Sustainability in community archaeology

ISSN: 2171-6315 Special Volume 1 - 2014 © National Museums Liverpool Editors: Kerry Massheder-Rigby & Dominic Walker www.arqueologiapublica.es AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology Emerging Approaches to Public Archaeology AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology is edited by JAS Arqueología S.L.U. AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology Special Volume 1 - 2014 p. 21-44 Sustainability in community archaeology Paul BELFORD Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust Abstract This paper considers the rise of community archaeology in England and Wales, its relationships with other branches of archaeology, and its longterm sustainability. Possible meanings of sustainability are discussed from an international and interdisciplinary perspective, before questions of social, intellectual and economic sustainability in community archaeology are considered. It is argued that true sustainability for community ctejcgqnqi{"yknn"qpn{"dg"rquukdng"kh"tgugctej"qwveqogu"cpf"rwdnke"dgpgÝv" are considered as being of equal value. Keywords Community, Sustainability, Theory, Public Archaeology Community archaeology in England and Wales has developed rapidly in the last two decades—and particularly so in the last ten years. In so doing it has moved beyond conventional outreach to embrace radical approaches which attempt to empower nonprofessionals in all sorts of ways. The term ‘community archaeology’ is therefore itself problematic, since it is open to a wide range qh"fgÝpkvkqpu0"Cnvjqwij"Ýpfkpi"c"fgÝpkvkqp"qh"vjg"vgto"ku"pqv"vjg" primary aim of this paper, it is nevertheless necessary to consider some of the issues at the outset. For many projects it is not necessarily possible to identify a ‘community’, and in many cases we are not doing what most people might consider ‘archaeology’. The word ‘community’ often implies something that is derived from place, and of course by their very nature all archaeology projects are rooted in a particular location. However in many cases the non-professional participants in these projects are not actually from the place that is the subject of study. One popular archaeological resource for community projects, for example, is 22 - Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology industrial housing which was demolished in the mid-twentieth century during slum clearance. This sort of archaeology is relatively straightforward, accessible and fun. Frequently, however, any former local community has been dispersed, and perhaps even died. The modern communities which may now surround these former places, and which tend to get involved in the archaeology, are composed of entirely different people. Rarely do the old and new communities overlap (Figure 1). Former residents may visit a site, but their engagement with the material evidence is more limited. Instead for them the act of excavation is an observed performance which acts as a springboard for memory. Such former residents are much more interested in looking at old photographs, uecppkpi"vjg"egpuwu"tgvwtpu"vq"Ýpf"fkon{/tgogodgtgf"pcogu."cpf" vcnmkpi"vq"gcej"qvjgt"rgtjcru"hqt"vjg"Ýtuv"vkog"kp"qxgt"hqtv{"{gctu0" Meanwhile another community, the majority of whom have moved into an area rather than having been born there, are the ones actually excavating the site. Hkiwtg"30"Fkhhgtgpv"eqoowpkvkgu0"Dctdctc"Yjkvpg{"uvcpfu"qp"vjg"Þqqt"qh" the laundry she had used as a child, during the excavation of industrial housing at Hinkshay (Shropshire, UK). This is a rare example of the overlap between different ‘heritage communities’. Most of the former residents stayed off site looking at old photographs and reminiscing (right background); excavation participants were all incomers (photograph by Paul Belford, copyright). Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology - 23 Of course there are (and always have been) other communities not rooted in a sense of place. Some of these might be seen as elite groups, such as academics. Other communities might be stakeholders such as funders, regulatory authorities and so on; or people who have travelled long distances at their own expense to become involved with the work as archaeology students or volunteers. Yet other communities might engage with the project through online content, such as social media or blogging. These groups are still communities, even if they do not share a common rj{ukecn"nqecvkqp0"Vjg"ÒHctq"EqpxgpvkqpÓ"*ugg"dgnqy+"kfgpvkÝgu"uwej" groups as ‘heritage communities’. These consist “of people who xcnwg"urgekÝe"curgevu"qh"ewnvwtcn"jgtkvcig"yjkej"vjg{"ykuj."ykvjkp" the framework of public action, to sustain and transmit to future generations” and recognises that such communities may consist of experts and non-experts, professionals and non-professionals (Council of Europe 2005: Articles 2, 12). It is also the case that a lot of the work undertaken as part of community projects is not what non-professionals might perceive to be ‘archaeology’ (Kenny 2010; Simpson and Williams 2008). Most archaeologists regard activities such as map regression analysis, archive research and genealogy as components of the archaeological toolbox, but many non-professionals will see these as ‘local history’ or ‘family history’. However these can be much more accessible activities for non-professionals—particularly for vjqug"yjq"ctg"gzenwfgf"htqo"Ýgnfyqtm"d{"xctkqwu"rj{ukecn"hcevqtu0" So community archaeology involves rather disparate groups of people who may or may not share a geographical association, and also involves a wide variety of techniques which may be more or less ‘archaeological’. Thus in this paper the term will be used in its broadest possible sense, to mean any archaeological endeavour which engages non-professionals in some form. Participation and sustainability Aside from its relationship to other branches of archaeology— which will be addressed below—the theory and practice of community archaeology must also be situated within other areas of intellectual and public policy discourse. Two closely connected strands have particular relevance here: philosophies of public participation, and concepts of sustainability. 