscape. Individual archaeologists are professional people with integrity, years of training, and a deep love of what they do. They frequently find themselves working on hurried, poorly paid projects, participating in the destruction of irreplaceable landscapes, but muzzled by "gagging" clauses that prevent them from discussing projects or finds with the public. At Newbury, the archaeologists were forced to work in considerable secrecy, sometimes concealing their faces. Archaeologists are increasingly estranged from ordinary people at a time when there has probably never been more interest in the conservation of our cultural environment.
Our longer term objective is to help archaeologists find a voice to fight the principle of developments that systematically destroy or degrade our heritage, even though this will involve biting the hand of development that feeds them.
The conference considered the following five -- highly interrelated -- issues.
We're very grateful to Richard, Jill, Paul, Simon, and Jenny for preparing speeches and for allowing us to reproduce their notes here.
1. The CBA's Response to the Issues
Richard Morris, Director, Council for British Archaeology.
Notes from this speech are unfortunately not available.
by Jill Eisele, Third Battle of Newbury
Thank you for inviting me here today. I'm delighted to be here.
My name is Jill Eisele. I've lived in Newbury for nearly 8 years and feel as if I've spent 15 years campaigning against the bypass.
I'm a teacher, but my involvement in the campaign has been an incredible learning experience. Eight years ago, I thought that AONBs were protected from development; that English Nature, English Heritage and the National Rivers Authority stood fast against the threats of large scale development... I also thought that police were nice men in helmets, who always told the truth. Now I know better.
I live three miles from Newbury and have to cross the torn and ravaged landscape that is rapidly becoming the Newbury Bypass. It is an immensely depressing experience. The heritage, archaeological, National Trust and nature sites that are being bulldozed at Newbury enjoy protection. They were sites of national importance, and the custodians of these sites are English Heritage, English Nature, and the National Rivers Authority. These government bodies are supposed to be looking after our cherished, but finite countryside. I feel immensely let down by them. Maybe I was expecting too much of them. Perhaps the system itself is at fault. They all seem to be colluding with the Government in an elaborate farce.
I assume quite a few people in the audience know quite a lot about English Heritage. I'd like to give you my view of them in relation to the Newbury Bypass.
There were three areas of interest to English Heritage on the bypass route.
The Castle, a scheduled ancient monument, is 500 metres from the bypass route. It occupies a prominent site overlooking Newbury and was one of the central sites of the 2nd Battle of Newbury.
In 1988, English Heritage did not raise an objection to the bypass in relation to the castle. In 1990, they objected to a proposed village development that was going to be further away than the bypass. This is what they said about the castle. "The castle is a wild and isolated monument and if its sense of mystery, romanticism and grandeur are to be retained, its setting must be protected."
This was my first contact with 'the system'. I thought there was a degree of inconsistency here and said so at the 1992 Public Inquiry. At the same inquiry, which was largely about inalienable National Trust land which was wanted by the DoT for the bypass, I witnessed a curious outburst from the National Trust solicitor. At one point in the proceedings, he stood up, turned to the inspector and said, "Why don't we all go home,... the DoT has no intention of taking on board National Trust concerns... we're wasting public money."
Needless to say, my attempts to get English Heritage to think again in relation to Donnington Castle and the bypass were entirely unsuccessful. They did agree that PPGs 13 and 15 should have been more rigorously applied.
My next encounter with English Heritage came in June 1994, when I read of the proposal for a register of battlefield sites. They said, "...the register will give new protection to England's battlefields... the register will confer material consideration status in any formal local planning process involving development or road construction."
The First Battle of Newbury site was on the list. The Second Battle of Newbury, which lay in the immediate vicinity of Donnington Castle, was listed as a proposed battle site. I was convinced that Newbury was going to be the first test case for English Heritage and the Government. I went along to the launch of the register - a grand occasion - where I put my question to the illustrious panel, who included Dr Andrew Brown, General Sir Martin Farndale and Jocelyn Stevens.
I asked them what they were going to do about Newbury. There were solemn faces and discomfort amongst the panel. I spoke to Jocelyn Stevens personally after the formal part of the meeting. He gave me his assurance that English Heritage would do their best to see that the intentions of the Battlefields Register were upheld. I was hopeful. The Battlefields Register seemed to be in line with DoE PPG13, which says that, "...development should also avoid impacts on historic parks and gardens in the English Heritage register historic landscapes and battlefields..." After much to-ing and froe-ing with English Heritage, Mr Stevens wrote to Mrs Jo Carter [another Newbury campaigner] on 13 September 1994 saying, "the proposed route directly damages only part of the site..." As somebody in this audience said not so long ago, "...it's like saying the road only damages a corner of Salisbury Cathedral..."
