|
Issue 58April 2001ContentsnewsEarliest evidence of lead mining at Cwmystwyth Fine mosaic floor of Roman dining room preserved in London Defensive spikes point to Roman fear of the North Rare Iron Age chariot burial discovered near Edinburgh A tale of two potters, a burnt house and a cemetery featuresMedieval thatch Finding the New Rome Great sites commentVoting for archaeology lettersCider and beer, Seahenge, Early metal, Water issuesWhy we must redefine 'treasure', by George Lambrick Peter EllisbooksCircles of Stone by Max Milligan and Aubrey Burl Children and Material Culture edited by Joanna Sofaer Deverenski Wood and Woodworking in Anglo-Scandinavian and Medieval York by Caroel A Morris Air Photo Interpretation for Archaeologists by DR Wilson CBA updatefavourite findsLong reach of the flint knappers. Mike Pitts's find links a Suffolk pub with a South Sea island.
ISSN 1357-4442 Editor Simon Denison |
commentVoting for archaeologyWhich political party would do most for the historic environment? Simon Denison sifts through policies, promises and wishful thinking, and finds a surprising level of agreement. Archaeology was promised a brighter future by all three main political parties last month at what was in effect the first hustings of the General Election campaign. Senior politicians from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal-Democrat Parties expressed their support for more archaeological awareness across Government and in education; strengthened local government historic environment services; more funding for English Heritage and the Portable Antiquities Reporting Scheme; and tighter controls on the international trade in stolen and looted antiquities (see policies, below). Alan Howarth MP, the Minister for the Arts, said that a re-elected Labour Government would issue a comprehensive statement of policy on the historic environment as a 'high priority' in the new Parliament, in response to English Heritage's recent Power of Place report (BA February). Describing himself as 'a champion of archaeology in Government', he said the policy statement would fully recognise the importance of archaeology in the nation's well-being, including its crucial significance for urban regeneration, education and social inclusion. Announcing the Government's decision to accede to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Illicit Transfer of Cultural Property - reversing its decision, last year, not to sign (BA April 2000) - Mr Howarth said officials had painstakingly reviewed their previous legal objections to the Convention and had found, 'after all', that nothing stood in the Government's way. He said that a re-elected Labour Government would consider further measures to clamp down on the illicit antiquities trade, including the creation of a database of stolen and looted cultural property and a new criminal offence of dealing in such material. Peter Ainsworth MP, speaking for the Conservative Party, drew attention to the widespread public interest in archaeology and stressed the fundamental importance of the historic environment to national life. Referring to the Lord Chancellor's plans to build a new law court on the site of Chester's Roman amphitheatre, he said: 'A Government that is interested only in the new is making a fundamental mistake and is out of kilter [with public opinion].' Supported by the archaeologist and Conservative peer Colin Renfrew (Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn) - whom he described as 'the Conservative Party's secret weapon when it comes to archaeological affairs' - Mr Ainsworth emphasised the need for more 'joined-up' Government to ensure that archaeology was no longer 'the poor relation in Whitehall circles'. He also stressed the need to strengthen the position of archaeology within local government. 'There will always be pressure on local authority budgets, but it is simply unfair that archaeology is always in the front line [when cuts are made].' Lord Redesdale, speaking for the Liberal-Democrats, drew attention to the failure of all parties to have a formal archaeology policy, and called on archaeologists to 'speak with one voice' to ensure their interests were properly addressed by Parliament. He referred to a number of archaeological amendments which he and Lord Renfrew had tabled to the current Culture and Recreation Bill - such as provisions to place SMRs and the Portable Antiquities Reporting Scheme on a statutory footing - but pointed out that the Bill would fail this session through lack of parliamentary time. 'The Government should be held to account for allowing the Bill to fail, and they have an obligation to bring it back [if they win the Election],' he said. Addressing a meeting of the Historic Environment Forum, an umbrella group of heritage bodies which includes the CBA, each politician was speaking before the publication of their party's manifesto, so no formal policy commitments were made. Pre-manifesto expressions of intent remain highly vulnerable to change - and disappearance. Nonetheless, the three spokesmen displayed remarkable unanimity in the view that the historic environment and archaeology deserve more support and a higher profile in public affairs than they have hitherto received. Politics & PromisesLabourAlan Howarth MP
ConservativePeter Ainsworth MP
Liberal-DemocratLord Redesdale
|
CBA web:British ArchaeologyJan/Feb 2005Mar/Apr 2005 May/Jun 2005 Jul/Aug 2005 Sep/Oct 2005 Nov/Dec 2005 Jan/Feb 2006 Mar/Apr 2006 May/Jun 2006 Jul/Aug 2006 Sep/Oct 2006 Nov/Dec 2006 Jan/Feb 2007 Mar/Apr 2007 May/Jun 2007 Jul/Aug 2007 Sep/Oct 2007 Nov/Dec 2007 Jan/Feb 2008 Mar/Apr 2008 May/Jun 2008 Jul/Aug 2008 Sep/Oct 2008 Nov/Dec 2008 Jan/Feb 2009 Mar/Apr 2009 May/Jun 2009 Jul/Aug 2009 Sep/Oct 2009 Nov/Dec 2009 Jan/Feb 2010 Mar/Apr 2010 May/Jun 2010 Jul/Aug 2010 Sep/Oct 2010 Nov/Dec 2010 Jan/Feb 2011 Mar/Apr 2011 May/Jun 2011 Jul/Aug 2011 Sep/Oct 2011 Nov/Dec 2011 Jan/Feb 2012 Mar/Apr 2012 CBA BriefingFieldwork CBA homepage |