24 - Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology Scholarly consideration of how public participation actually happens (and does not happen) began in the 1960s with the emergence of civil rights movements in the United States and gnugyjgtg0"Qpg"qh"vjg"oquv"kpÞwgpvkcn"rkgegu"qh"yqtm"ycu"Ujgtt{" Arnstein’s (1969) ‘ladder of citizen participation’ (Figure 2). There are eight ‘rungs’ on the ladder, representing three levels of participation. Arnstein herself made the point that this is a very ukornkÝgf" gzrtguukqp" qh" vjg" ukvwcvkqp0" Kp" jgt" vgtou." pgkvjgt" vjg" ‘powerless citizens’ nor the ‘power-holders’ are homogenous blocs: dqvj"itqwru"eqpvckp"Ðc"jquv"qh"fkxgtigpv"rqkpvu"qh"xkgy."ukipkÝecpv" cleavages, competing vested interests, and splintered subgroups” (Arnstein 1969: 220). The extent to which any particular action tends towards the top or the bottom of the ladder may also be a function of the motives behind it. Figure 2. Degrees of citizen participation, after Arnstein (1969) and EIPP (2009). Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology - 25 Very few community archaeology projects or activities have consciously set out to be ‘manipulative’ or ‘therapeutic’ in Arnstein’s sense—although there may well be some aspects of heritage interpretation that could be included in those areas. Certainly, even well-intentioned work will not be successful when the heritage professionals who design it make no allowances for their own cultural background (McDavid 2007: 108). Some public heritage projects aspire to be near the top of this ladder. Perhaps Sedgeford is the most obvious example of this sort of aspiration, although it has not always been consistently achieved there (Faulkner 2009: 53). However, the reality is that most public heritage tends to hover around the ‘tokenistic middle’ of Arnstein’s ladder (Belford 2011: 53). In many cases, as discussed below, it may not even be desirable to try and go beyond ‘partnership’. CtpuvgkpÓu"yqtm"eqpvkpwgu"vq"dg"kpÞwgpvkcn"kp"iwkfkpi"fkuewuukqpu" about public participation at a policy level. Archon Fung, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard, has looked closely at the role of various stakeholders in the operation of local political governance and urban democracy. From this work he developed the apparently oxymoronic theory of ‘accountable autonomy’ (Fung 2001, 2007). This is “a conception of centralized action that counter-intuitively bolsters local capability without improperly and destructively encroaching upon it” (Fung 2004: 2). In application, ‘accountable autonomy’ attempts to create civic structures that sit between centralised ‘power-holders’ at the bottom of Arnstein’s ladder and the ‘powerless citizens’ at the top. Following Fung, the European Institute for Public Participation set out a three-tier model for public participation in public policy- and decision-making. This they fgÝpgf"cu"c"Òfgnkdgtcvkxg"rtqeguuÓ."pcogn{"c"rtqeguu"qh"vjqwijvhwn" discussion based on the giving and receiving of reasons for choices; thus “interested or affected citizens, civil society organisations, and government actors are involved in policy-making before a political decision is taken” (EIPP 2009: 6). Their three tiers were, from top to bottom, ‘Information giving and receiving’, ‘Consultation’ and ‘Participation’ (Figure 2). Tgvwtpkpi"urgekÝecnn{"vq"ewnvwtcn"jgtkvcig."Ncwtclcpg"Uokvj"jcu" used the term ‘authorized heritage discourse’ to describe the ways in which heritage is deployed by the dominant social, religious, political or ethnic groups in any given society to reinforce their position (Smith 2006). In Arnstein’s terms, these are the ‘power- 26 - Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology holders’. In apparent contrast to such hegemonic heritage (often, but not always, sponsored by the state) is the idea of resistant, or perhaps ‘unauthorized’, heritage—equating very loosely to Arnstein’s ‘powerless citizens’. Tensions between authorized and unauthorized heritage (both in the past and in the present) have often been expressed in simple binary terms: colonizer versus colonized, indigenous versus outsider, elite versus underclass, professional versus amateur. However these relationships are tctgn{"uvtckijvhqtyctf"fkejqvqokgu0"Vjku"dtqcfgt"yqtm"kp"vjg"Ýgnf"qh" public policy is therefore very helpful in enabling us in the cultural jgtkvcig" ugevqt" vq" fgxgnqr" u{uvgou" cpf" rtqeguugu" yjkej" tgÞgev" the nuances inherent in society—nuances which we recognise from vjg"ctejcgqnqikecn"tgeqtf."dwv"yjkej"yg"uqogvkogu"Ýpf"fkhÝewnv"vq" translate into theoretical and methodological approaches. The connection between participation and sustainability has been recognised for a long time. Indeed the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm began to consider the notion of what is now widely termed ‘sustainable development’, although the phrase itself did not appear until the Ýtuv"Wpkvgf"Pcvkqpu"ÒGctvj"UwookvÓ"cv"Tkq"vygpv{"{gctu"ncvgt"*WPGR" 1972, 1992). The ‘Rio Declaration’ recognises the importance of public participation in sustainable development: “Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level... each individual shall have... the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available...” (UNEP 1992: Principle 10) The 1998 ‘Aarhus Convention’ built on the ‘Rio Declaration’ and made an explicit link between environmental and human rights: sustainable development can only be achieved through the involvement of all stakeholders. This quite radical document is structured on three ‘pillars’: public access to information about the environment, civic participation in certain decisions with environmental relevance, and access to courts of law or tribunals (UNECE 1998). Although primarily framed with reference to the natural environment, there is a great deal in these documents of relevance to the historic environment. Indeed planning legislation in force in England and Wales between 1990 and 2010 famously Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology - 27 fguetkdgf" ctejcgqnqi{" cu" Ðc" Ýpkvg" cpf" pqp/tgpgycdng" tguqwtegÑ" (DoE 1990). This language is directly derived from the 1972 ‘Stockholm Declaration’, which states that “non-renewable resources... must be employed in such a way as to guard against vjg"fcpigt"qh"vjgkt"hwvwtg"gzjcwuvkqp"cpf"vq"gpuwtg"vjcv"dgpgÝvu" from such employment are shared by all mankind” (UNEP 1972: Principle 