My final point regards the archaeological sites. This issue had been neglected by our campaign, but it proved to be, in some ways, worse than anything else because even at the public inquiry, really substantial concerns were being raised about the DoT's failure to assess the impact of the proposed road on potential archaeological sites. I'd just like to read a couple of excerpts from Paul Chadwick's (Berkshire County Council's archaeological officer) submission to the public inquiry. He said, "...the County Council has seen no evidence to suggest that the DoT have followed their own procedures to assess the effect of the Preferred Route on the heritage... it is not an exaggeration to suggest that the Kennet Valley in this vicinity is of national, even international importance for its archaeological and geological deposists of the late glacial and Mesolithic dates."
Another objection to the proposed route is documented in a proof of evidence presented to the public inquiry by Dr Andrew Lawson on behalf of Wessex Archaeology. From his document:
1. "...the Trust for Wessex Archaeology objects to its (Newbury Bypass) construction because insufficient survey work has been undertaken to ensure that all relevant sites of historic interest have been identified and no provision has been made for the preservation of potentially important elements of the cultural heritage."
3. "This trust and Berkshire County Council (Mr Chadwick) have been to considerable trouble to point out to the DoT that the potential for survival of important sites is extremely high in all parts of the proposed route, but that insufficient work has been undertaken to identify histroic sites along the preferred route...
I would have hoped that the DoT would have shown by example a responsible approach to the heritage, but it appears that in the case of the Newbury bypass even their own manual is being ignored..."
4.4 "Despite precedent, the DoT has failed to undertake such surveys along the Newbury bypass lines in accodance with the procedures defined in its manual. I would therefore ask the inspector to recommend to the Secretary of State that he rejects the cvurrent proposals to construct the Newbury bypass until such time as the established procedures are followed so that a true assessment of historical sites can be made and an appropriate response formulated."
The DoT's response to Paul Chadwick and Wessex Archaeology says it all:
"The Department has consulted English Heritage at all stages of the scheme development... That organisation has confirmed that there are no known sites affected by the line of the Western Bypass... The requirements of the Manual of Environmental Appraisal only relate to known sites... The Department notes Mr Chadwick's references to areas of high archaeological potential, but is not aware that the designation has any national status... The Department is not insensitive to the need for excavating and recording archaeological evidence that may be affected by new road construction... However, its powers to provide financial assistance for rescue archaeology are strictly limited... The Department cannot contribute to the cost of investigating sites affected by road schemes..."
In 1988, there was no attempt to make a proper evaluation of what they were likely to find on the line of the bypass route. In the case of Newbury, it was only after the line of the route had been approved that Wessex Archaeology were commissioned by the DoT to prepare a report detailing the archaeological implications of the proposed route. The conclusions of this report were published in 1994 - six years after the public inquiry!
The report confirmed what Mr Chadwick had suspected. By this time, the 1990 PPG16 was in force, whereby archaeological sites are divided into four categories of importance. Sites of national importance - the highest designation - are, according to the manual, usually scheduled ancient monuments or monuments in the process of being scheduled. The Ancient Monuments Act of 1979 offers a greater degree of protection to Scheduled Ancient Monuments.
Of the nine sites identified in the Wessex Archaeology document, one was deemed to be of national importance. So we were anxious to find out if this site at the Lambourn Valley was going to be recommended for scheduling by English Heritage. Excavation at the site produced 445 pieces of worked flint forms attributable to the Mesolithic period, and 84 pieces of burnt flint. A possible hearth stone was also recovered. Analysis of the worked flint showed that the assemblage was in situ. Wessex Archaeology determined that engineering works to cross the river at this point would entirely destroy the site.
The Highways Agency weren't too keen on the Wessex Archaeology document. They decided to seek a second opinion and approached a so-called independent archaeological consultant, Dr John Samuels. Even his report, which was a light-weight document, concluded that the Lambourn site was of national importance.
