Conservation principles for the sustainable management of the historic

environment

A response by RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust

15A Bull Plain

Hertford
SG14 1DX

Introduction
Before proceeding to addressing the questions posed in Conservation principles for the
sustainable management of the historic environment (hereafter referred to as Conservation
Principles), RESCUE would like to make a number of general points regarding the document.
These are numbered for the sake of reference later in the document.

1. RESCUE is able to welcome this document, most of which it finds to be helpful. We

welcome particularly the attempt to produce a set of standard definitions for terms in
common use.

2. Having said this, we would point out that there are problems with such a generalized
statement of principles, some of which could prove misleading. Most notably it is important
to state that the various approaches defined are not equally applicable to all aspects of the
historic environment. Thus one cannot ‘enhance’ archaeological strata as they exist in situ.
They can only be preserved or excavated. If preservation is not feasible then the choice is
between abandonment, possibly to destruction, and recording by excavation and record.
While the latter has much to recommend it (unexcavated strata are, by their very nature, not
available for interpretation or presentation), it implies investment in the processes of
excavation and of study and the provision of adequate resources to curate and make
available the archives resulting from the excavation. Again it is generally acceptable to
restore a historic garden if suitable evidence is available (e.g. a Repton ‘Red Book’ or early
illustrations) given the short lifecycle of much planting. Attempted restoration of historic
buildings is far more problematic raising issues of authenticity and difficulties of
reproducing materials and craftsmanship. Such qualifications should be clearly stated.

3. The tone of the document is utopian, most notably in its references to ‘society’ and
‘everybody’. Of course everybody can and should comment. The problem is that different
segments of society and even different segments of the same community will have different
views. At Thornborough, for example, the workers in quarrying and haulage had one view,
local residents another and the professional experts were not in agreement as to the nature of
the assets under threat. RESCUE would suggest that the key to resolving potential
disagreements lies in establishing consultative structures which will allow comments and
perspectives to be properly weighed and balanced.

4. On a very specific point, RESCUE is concerned with the omission of historic hedgerows
from the listing of the historic heritage. Since they were allocated to DEFRA they have
disappeared from ODPM, DCMS and EH statements. Yet they remain a major component
of our heritage. Surely, ‘joined up government’ demands some effort at integration across
departments and institutions.

5. We would point out that ‘settings’ can extend beyond the visual. The setting of an
archaeological site may be more archaeology. How is this to be preserved? At the opposite
pole the setting of a conservation area might include other sensory perceptions including
 sound and smell. A harbour conservation area, for example, might well have hitherto been
strongly characterized by the smells of tar and fish and the sounds of tasks associated with
shipping and fishing. How are such diverse manifestations of a sense of place to be evoked?

Responses to the questions posed in Conservation Principles

Question 1a
Yes

Question 1b
Yes. It is for this reason that the historic environment in its widest sense requires protection
from those who would destroy, damage or otherwise compromise its integrity for short-term gain
With reference to principle 1.2, we would add that the historic environment not only reflects
the ‘evolving knowledge, beliefs and traditions of multiple communities’ but also the social
practices of those communities which were in large part responsible for their distinctive impact on
the contemporary environment and, consequently, on the nature of the environment as it is
perceived and experienced today. It is these social practices which are to a large extent responsible
for the specific material traces which are recovered through the practice of archaeology.
We would also wish to see the emphasis on the instrumental aspects of the historic
environment, embodied in principle 1.2, balanced by an assertion of the value of research in its own
right as a contribution to the sum of knowledge, whether this is strictly historical or archaeological
in nature or represents a combination of the two.

Question 2a
Yes, although in terms of archaeology, we would emphasis the point made in section 2 of
the introduction to these responses, regarding the specific nature of archaeological assets with
reference to the term ‘enhance’.

Question 2b
Yes. RESCUE has campaigned consistently for the rights of concerned communities to have
a role in determining the future of local and regional heritage assets, irrespective of the narrow legal
definition of ownership.

Question 3a
Yes, RESCUE is in agreement with the principle of encouraging participation and
engagement with the historic environment. We are particularly keen that practitioners and the
wider community should have the opportunity to communicate their own particular perspectives,
and for this reason we welcome particularly Principles 3.2 and 3.3. With reference to these
Principles, we would note the concerns expressed in the past by both RESCUE and by other bodies
at the decline in the provision of lifelong learning opportunities with the closure of university and
college extra-mural courses in archaeology and history. The importance of ‘joined-up government’
mentioned in section 4 of the introduction, is again of relevance here. Appreciation and enjoyment
of the historic environment is greatly enhanced if people are able to learn about its many
dimensions through both practical engagement and an understanding of the techniques and
principles employed in the interpretation of archaeological and historical data.