5). Cu" pqvgf" cdqxg." ewnvwtcn" jgtkvcig" ku" urgekÝecnn{" cfftguugf" d{" the ‘Faro Convention’, drafted by the Council of Europe in 2005. Public participation and sustainability are closely bound together by this document. For example in Section II, Article 7 deals with ‘cultural heritage and dialogue’, Article 8 with ‘environment, heritage and quality of life’, and Article 9 addresses ‘sustainable use of the cultural heritage’ (Council of Europe 2005). Section III deals with the ‘shared responsibility for cultural heritage and rwdnke"rctvkekrcvkqpÓ="vjg"fgÝpkvkqp"qh"Òjgtkvcig"eqoowpkvkguÓ"ku"xgt{" broad, as noted above, and literally ‘everyone’ is encouraged to Ðrctvkekrcvg"kp000"vjg"rtqeguu"qh"kfgpvkÝecvkqp."uvwf{."kpvgtrtgvcvkqp." protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural heritage” (Council of Europe 2005: Article 12). It goes on to make particular mention of voluntary organisations and the improvement of public access. The ‘Faro Convention’ is a tremendously useful document which engages with the different cultural values which are applied to heritage, and essentially democratises production and dissemination qh" kphqtocvkqp0" Tgitgvvcdn{" vjg" WM" jcu" uvknn" pqv" tcvkÝgf" vjg" ÒHctq" Convention’. Nevertheless, the theoretical desirability of widening public participation is enshrined in international agreements and treaties which concern themselves in very concrete ways with sustainability in various forms. In terms of community archaeology—or public heritage— sustainability can be regarded as a mechanism by which a sometimes rather vague and diffuse local enthusiasm for ‘heritage’ can be transformed into a really solid and focused local understanding of, and care for, the historic environment. Community archaeology must achieve social sustainability, intellectual sustainability and economic sustainability if it is to be of lasting value both within the archaeological profession and outside it. All three types of sustainability are interdependent. 28 - Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology Social sustainability Social sustainability in its widest sense is an interesting eqpegrv."yjkej"ku"uvknn"xgt{"owej"cp"gogtikpi"Ýgnf."kp"eqpvtcuv"vq" environmental or economic sustainability. Social sustainability can dg"fgÝpgf"cu<" “Development (and/or growth) that is compatible with harmonious evolution of civil society, fostering an environment conductive to the compatible cohabitation of culturally and socially diverse groups while at the same time encouraging social integration, with improvements in the quality of life for all segments of the population.” (Polese and Stren 2000: 15–16) Thus, social sustainability is about managing the tensions that gogtig" dgvyggp" geqpqoke" ghÝekgpe{" cpf" uqekcn" kpvgitcvkqp0" Vjg" concept of social sustainability has mostly been applied to urban design and the physical environment—trying to enhance civil society, cultural diversity and social integration. This is where archaeology ku"cntgcf{"ocmkpi"c"ukipkÝecpv"eqpvtkdwvkqp0" Indeed there is a long history in the UK of engagement with the historic environment by people who are not historic environment professionals. The amateur archaeological society has proved an enduring element since the nineteenth century, and many continue vq"ocmg"ukipkÝecpv"eqpvtkdwvkqpu"dqvj"vq"tgugctej"cpf"vq"qwvtgcej0" For example in England, the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne (established 1813), the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society (established 1846), and the Sussex Archaeological Society (established 1846) each have a lengthy record of producing academic journals and monographs, and also have impressive portfolios of historic properties and museums. Archaeology’s popular appeal further developed in the mid-twentieth century by those who had a determination to make archaeology interesting and accessible to a wide audience, such as Sir Mortimer Wheeler and Glyn Daniel. A strong extra-mural teaching tradition in British universities peaked during the post-war period, and early ‘rescue’ excavations during urban redevelopment in the 1960s and 1970s were often reliant on amateur expertise. Two things happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s which changed the formerly close relationship between professionalised heritage and public jgtkvcig0"Vjg"Ýtuv"ycu"vjg"kpenwukqp"qh"ctejcgqnqi{"cpf"vjg"jkuvqtke" Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology - 29 environment in the planning process, which has led to the increasing professionalisation of archaeology (Aitchison 2012). The second was the widening gulf between academic archaeology and other branches of the discipline. This partly resulted from structural changes to the Higher Education sector which substantially reduced opportunities for mature part-time students and extra-mural teaching. Despite these obstacles, the role of the non-professional in British ctejcgqnqi{"jcu"tgockpgf"c"ukipkÝecpv"qpg0"Kpfggf"vjg"ncuv"fgecfg" has seen something of a resurgence, as community archaeology has boldly expanded into new areas with an agenda of social inclusion and personal development. This agenda has sometimes developed as projects themselves have evolved. Rachael Kiddey’s homeless heritage projects in Bristol and York are a case in point; this work has achieved some quite remarkable transformations in the lives of the project participants precisely because there was no formalised set of objectives and outcomes, and because the project allowed itself to be shaped by the non-professional colleagues who were kpxqnxgf" *UejqÝgnf" cpf" Mkffg{" 4233+0" Qh" cnn" tgegpv" eqoowpkv{" archaeology projects in the UK, Rachael’s are arguably nearest the top of Arnstein’s ladder. Other more formally-designed projects may appear to be further down Arnstein’s ladder as a result of the complexities surrounding the involvement of certain groups; nevertheless these have also achieved some remarkable personal and social outcomes. Operation Nightingale and its associated projects were designed Ðvq"wvknkug"dqvj"vjg"vgejpkecn"cpf"uqekcn"curgevu"qh"Ýgnf"ctejcgqnqi{" in the recovery and skill development” of injured soldiers, and have delivered impressive results (DAG 2012; Hilts 2012). In Wales, separate projects by the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust and Cadw have worked with young offenders both inside and outside prison, in partnership with the Wales Probation Trust (Britnell 2013; Pudney 2013). Also based in Wales, but ranging widely across the UK, the ‘Guerilla Archaeology’ team have successfully engaged festival audiences with a unique blend of shamanism and science. These sorts of projects have certainly broadened the scope of community archaeology, and it must be remembered that more conventional projects continue to have an important social role. However achieving sustainability is another matter. This point can be illustrated by three projects in England and Wales, all on slightly different points on a spectrum of sustainability. 