We were convinced that the requirements of PPG16 would surely apply. It says: "...sites of national importance are usually scheduled ancient monuments or monuments in the process of being scheduled..." We wrote to English Heritage and asked if and when the site would be scheduled. Jocelyn Stevens replied on 8 November 1995, "... the power to schedule is discretionary... scheduling itself does not guarantee long term preservation... as set out in PPG16, long term preservation is our generally-preferred option whether or not a site is scheduled. Any route for the bypass would be likely to encounter a variety of archaeological remains, including some of national importance... there would be little purpose in arguing for the established line to be changed in order to avoid one set of archaeological sites, only then to have to respond to a different set of sites... we are not therefore, advising the Secretary of State that the site should be scheduled."
So it seems that scheduling, PPG16, 15 or 13, or the Battlefields Register offers nothing in real terms when large-scale, government-sponsored development wants the land. I would suggest that only National Trust inalienable land is actually protected under the law. All other sites are vulnerable and their protection depends as much on political whim as anything else.
So then, who are we to blame? English Heritage, for failing to protect our English heritage? The planning system, for being so full of holes that PPGs 16, 15, etc., etc., are meaningless? Or, the Government, for setting up this elaborate charade? English Heritage is obviously not powerless, but in the case of Newbury, they seemed painfully reluctant to use their powers. They can, and must, take a lead in reforming the system so that proper consideration is given to our irreplaceable heritage sites. It is simply not good enough for them to hide behind convoluted excuses. At present, English Heritage is like a tiger without claws. The tiger is fed by the tax payer. I am one tax payer who is fed up with statutory bodies like English Heritage taking out full page ads in national papers saying jolly things about Stonehenge and slate quarries. I'd like to hear them admit their failings at Newbury and to take a lead in reforming the system so that heritage and environmental considerations are made real priorities in the planning process.
by Paul Graves-Brown, RESCUE
Of the various organizations 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 or the IFA. The aim of RESCUE in coming years will be to shift the agenda away from the status quo by offering fundamental alternatives.
RESCUE believes that archaeology in Britain has lost its sense of purpose. Through bureacratization 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.
Archaeology is 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 it must be conserved for future generations and that the public at large have a right to be consulted and informed about the history and prehistory of their locality or region. Archaeology should have a firm basis within the practice and intent of Local Agenda 21, as a component in the negotiation of sustainable futures.
The issue of preservation of a key importance. The principle of preservation in situ, conceived at the height of the 60s and 70s rescue boom, does not work effectively. All too often used to smooth the developer's path, preservation in situ 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" techniques.
RESCUE believes i) that a thorough review of the potential damage to archaeology by current "preservation" practice is needed and ii) 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 insured.
RESCUE believes that the current funding of archaeology in the UK is fundamentally flawed. 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. We feel that funding of archaeology should be separated from specific developments to break the link between the developer's finances and the adequacy of archaeological recording and preservation. This could be accomplished through a development tax which, like other environmental taxes, would apply proportionately to size of developments. Such a procedure could benefit developers by rendering predictable costs, and would allow decisions on the extent of archaeological works to be decided by archaeological professionals independently of negotiations with developers. At the same time, the requirement on developers to take account of archaeology should be strengthened in law.
RESCUE believes that archaeological field practice should be administered by professionals within independent agencies. With the Environment Agency is a clear model, a National Heritage Agency 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 regional offices fulfilling the curatorial role.
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 organized career structures, and would prevent the archaeological "cowboys" from practicing 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 by the IFA code of conduct. We also argue for a climate in which critical views and political values can be expressed without fear or favour. RESCUE contends that one major cause of archaeology's current state is the inability of many in the profession to speak out simply because they are afraid of the consequences of such actions.
Archaeology has become a highly fragmented profession. We have academics, museum archaeologists, field contractors, curators, specialists and amateurs, none of whom seem to speak to each other or at any rate 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 would aid both archaeology and those who practice it. Such a defragmentation should also make space for amateurs and the public at large to participate more fully in the recording, conservation and understanding of the past.
by Simon M. Chadwick, The Land is Ours
One of the themes of this conference is to concentrate on the widespread destruction of archaeological remains in the British countryside. There is, rightly, increasing concern about this; such remains are the only record of human activity for most of the time people have lived there. Even into the historic period, the physical remnants of past societies can tell us far more about the day-to-day living of the people of the time. Moreover, the archaeological resource is absolutely non-renewable. If an ancient site is destroyed it cannot be replaced.
