Participating in the Past: Introduction to the Recommendations
5 Introduction to the Recommendations
With the rapid growth of professional archaeology, concerns that the subject is becoming detached from its roots, and local involvement is no longer fully appreciated, inevitably come strongly to the fore amongst the responses received. It is clearly of great importance for the health of the discipline that there is effective communication between those working professionally in archaeology and the wider public. It is equally important that those not employed within the profession have access to the best standards of information and working practice and feel able to participate actively in the heritage. This not only ensures continuing support for the discipline as a whole, but also ensures that local people are able to value and appreciate fully the historic elements of the environments in which they live and work (DCMS 2001, 27). Moreover the professional archaeologist is, in one way or another, highly dependent on public support in execution of his or her chosen occupation. Given a public-choice option between archaeologists and doctors there would probably be little competition; although between estate agents and archaeologists the decision might be more balanced. Moreover, as Mick Aston once observed, there is far greater demand for a Young Archaeologists Club than for a Young Accountant Club! Such public support does, however, requires constant nurturing and cannot be taken for granted.
The profession of archaeology is a young one. The Institute of Field Archaeologists was only founded in 1982 and it has since then rightly been much pre-occupied with defining standards and in establishing the professional practices which characterise the Institute and its membership. The arrival of other professional bodies such as the Standing Conference of Archaeological Unit Managers (SCAUM) and the local government officers’ organisations (ALGAO and ARIA) have furthered the process of separation from an amateur background which was accelerated by the dramatic arrival of commercial archaeology. This process of professional definition has, some feel, not only led to a diminution of the role of ‘amateurs’ but also to less responsiveness to the needs of a broader public. In the interests of the long-term health of the discipline, it is probably now time to give more attention to public participation in all its forms. This is not just a simple one-sided transaction since it may involve considerable input and adaptation from all parties concerned.
A number of examples of good practice have been given above and it is hoped these may provide a useful source for those seeking new ideas or who are developing well-established ones. The recommendations which follow are based on issues raised by the survey which seemed to the working party to require positive action and are addressed to the archaeological community as a whole. In several areas the recommendations closely relate to those made by the All Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group (APPAG 2003).