30 - Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology West Bromwich is a socially and economically deprived part of the West Midlands. A project here was commissioned and funded by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, and undertaken by Nexus Heritage. This provided a programme of community archaeology at the former Manor House, which included the training of local nonprofessional volunteers, the provision of archaeological experiences for schools, and public open days. At the same time the project had engct"ugv"qh"tgugctej"ckou0"Vjku"ycu"Ýton{"Òvqr"fqypÓ0"Pgxgtvjgnguu" a structured programme of archaeological training produced positive results on several levels. The adult volunteers were able to gswkr"vjgougnxgu"ykvj"c"tcpig"qh"pgy"umknnu"kp"Ýgnfyqtm"cpf"rquv/ excavation, and were then able to deploy those skills in working with school groups. The school groups themselves undertook a range of activities including map regression, historic building analysis, ncpfuecrg" uwtxg{." Ýpfu" rtqeguukpi" cpf" ecvcnqiwkpi." cpfÏqh" course—excavation (Figure 3). Excavation also included recording, with some success in introducing nine year olds to context sheets and the principles of stratigraphy. This wide range of tasks meant that those less inclined to get muddy also experienced aspects of the archaeological repertoire, and became aware of the great variety of activities that the discipline consists of. These activities provoked discussions of the meaning of place, the nature of change vjtqwij"vkog."cpf"cp"cyctgpguu"qh"vjg"ukipkÝecpeg"qh"cnn"uqtvu"qh" heritage. However there was no capacity in either organisation to develop follow-up projects, and there has been no opportunity to sustain that community’s engagement with heritage. The Telford Town Park project began similarly as a formal ‘top down’ piece of work in 2010; commissioned and partly funded by Telford and Wrekin Council, as part of the lottery-funded ‘Parks for People’ project and again undertaken by Nexus Heritage. A week-long excavation provided a participatory experienced designed by heritage professionals (Belford 2011). However, with vjg"uwrrqtv"qh"vjg"nqecn"cwvjqtkv{."uwdugswgpv"rjcugu"qh"Ýgnfyqtm" evolved a more equal relationship between professional and nonprofessional participants. Despite limited resources, a series of events enabled a wide range of archaeological sites and landscapes to be investigated and recorded, and in conjunction with the local archaeological society (Wrekin Historical Group) volunteers began to get involved with research, post-excavation and publication. The project also began to develop an independence which initially seemed very promising; however without the ongoing support of Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology - 31 the local authority, and continuing professional engagement, there was a hiatus in activity before further funding was obtained for another stage of the project in 2013 (Gerry Wait, pers. comm.). Figure 3. Social sustainability. Scenes from the community archaeology project in West Bromwich (West Midlands, UK). Adults and school children alike became aware of the range of activities which comprise archaeology, and began to develop a sense of place (photographs by Paul Belford, reproduced courtesy of Nexus Heritage). Figure 4. Social and intellectual sustainability. Participants in the Telford Town Park project (Shropshire, UK), undertaking recording and survey as well as excavation (photographs by Paul Belford, reproduced courtesy of Nexus Heritage). 32 - Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology Closer still to developing a sustainable approach was a project undertaken at undertaken at Tomen y Rhoddwyd, an earthwork motte-and-bailey castle in mid- Wales. This privately-owned site was under threat from vegetation growth and animal burrowing; with funding from Cadw, the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust developed a wide-ranging community-based project which included training in environmental conservation, archaeological survey and heritage interpretation for over 100 people representing 18 different groups and organisations (Figure 5). As well as Cadw and the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust, key project stakeholders included half a dozen local archaeology societies and the local cwvjqtkv{0"Rgtjcru"oqtg"ukipkÝecpvn{"hqt"ykfgt"rwdnke"gpicigogpv." the conservation work was tied into training provided by the local agricultural college (Llysfasi), and members of the local Young Farmers’ Club were also involved (Grant et al. 2014). The majority of Welsh Scheduled Ancient Monuments lie on agricultural land, the communities that own, work on and around these monuments being vital partners in the management of the archaeological resource. This project was particularly successful in engaging with the local agricultural community who are now keen to extend this approach to other sites. Social sustainability in community archaeology can only be achieved by non- professionals; and is probably most likely to be successful when the participants are not drawn from the margins, but from the mainstream majority of property-owning, tax-paying and law-abiding citizens. This is not to say that community archaeology should only involve such people, but for projects to be sustainable over the long term they need to be at the core. They have a itgcv" fgcn" qh" rqvgpvkcn" rqygt" cpf" kpÞwgpeg" qp" jgtkvcigÏoc{dg" not individually, but certainly collectively. Social sustainability can vjgp"vtcpuhqto"rctvkekrcpvuÓ"gpvjwukcuo"hqt"urgekÝe"nqecn"jgtkvcig" into a broader understanding and concern for national and even international heritage. They can then become advocates to help professionals sustain other aspects of the discipline. Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology - 33 Figure 5. Economic sustainability. Crowdfunding is one possible route for developing projects independently of public- or private-sector bodies; the Netherlands-based CommonSites is an organisation with an ethical approach to connecting projects, funders and communities. Intellectual sustainability Intellectual sustainability is the reason why it is probably never going to be possible, or even desirable, for community archaeology to reach the top of Arnstein’s ladder. Broadly, kpvgnngevwcn" uwuvckpcdknkv{" ecp" dg" fgÝpgf" cu" vjg" cdknkv{" vq" cevwcnn{" do archaeology properly. If community projects do not do this, vjgp" ctejcgqnqikuvu" ctg" hcknkpi" kp" vjgkt" fwv{" vq" rtqvgev" vjg" ÒÝpkvg" and non-renewable resource’. Some professionals and academics still perceive community archaeology as having limited research value and lacking theoretical rigour in day-to-day practice; others see it as a threat to an already precarious profession. (Indeed during discussion at the TAG conference at which this paper was rtgugpvgf." rtgekugn{" vjgug" rqkpvu" ygtg" ctvkewncvgf" htqo" vjg" Þqqt" by one member of the audience). There are two main areas in which intellectual sustainability needs to be achieved: practice and theory. 34 - Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology In practical terms, data collection needs to be rigorous, and it needs to comply with professional standards and guidance. Project planning and execution needs to be informed by current research questions—both locally and nationally, and indeed internationally. Projects need to have access to appropriate specialist input where necessary; they need to collate, publish and disseminate their Ýpfkpiu"kp"c"eqjgtgpv"cpf"kpvgnnkikdng"hqto0"Oqtgqxgt"vjku"pggfu"vq" be accessible to all of the communities noted above—not just the ‘local’ community (whoever they are), but stakeholders, funders and the wider archaeological community—in the language of Faro, the various ‘heritage communities’. Critics of community archaeology (or indeed any non-professional engagement with archaeology) argue that it is not able to do many of these things. In this author’s experience some of these criticisms can be valid, and particularly for the more ‘bottom up’ projects where individuals may not always listen to professional or academic advice, and in some cases actively avoid doing so. Many volunteers prefer ‘digging’ and are often reluctant—or ill-equipped—to engage with other aspects of the archaeological process, such as context sheets or report-writing. Finds go unreported and archiving can leave something to be desired. Professional archaeologists therefore have a responsibility to ensure that this does not happen. People need to be equipped with the right skills; most of the volunteers encountered by this author are extremely enthusiastic about learning those skills, and respond well to structured training programmes. Again, such training is only successful over the longer-term—a twoweek excavation where a professional organisation is ‘parachuted in’ is unlikely to achieve sustainability. In addition, what we might call the ‘community sector’ needs to engage in robust and open debate with the other sectors of the discipline. British archaeology is often characterised as being polarised between ‘professionals’ and ‘academics’ (Bradley 2006; Fulford 2011). Community archaeology sits somewhere in between; kv"ku"c"pkeg"dkv"qh"rwdnke"tgncvkqpu"hqt"vjg"Ýgnf"wpkv"cpf"vjgkt"enkgpv."qt"c" means of achieving ‘impact’ in the Research Excellence Framework. Conversely, professionals or academics provide a mechanism for peer review of community projects. However community archaeology can only be sustainable if it acts as an equal partner to the professional and academic elements of the discipline. In other words, there is an ‘archaeological triangle’—an equilateral Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology - 35 triangle—of professional, academic and community archaeology. The three sides of the triangle need to work much more closely than they perhaps do in some cases at the moment. Community archaeology needs to be much more proactive in demonstrating that it does actually achieve meaningful research outputs, and can make contributions to archaeological theory. The two things go hand-in-hand: the practice of public heritage requires continuous cpf"tgÞgzkxg"vjgqtgvkecn"kprwv"cv"cnn"uvcigu"cpf"cv"cnn"ngxgnu."cpf"cu" c"tguwnv"ecp"igpgtcvg"wughwn"tgugctejÏcu"ygnn"cu"vjg"uqekcn"dgpgÝvu" which one might expect. Gpuwtkpi" vjcv" vjgtg" ctg" uwhÝekgpv" tguqwtegu" vq" ectt{" vjtqwij" projects to post- excavation and proper publication is an important consideration, but relatively straightforward. Engaging nonprofessionals with archaeological theory, and enabling community archaeology to make a valid contribution to theoretical debate, is more challenging. Certainly non-professional participants in public heritage projects may not be familiar with the canon of archaeological theory. Nevertheless, in this author’s experience they do bring a number of interesting philosophical positions to bear on the work being undertaken. There is continuous dialogue on- and off-site about the rationale behind archaeological method and the role of the past in the present. Different perspectives open up as a result—something which can sometimes only happen by ‘doing’ rather than ‘thinking’. In this setting the notion of ‘grounded theory’ is a useful one. Grounded theory describes ‘the discovery of theory from data systematically obtained from... research’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 2). The two originators of the theory—Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss—later diverged in their views on what the theory was, and, following this schism a more nuanced version, ‘Constructivist Grounded Theory’ emerged. Thus: “...by adopting a constructivist grounded theory approach, the researcher can move grounded theory methods further into the realm of interpretive social science... without assuming the existence of a unidimensional external reality.” (Charmaz 2006: 521) This is quite a useful development, since it creates a middle way which