To combat this problem there has grown up an increasingly complex and comprehensive web of legislation to regulate activities which may be damaging to various aspects of our built heritage. These largely consist of the identification of a defined site of specific archaeological or historical interest or value, and the introduction of legal penalties for people who damage the site. Sometimes money is paid to introduce good management. More recently there has been some co-operation between archaeologists and naturalists so that sites which have both archaeological and natural potential can have both aspects cared for. Yet to a great extent we are still concentrating on individual sites. Although such sites are consequently much richer, these landscape areas become packaged commodities, neatly fenced gardens of cultural and biological excellence. I do no mean to belittle the legislative procedures which allow the wonderful protection of discrete areas, as these play a vital role in adding to the diversity of the landscape. But, outside of he fences, even though most landscape features are rich in natural and cultural heritage, most of the landscape has no statutory protection as it is not within a designated site. The contrast then between a conserved site and the surrounding land is even more striking. Although it is indeed admirable to see display boards explaining the flora and fauna of an ancient monument to visitors, how many such sites have a board to explain the way in which the site relates to the surrounding landscape and communities? The holistic view must be to recognize the Landscape Value of all land, be it archaeological, biological, visual or even modern.
The landscape is lived in by modern human communities. To pretend otherwise is a delusion which can only make matters worse. The "perfect" Cotswold villages, which appear to have fallen out of Victorian postcards are dead as villages; they survive only as museums, and as such have as much sustainable infrastructure behind them as a Georgian facade supported by scaffolding whilst a shopping mall is constructed behind. In the meantime developments which could actually keep villages alive by creating employment and services for residents are prevented by the same legislation which is in place to preserve the character of the place. It seems clear that a mollycoddling approach to conservation is failing, and yet a laissez-faire approach would hardly be better, as we can see in many areas of our countryside and towns which do not have conservation legislation to protect them.
It seems to me that, in general, there is a lack of public will to conserve, because financial considerations are seen as much more important, or rather, the cultural heritage is seen as far less important than the need to be profitable. A good example is the current issue of Tewkesbury Battlefield, where a lucrative housing development is going ahead on this important site. According to Simon Denison, the editor of "British Archaeology", the local council which owned some of the land sold for development, downplayed the importance of the battlefield (British Archaeology, June 1997). True, the general public has only a limited say in developments of this nature and a review of the way local residents are consulted is undoubtedly overdue, but we still need to try and raise public awareness of the vital importance of, as well as profit, those intangible things such as belonging to a community or a sense of place. The landscape is defined by the unique details of each individual place, and these details must be recognized and respected as such. If we can awake people to the intellectual and cultural treasures lying at their own doorsteps we can ensure that they receive a far greater return for them than building a business park there ever could. Even unlikely areas often have a long cultural heritage: Victorian terraces can follow the curving boundaries of medieval strip-fields; place-names and street names may derive from Anglo Saxon originals, and of course even in cities such as Birmingham, parish churches are often visible bearers of much local history and cultural heritage.
That people do empathise with their heritage is shown by their thirst for the commercial outpourings of the heritage industry as re-enactments, historical themed retail outlets, and costume drama on television, although this is little more than the past as recreation. That there is an awareness of the limitations of modern capitalist consumer culture is demonstrated by the small but growing grassroots display of a desire for "something else", for example the increasing sales of organic foods, or the success of small craftworkers. Our job must be to link together these two impulses in an appreciation of the value of the symbiotic relationship between the individual, the community, and the landscape.
The implementation of a viable solution requires an input from everyone here. The current debate over the future of Stonehenge, which has been in the media again in recent weeks, illustrates well the general confusion over the way that the monument relates to its surrounding landscape and to the communities (most notably motorists and tourists) who use that landscape. If there was a recognition of Stonehenge as an integral part of a multi-faceted living landscape incorporating prehistoric monuments, field boundaries, military installations, roads and visitor facilities, which has been and still is being shaped by those who live and work nearby as well as those who visit, then the widespread exclusion felt by people, the belief that the place is being messed around with, could be removed. The needs of the ordinary people could reshape the area, not the conflicting demands of different government agencies.