Question 3b
RESCUE agrees with the note of caution inherent in question 3b. There must be some
limits to openness given the prevalence of looting from archaeological sites. It is a regrettable fact
of life that archaeological sites are, to some people, ‘artefact mines’ from which saleable objects
can be obtained with relative ease. These people may be a small minority, but they are a highly
destructive minority and a seemingly well organised one. The limited scope and present laxity in
the enforcement of existing statutes means that, in effect, there is little that is being done to curb
such activity and so some care is needed in the dissemination of information. A rather different
dimension to this is the possibility of unscrupulous developers (again, perhaps a minority but a
potentially destructive one) pushing ahead to develop sites before they can be protected or
adequately investigated.

Question 4a
Yes, RESCUE would agree with the tone of this question, but we would also note that a
shared acknowledgement of significance does not always imply a shared acknowledgement of the
correct way to proceed when a site, monument, building or landscape is under threat. The case of
the timber circle at Holme-next-the Sea (aka Seahenge) is a case in point. Both archaeologists and
mystics agreed that the site was of significance, but differed radically in their response to the threat
posed to it by natural processes of coastal erosion. Without getting sidetracked into an exploration
of the specific issues involved in that case, RESCUE would emphasise the need for robust and
practical methods of conflict resolution which acknowledge the fact that contradictory and
seemingly irreconcilable differences in perception, value and practice exist within all human
communities.

Question 4b
Principle 4.3 is difficult to evaluate in the absence of concrete examples. It also omits the
responsibility that we living today have to generations as yet unborn. We would like to see this
discussed in greater detail in the proposed Policies and Guidance document referred to in the Aims
section of Conservation Principles. Such discussion could, with advantage, review a range of past
cases where outcomes have been both satisfactory and unsatisfactory to different constituencies.
We shall reserve further comment until the proposed document is available for review and
discussion.

Question 5a
Yes, given that the terms ‘sustain’ and ‘enhance’ can include properly conducted
archaeological investigation, including excavation, which may be necessary to understand the full
complexity of a site, landscape, monument or building.

Question 5b
Yes. Archaeological excavation is an example of an irreversible intervention which
countless examples prove is absolutely essential if we are to properly understand sites, monuments,
landscapes and buildings in terms other than aesthetics or mere mysticism.

Question 6a
In general terms we believe that the document represents a useful and positive attempt to
enumerate the factors that must be balanced in coming to potentially far-reaching conclusions. The
real question will arise when real-life examples are considered and the effect of the presently
overwhelming power of Capital is brought into the equation. The emphasis on dialogue, while
praiseworthy (and wholeheartedly supported by RESCUE), must be maintained when issues of the
future of investment in an area arise. We look for future statements which deal in detail with the
practicalities of negotiation and the relative degree of influence given to the views of parties in any
dispute.

Question 6b
As with question 6a, we agree but look for concrete proposals as to the ways in which
different and possibly contradictory values can be measured against each other.

Question 7a
 Yes, RESCUE strongly supports the Principle 7 and agrees with the point made in question
7a. We would, however, suggest that the words ‘made publicly available’ be added after
‘investigation and recording’. RESCUE has repeatedly highlighted the problems currently
experienced in many parts of the United Kingdom by the closure of existing museums and the
failure to provide adequate facilities for the storage, curation and study of existing collections, most
particularly those resulting from investigations undertaken under the aegis of PPG 16.

Question 7b
RESCUE strongly supports this. We have repeatedly urged the establishment of this
principle as a statutory one rather than a merely advisory one. We shall not, in the present context,
reiterate our concerns regarding the precise details of the current system as these have been fully set
out elsewhere.

Question 8
In general terms, yes, although the lack of detail in some parts of the document (mentioned
above) leaves a number of areas open to question. In attempting to produce a general statement of
principles, areas of possible contention and division have been glossed over. We look forward to a
more detailed discussion of these in future documents.

Question 9
The principle area omitted is that of material culture as the emphasis seems to be on
landscapes and buildings. RESCUE has highlighted its concerns in this regard in our comments on
the English Heritage Research Agenda 2005 – 2010 and would reiterate these here. Archaeology is
most certainly about landscapes and buildings, but it is also about tools, domestic utensils, food,
plant and animal remains, refuse and the diverse minutiae of everyday life and death. In addition it
is about the processes and practices that archaeologists can infer from the evidence provided by the
contexts in which these are found and the relationships between these objects and their
archaeological context. We would look for some explicit acknowledgement of this in future drafts
of these Principles and in the documents which will arise from them.