allows both inductive and deductive approaches to theory and data. It allows for the fact that both data collection and theory 36 - Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology hqtowncvkqp" oc{" dg" kpÞwgpegf" d{" vjg" dcemitqwpf." rgturgevkxgu" and values of the researchers; moreover it allows simultaneous consideration of singular and multiple realities, as well as multiple perspectives on these realities. In application, one of the key aspects of grounded theory is that it requires the ‘literature review’ stage of research to be undertaken after the data collection. Of course the project has a broad idea of what we are looking for and where it is, but detailed historical research, map regression and so on does not begin until after the Ýgnfyqtm" jcu" vcmgp" rnceg0" Vjku" crrtqcej" yqtmu" xgt{" ygnn" ykvj" non-professional participants: the bulk of primary and secondary tgugctej"jcu"dggp"wpfgtvcmgp"chvgt"vjg"xctkqwu"Ýgnfyqtm"rjcuguÏ and much of that by the volunteers themselves. Inspired by their Ýgnfyqtm"gzrgtkgpeg"vjg{"oc{"urgpf"ocp{"fc{u"kp"vjg"ctejkxgu."qt" searching other resources, at a level of detail and with a degree of persistence that is beyond the time and patience of the professional archaeologist. The result is that the project accumulates a vast range of unpublished and privately published research material which would otherwise be completely unobtainable. Taking up the notion from grounded theory of multidimensional realities, community archaeology is a fascinating medium through which to explore ‘symmetrical archaeology’. Symmetrical archaeology represents something of a swinging back of the pendulum from extreme post-processualism. Its promoters have argued that archaeology has moved too far from things; thus: “...symmetrical archaeology attends, not to how ‘individuals’ get on in the world, but rather to how a distributed collective, an entanglement of humans and things, negotiates a complex web of interactions with a diversity of other entities (whether materials, things, or our fellow creatures).” (Witmore 2007: 547) Symmetrical archaeology therefore recognises that “thought and action, ideas and materials, past and present are thoroughly mixed ontologically” (Olsen 2003: 90). Thus things are actors as much as humans. This is a particularly important concept for the practice of community archaeology, and perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is the ontological mixture of past and present. Several authors have been making the point for some time that the past exists today (Latour 1996; Lucas 2008; Olivier 2004; Olsen 2003; Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology - 37 Shanks 2012; Witmore 2007). The present contains a residual past, or rather multiple residual pasts, which provide the material with which archaeologists engage. In other words: “...historic time should not be viewed as the “empty and homogenous” time of historicism—the time of dates, chronologies and periods—but on the contrary as the full and heterogeneous time of the fusion between present and the past.” (Olivier 2004: 204) Indeed Olivier has taken this a step further by proposing the abandonment of linear time—or what he calls ‘historicist time’— by arguing that archaeology is a form of memory, rather than history. This memory is a material memory, which is continuously involved in modern life and is given new meanings according to new circumstances (Olivier 2004). Thus the past exists in the present, and researching the past is actually nothing more than studying the materiality of the present. Moreover, the past is ephemeral— the act of doing archaeology creates ‘events’ (Lucas 2008). These events transform the material remains of the past, thus keeping them alive. Precisely these concepts are routinely discussed by participants on community archaeology projects. Admittedly, such discussions are not informed by reference to the works cited here; pgxgtvjgnguu" vjg" ukipkÝecpeg" qh" vjg" rtqlgev" cu" c" vtcpuhqtocvkxg" event, the ephemerality of the remains of the past in the present, and the importance of material memory are at the forefront of participants’ minds. It is also the case that these sorts of discussions—as well as much more basic questions, such as ‘why?’—are challenges to the ctejcgqnqikecn" qtvjqfqz{0" Uqogvkogu." yg" oc{" Ýpf" vjcv" yg" jcxg" been doing things or thinking about things as archaeologists without always understanding ‘why’. Thus there is the potential—as yet nctign{"wptgcnkugfÏhqt"eqoowpkv{"ctejcgqnqi{"vq"ocmg"ukipkÝecpv" theoretical impact on the other two sides of the archaeological triangle. Certainly, if community archaeology cannot deliver intellectual sustainability, then its social role becomes its primary function—and if its primary function is its social role then fewer people will want to join in. 38 - Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology Economic sustainability Geqpqoke" uwuvckpcdknkv{" ku" rgtjcru" vjg" oquv" fkhÝewnv" v{rg" qh" sustainability for community archaeology to attain. Community archaeology is more expensive than other forms of archaeology. Social and intellectual sustainability must be paid for. It is essential to explain to potential funders why training volunteers is important, and why professional post-excavation and reporting to professional standards is essential. Hitherto most community archaeology projects have relied on public funding of one sort or another—local authorities or state agencies, grants from Research Councils, and of course the marvellous Heritage Lottery Fund. So far this has been sustainable—although again, such funding will only continue kp"vjg"hwvwtg"kh"dqvj"vjg"uqekcn"cpf"kpvgnngevwcn"dgpgÝvu"qh"yjcv"yg" do are made clear to the various stakeholders. Nevertheless, the community archaeology sector needs to increase the diversity of its funding sources. This paper is written during a period of Coalition government (elected 2010). Its policies are shaped by two closely linked forces: a natural ideological inclination to reduce the role of the state, and an ‘austerity’ approach to public spending intended to reduce national debt as a proportion of GDP (HM Government 2010). Some areas such as health and education have been protected from the most serious reductions in funding, which inevitably means that other areas have been subject to greater pressures. Heritage and the arts have seen particular reductions (DCMS 2011). This has already affected state heritage agencies and local authorities, and the depletion of public-sector historic environment services will also continue to have an impact on commercial archaeology, which is itself suffering as a consequence of the economic downturn. However, the notion of sustainability is actually a key component of current planning policy and guidance. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was introduced in 2012 and replaced previous legislation; its ethos of ‘sustainable development’ initially caused concern within the historic environment professions (DCLG 2012). However—in part thanks to extensive lobbying during the drafting stage—NPPF is considerably more benign than initially feared, and contains much that is encouraging for community archaeology. Thus it makes clear that planners should take into account “the ykfgt" uqekcn." ewnvwtcn." geqpqoke" cpf" gpxktqpogpvcn" dgpgÝvu" vjcv" conservation of the historic environment can bring”, and stresses the Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology - 39 “positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities” (DCLG 2012: paragraphs 126, 131). Public archaeology doesn’t mean ‘public-sector’ archaeology. We are all ‘the public’—individual archaeologists, the organisations we work for, the developers who pay our fees, the banks who pay the developers, the pension funds who invest in the banks. Certainly there have been some very successful community archaeology projects which have been privately funded. One prominent recent example is that of Hungate—a substantial developer-funded excavation undertaken by the York Archaeological Trust. This had c"ukipkÝecpv"eqoowpkv{"ctejcgqnqi{"eqorqpgpv"dwknv"kp."kpenwfkpi" work with disadvantaged and socially excluded groups. Clearly Hungate is an exceptional case. However there is considerable potential to develop more projects along these sorts of lines. There is also scope to work back up the chain. Indeed this author has been fortunate enough to deliver a community archaeology project that was funded by a bank (Belford 2007). Corporate Social Responsibility is certainly an avenue to explore for supporting community archaeology in the future. Heritage needs to be central to everyone’s understanding of the world, and that will not happen if we stay on the margins by relying on public funding. At the other end of the scale, it is also possible to seek funding from individuals. Some community archaeology projects charge their rctvkekrcpvu0"Jqygxgt"vjku"ku"xgt{"fkhÝewnv"hqt"uocnn/uecng"rtqlgevu=" vjg" hggu" ecp" pgxgt" tgÞgev" vjg" hwnn" equv." cpf" uq" uqog" wpfgtn{kpi" uwdukf{"ku"tgswktgf0"Kv"ku"rquukdng"vq"dgpgÝv"htqo"uqog"uwrrqtv"kp" kind. There is also the possibility of crowdfunding. For example the Telford Town Park project was undertaken in partnership with a social enterprise based in the Netherlands called CommonSites (Figure 5). Their ambition is “to stimulate creative, ethical and sustainable heritage practices” (CommonSites 2014); they provide a web-based platform to encourage open relationships between their partners doing the archaeology, the communities they are working with, and potential funders. Conclusion Community archaeology is about enabling non-professionals to meaningfully engage with archaeology. This works both ways. Nonprofessional participants gain a great deal from their involvement 40 - Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology in archaeological projects—not just knowledge about a particular time and place, but also a wide range of skills, improvements in physical and mental health, the development of social networks, and the ability to look at the world in different ways. Moreover, non-professional participants have real potential to enhance the archaeological ‘product’ and change the way professionals think about heritage. Vjg" uqekcn" dgpgÝvu" qh" ctejcgqnqi{" ctg" kpetgcukpin{" ykfgn{" recognised. However to achieve sustainability community archaeology must stand up and be counted as an equal partner to academic and commercial archaeology. Indeed, neither academic nor commercial archaeology are themselves sustainable without community archaeology, for community archaeology nurtures public support for heritage in its widest sense—and it is only with public support that any form of archaeology will continue. Acknowledgements I am extremely grateful to Cara Jones and Kerry MasshederRigby for the opportunity to participate in the TAG session from which this paper is derived. I would also like to thank Menna Bell, Viviana Culshaw, Ian Grant, Edward James, Sohail Kahn, Rachael Kiddey, Anthony Martin, Sarah May, Carol McDavid, Geoff Morley, Malcolm Peel, Sefryn Penrose, Brian Savage, Tara-Jane Sutcliffe, Gerry Wait, Roger White and others for helpful discussions over many years about community archaeology. Many thanks to Gerry Wait for permission to use images from Nexus Heritage projects. References Aitchison, K. 2012. How Archaeology Works0" UjghÝgnf." Ncpfyctf" Publishing. Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4), 216–224. Belford, P. 2007. Bridging the Atlantic: Archaeology and community in England and Bermuda. In White, R. and Carman, J. (eds), World Heritage: Global Challenges, Local Solutions. Oxford, Archaeopress, 97–106. Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology - 41 Belford, P. 2011. Archaeology, community and identity in an English New Town. The Historic Environment 2(1), 49–67. Bradley, R. 2006. Bridging the two cultures. Commercial archaeology and the study of prehistoric Britain. Antiquaries Journal 86, 1–13. Britnell, B. 2013. Beacon Ring Hillfort: Vegetation management and amenity. Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust Annual Review 2012–13. Welshpool, Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust, 25–27. Charmaz, K. 2006. Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London, Sage Publications. CommonSites. 2014. CommonSites website. Retrieved on 12 May 2014 from WWW [http://www.commonsites.net/about/about. html] Council of Europe. 2005. Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention). Faro, Council of Europe. Retrieved on 16 May 2013 from WWW [http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/199. htm] DAG. 2012. Defence Archaeology Group website. Retrieved on 15 May 2013 from WWW [http://www.dmasuk.org] DCLG. 2012. National Planning Policy Framework. London, Department for Communities and Local Government. Retrieved on 6 May 2013 from WWW [https://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ Ýng18299"14338;720rfh̲" DCMS. 2011. Government Response to the Select Committee Report on Funding of Arts and Heritage. London, Department for Culture Media and Sport. Available from: http://www. qhÝekcn/fqewogpvu0iqx0wm1fqewogpv1eo:21:2931:2930rfh" (accessed 18 April 2013). DoE. 1990. Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning (PPG16). London, Department of the Environment. EIPP. 2009. Public Participation in Europe: An International Perspective. Bremen, European Institute for Public Participation. Retrieved on 10 December 2012 from WWW [http://www. 42 - Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology participationinstitute.org/wpin_e_report_03_06.pdf] content/uploads/2009/06/pp_ Faulkner, N. 2009. The Sedgeford crisis. Public Archaeology 8(1), 51–61. Fulford, M. 2011. The impact of commercial archaeology on the UK heritage. In Curtis, J., Fulford, M., Harding, A. and Reynolds, F. (eds), History for the Taking? Perspectives on Material Heritage. London, British Academy, 33–53. Fung, A. 2001. Accountable autonomy: Toward empowered deliberation in Chicago schools and policing. Politics and Society 29(1), 73–103. Fung, A. 2004. Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. New Jersey, Princeton University Press. Fung, A. 2007. Democratic theory and political science: A pragmatic method of constructive engagement. American Political Science Review 101(3), 443–458. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss A.L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York, Aldine de Gruyter. Grant, I., Belford, P. and Culshaw, V. 2014. Tomen 7 Rhodwydd, De018, Denbighshire. Survey and Conservation 2014. North East Wales Community Archaeology. Unpublished report. CPAT Report No. 1261. Hilts, C. 2012. On manoeuvres with Operation Nightingale. Current Archaeology. Retrieved on 8 October 2012 from WWW [http:// www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/on- manoeuvres-withoperation-nightingale.htm] HM Government 2010. The Coalition: Our Programme for Iqxgtpogpv0"Nqpfqp."Ecdkpgv"QhÝeg"Yjkvgjcnn0"Tgvtkgxgf"qp" 10 December 2012 from WWW [http://www.direct.gov.uk/ prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/docu ments/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf] Kenny, J. 2010. Heritage engagement with hard-to-reach communities: Hungate and beyond. Paper presented at ‘On the Edge: New Approaches to Community Heritage’, CBA/ Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology - 43 Gloucester City Council seminar, Gloucester, 17 September 2010. Latour, B. 1996. Lettre à mon ami Pierre sur l’anthropologie symétrique. Ethnologie française 26(1), 32–37. Lucas, G. 2008. Time and the archaeological event. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18(1), 59–65. McDavid, C. 2007. The death of a community archaeology project? Ensuring consultation in a non-mandated bureaucratic environment. In White, R. and Carman, J. (eds), World Heritage: Global Challenges, Local Solutions. Oxford, Archaeopress, 107–111. Olivier, L. 2004. The past of the present. Archaeological memory and time. Archaeological Dialogues 10(2), 204–213. Olsen, B. 2003. Material culture after text: Remembering things. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36(2), 87–104. Polese, M. and Stren, R. (eds). 2000. The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change. Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Pudney, C. 2013. MORTARIA: Motivating offender rehabilitation through archaeological recording, investigation and analysis. Paper presented at the IfA Conference, Birmingham, 18 April 2013. UejqÝgnf."L0"cpf"Mkffg{."T0"42330"Godtceg"vjg"octikpu<"Cfxgpvwtgu" in archaeology and homelessness. Public Archaeology 10(1), 4–22. Shanks, M. 2012. The Archaeological Imagination. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press. Simpson, F. and Williams, H. 2008. Evaluating community archaeology in the UK. Public Archaeology 7(2), 69–90. Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. Abingdon: Routledge. UNECE. 1998. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). Aarhus, United Nations Economic Commission on Europe. Retrieved on 16 44 - Paul BELFORD - Sustainability in Community Archaeology Oc{"4235"htqo"YYY"]jvvr<11yyy0wpgeg0qti1Ýngcfokp1FCO1 env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf] UNEP. 1972. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockhom Declaration). Stockholm, United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved on 16 May 2013 from WWW [http://www.unep.org/Documents. Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97&articleid =1503] UNEP. 1992. Declaration on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration). Rio de Janeiro, United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved on 16 May 2013 from WWW [http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default. asp?documentid=78&articleid =1163] Witmore, C.L. 2007. Symmetrical archaeology: Excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology 39(4), 546–562. AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology Editors: Jaime Almansa Sánchez Elena Papagiannopoulou Assistant Editors: Dominic Walker Amanda Erickson Harvey Kaitlyn T. Goss Reviews Editor: Alexandra Ion Assistant Production Editor: Alejandra Galmés Alba Edited by: JAS Arqueología S.L.U. Website: www.jasarqueologia.es Email: jasarqueologia@gmail.com Address: Plaza de Mondariz, 6, 28029 - Madrid (Spain) -Cover Image: Rainford 155 working shot (National Museums Liverpool) Copyright © 2014 JAS Arqueología S.L.U. (edition) & Authors (content) ISSN: 2171-6315 Quotation: Belford, P. 2014. Sustainability in community archaeology. AP Journal SV 1, 21-44. AP Journal is a peer-reviewed journal devoted exclusively to Public Archaeology. It is freely distributed online on the Website: www.arqueologiapublica.es You can also follow us on: Blogger: http://arqueologiapublica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/APjournal Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/APJournal