To this end archaeologists and heritage workers must take a lead by presenting a more holistic view of the nature of the historical and cultural landscape. This has started well with the study of landscapes as whole archaeological entities, but has hardly entered common usage in the wider world. The environmental movement has for some time used, as well as the reasoned scientific argument, the strategy of emotive appeal. There is a lack of this, perhaps because it is probably a lot more effective to stand on a high street with photographs of mutilated animals than with photographs of mutilated long-barrows. This is not the type of emotion we should aim for. Instead we should try, by lobbying the authorities, and working with local schools, libraries and environmental organizations, to restore the link between the individual and their local environmental heritage, thus giving ordinary people back their sense of place, their sense of belonging.
Chippindale, C. (1994) Stonehenge Complete, Thames and Hudson.
Cullingworth, J.B. & Nadin V. (1994) Town and country planning in Britain, Routledge.
Darville, T. (1987) Ancient monuments in the countryside: an archaeological management review, English Heritage Archaeological Report Number 5.
Denison, S. (1997) "The sad tale of Tewkesbury battlefield" in British Archaeology, June 1997.
Glancey, J. (1997) "Heritage Stones" in The Guardian, 6th June 1997.
Hunter, J. and Ralston, I. (1993) Archaeological Resource Management in the UK, Sutton.
Lambrick, G. (1985) Archaeology and Nature Conservation, Oxford.
Macinnes, L. and Wickham-Jones, C.R. (1992). All Natural Things: Archaeology and the Green Debate, Oxbow Monograph 21.
McKay, G. (1996) Senseless Acts of Beauty, Verso, London.
Jenny Jones, Chair of The Executive, The Green Party (and an archaeobotanist).
As you all know, the political landscape changed dramatically last May 1st. This is a time when society will change, and could change for the better. This is a time when archaeologists could achieve changes in the politics of British archaeology and to take control of their own future, and of our Past.
The Labour Party is new and idealistic; it wants to make its mark quickly. It recognizes that more and more ordinary people are concerned about issues like the impact of air pollution on their health, or the need to preserve green spaces, and that many more people are accepting that there is an anthropogenic element to the evident climate change worldwide as shown be desertification and sea level rises.
I met John Prescott recently, the new minister for the environment, transport and the regions, who said that to put across the Green message, good packaging was necessary. Now this is a message that talks not just about the quality of life, which is the subject of most political discussions, although what people mean by quality varies quite a lot, but also about the fragility of our ecosystem and our disastrous role in worsening conditions, both locally and globally. John Prescott meant that we have to find a way to stress the anthropological advantage in protecting our environment; a way of demonstrating why people will be better off long term if they act responsibly as consumers now and buy less, reduce their wants, reuse, repair, finally recycle. We will have to package it attractively if we want people to listen to suggestions for their survival.
How much harder to put across the message about archaeology, an esoteric activity, with no career structure, no quotation on the stock exchange, in fact, with very little financial or apparent social gain? Yet newspapers often have archaeological accounts on their front page; usually slightly mad stories, like the height and weight of Boxgrove Man, based on one bone, a damaged, foreshortened tibia, and a tooth. That's because people love to hear about the past; it has glamour and mystery and gives us substance. As children we love to hear stories about where we came from and how society has changed. Yet although people are fascinated by the past and fascinated by the various interpretations that archaeologists produce, they will not see the obvious links between development, a word which to most suggests progress, something better for us all, and the destruction of archaeological sites that have been dug too quickly or too cheaply, and the subsequent loss of valuable information and all the concomitant opportunities for research and learning.
As archaeologists, there's probably not much you can do. Some of you might take a brave stand on a particular issue, but most cannot. So, you must find friends, who can battle with you. or join forces with groups fighting on similar issues.
We in the Green Party have had a policy of energetic coalition building with non-governmental organizations for some years. This has been of enormous value in, for example, the passing through parliament of three bills, two on energy conservation and one on road traffic reduction. We're now promoting another bill through parliament, the Road Traffic Reduction National Targets Bill, jointly with Friends of the Earth and Plaid Cymru.
The environmental movement is grouping together more and more on single issues of importance. This sort of coalition succeeds, almost always, if you have a sound, practical project, and if good personal contacts exist. You must get out there and meet people. Forge links. It is the concern of everyone that we retain the beautiful places in our landscape and preserve our heritage. We are diminished as individuals and as a nation without them.
The anti-roads protests have tried to stop road building, and many other ill conceived and destructive projects, such as the second runway at Manchester Airport. Even with local support, even with media coverage, they have not stopped the desecration. But they do make every planned road or development more costly and less popular. They will force compromises. They will make developers and planners think twice before planning new land-altering construction.
Yet there are still 36 Sites of Special Scientific Interest which will be lost of road building and road widening go ahead as already planned. And there's no indication that they will not. Every species of snail, every ancient copse that is lost, is lost forever. And the archaeological sites. Archaeologists have to be there shouting with the rest of the environmental movement. They must be in the front line as some of you have already been. But if you cannot climb trees, work in cramped conditions underground, exist on a diet of baked beans or survive without washing for weeks on end, and almost all field archaeologists can and do do all those things, then write articles, bombard local and national newspapers with letters or stories, contact your local councillors, your MP. You do not have to accept the status quo.
Politics can be said to be reduced to two issues:-
1. Who gets the available resources.
2. Who says who gets them.
In a democracy, the answer to both should be YOU, US, the people. It is not that easy, of course. We get one chance in four years to affect the positioning of power, and in our system of first past the post, our voices are more likely to go unheard. However, this government has committed itself to a referendum on Proportional Representation, which would open up the political scene to more views and concerns.
Remember that to do nothing is to accept what is happening. That is also a political statement, a political act, to let things continue as they are without standing up and demonstrating that there are other possibilities.
I urge you to do three things:-
Get active.
Get united.
Get political.
Facilitated by Paul Graves-Brown
Facilitated by Michael Tierney, Radical Archaeology Forum, University of Wales.
Facilitated by Mark Pluciennik, Radical Archaeology Forum, University of Wales.
Facilitated by Helen Baczkowska and Mark Stedman.
The main issues discussed in the final open session were a reflection of the detailed discussions in the workshops. These statements were made and had broad agreement:
There is clearly a crisis in archaeology -- poor wages, poor job opportunities, too many jobs linked to "rescue" before and during development (rather than to answering basic questions about archaeology), and a collective lack of self worth. These things will only change if and when we decide to make things happen.
We intend to network with other organizations and act as a point of contact. We plan to work with The Land is Ours, the Radical Archaeology Forum, RESCUE, and the CBA to take things further.
All addresses are in the United Kingdom. If telephoning from outside the UK, remove the initial zero, add your international dialling code, then add 44 to the start of the number. Eg: 01865 791391 becomes: International code +44 1865 791391
Helen Baczkowska, c/o PO Box 162, Winchester SO22 5ZD
Ali Bastin, Corporate Watch, Box E, 111 Magdalen Road, Oxford, OX4 1RQ Tel: 01865-791391
Simon Chadwick, The Land is Ours, Box E, 111 Magdalen Road, Oxford OX4 1RQ. Tel: 01865-722016.
Sue Clifford, Common Ground, Seven Dials Warehouse, 44 Earlham Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9LA. Tel: 0171-379-3109
Jill Eisele, Third Battle of Newbury, PO Box 5520, Newbury RG14 7YW Tel: 01635-45544
Paul Graves-Brown, c/o RESCUE, 15a Bull Plain, Hertford SG14 1DX
Martin Jakes, c/o Archaeologists and Development, PO Box 162, Winchester SO22 5ZD
Jenny Jones, Chair of The Executive, The Green Party, 1a Waterlow Road, London N19 5NJ.
Richard Morris, Director, Council for British Archaeology, Bowes Morrell House, 111 Walmgate, York YO1 2UA. Tel: 01904-671417 Fax: 01904-671384
Mark Pluciennik, Radical Archaeology Forum, University of Wales, St David's College, Lampeter, Wales, SA48 7ED
Salisbury Transport Action Commitee, c/o PO Box 1611,Salisbury, SP1 2BF.
Mark Stedman, Archaeologists and Development, PO Box 162, Winchester SO22 5ZD
Michael Tierney, Radical Archaeology Forum, University of Wales, St David's College, Lampeter, Wales, SA48 7ED
Heather Winship, The Land is Ours, Box E 111 Magdalen Road, Oxford OX4 1RQ. Tel: 01865-722016.
Chris Woodford, c/o PO Box 162, Winchester, SO22 5ZD
...to everyone who participated in the conference. A special thanks to Martin Jakes for chairing the conference and to the Curator and Staff of Salisbury Museum for kindly allowing us to meet in such an inspiring environment.
