Understanding the future: priorities for England’s museums

A response by:

RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust

15a Bull Plain
Hertford
Hertfordshire
SG14 1DX

Telephone: (01992) 553377

E-Mail: rescue@rescue-archaeology.freeserve.co.uk
Website: www.rescue-archaeology.freeserve.co.uk

Chairman
Mr. Roy Friendship-Taylor M.Phil., MAAIS., AIFA
Tel. (01604) 870312
E-Mail: roy@friendship-taylor.freeserve.co.uk

Secretary
Dr Chris Cumberpatch
Tel. (0114) 2310051
E-Mail: cgc@ccumberpatch.freeserve.co.uk

Summary
RESCUE welcomes the publication of Understanding the future and is
pleased to be able to fully endorse the following points made in the document:

• The emphasis on research as an area of activity central to the work of

museums;
• The commitment to central role of museum staff and the recognition that
careers in museums are marked by poor salary levels and limited
opportunities for career development and advancement;
• The importance of the educational activities of museums at all levels from
primary education to life-long learning;
• The central place of museums in the cultural economy of the country.

RESCUE remains concerned that the document fails to address a number

of central issues:

• The critical nature of funding for museums, particularly as this affects staff
recruitment and retention and the provision and maintenance of adequate
buildings and facilities for storing, conserving ad maintaining collections,
particularly in local and regional museums;

• The complete lack of acknowledgement of the issues raised by

commercial archaeology undertaken through the planning process
(Planning Policy Guidance notes 15 and 16) in respect of archaeological
archives, their curation and care;
 • RESCUE is particularly concerned that the virtual absence of archaeology
from the document appears to indicate that the authors have failed to
take into account the level of interest in the subject amongst the public
(as attested by both the passive reception of radio and television
programmes and active participation in fieldwork and research enabled by
the LHI and other Lottery funded initiatives) and the potential that
archaeology has to, educate, inform and fascinate people from all
generations and all backgrounds. The enormous expansion in commercial
archaeology resulting from PPG 15 and PPG 16 has vastly increased the
volume of material available for all kinds of museum-related activities
connected with archaeology but at present this is underused. We regret
that discussion of this matter has been omitted from Understanding the
future.

Introduction
RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust welcomes the publication of
Understanding the future: priorities for England’s museums and is pleased to be
able to respond to it. We note that the document contains a number of very
positive statements but regret the absence of commitments on several key
issues which we believe must be resolved if our museums and galleries are to
make the type of positive contribution to national life that we all want to see.
This response is intended to indicate the areas in which we are in agreement
with the authors of Understanding the future and those where we remain
concerned at what seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the
fundamental problems which affect museums in England (and, to a significant
extent, in Wales and Scotland as well).

Museums and learning: thinking and doing

RESCUE welcomes the commitment to research and the (de facto)
acknowledgement that it is research that underpins all other aspects of the work
of museums (page 9). It would be a mistake, however to believe that research
is seen by ‘only a small number of specialists’. The results of research carried
out by specialists and experts in all fields inform the presentation of material to
the numerous groups in society who constitute the audiences for the work of
museums. For this reason it is essential that the commitment to research be
backed by solid financial commitments both to the work of experts and
specialists and to the maintenance and curation of collections. At present this is
not the case largely because of the wholly inadequate funding arrangements for
the majority of local and regional museums, many of which house collections of
greater than regional importance. Recent years have seen some significant
losses in terms of both curatorial expertise and in collections which have been
rendered virtually inaccessible as a result of local authority cutbacks (notably in
Northampton and Stoke-on-Trent). Where local authority funding is unavailable
it is essential that central government steps in to ensure the integrity and long
term security of such collections. It is unfortunate that no commitment to such
action is expressed in Understanding the future. Unless such a commitment is
forthcoming it is difficult to see how the third of the priorities listed on page 10
can be achieved.
 RESCUE agrees that museums have a vital role in education and fully
supports the role that they play in this area both for children and for adults. The
corollary of this is that a proportion of the funding for museums should therefore
come from the education sector. At present, grossly underfunded museums are
supporting the relatively wealthy education sector and are unable to invest in
the long term care and conservation of collections while staff time is spent on
educational rather than on research activities. There is clearly a need for
adequate funding for both types of activity and as local government has proved
unable to appreciate the importance of local and regional museums, the onus is
on central government to ensure the availability of core funding (and not merely
project funding) to support the broad variety of museum roles.
In relation to the relationship between museums and the academic
research community two points should be noted. The first is that in archaeology
specifically, there is an increasing body of specialist knowledge available in the
commercial sector where many individuals who in former years would have
become academics or museum curators, are now working. While not
advocating the development of a ‘consultancy culture’ with the associated
absurdly high cost-levels, RESCUE would expect to see this development
recognised and provision made for the involvement of those with a research
profile who work outside the traditional university system.
The second point is that as the building of links between universities and
museums is of great value, RESCUE notes that the current structure of the
university Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is explicitly hostile to
archaeological research undertaken on British material by scholars working in
Britain. The failure to distinguish between archaeological research undertaken
abroad and work of international standard and importance has long been an
impediment to many scholars and is an aspect of the RAE process which is long
overdue for revision. It has a direct impact on the use of museum collections by
academics and has no intellectual or research validity.

Finding our place in the world

RESCUE is pleased to see the commitment to the central role of museums
in society expressed in this chapter. We are, however, somewhat concerned at
the tone of the third paragraph on page 13, dealing with some of the
controversies that have arisen when small and unrepresentative politico-
religious groups have taken offence at the legitimate work of playwrights and
artists and have attempted to impose these views on the rest of society. We
look to central government to ensure that vociferous political or faith-based
minorities are not able to stifle debate or the presentation of controversial
material as a means of generating free and open debate. Neither should the
views of an ill-informed majority be allowed to predominate over the legitimate
interests and concerns of minority groups. In both of these areas we should
remember that modern museums are the result of a commitment to open
investigation and honest enquiry, initiated as part of the Enlightenment project
and this legacy is something that should be celebrated and actively espoused
through our museums. We should not necessarily shrink from controversy and
should acknowledge that fervent belief can often be the enemy of reason and
open debate.
Through their presentation of the past, museums can (and do) hold a
mirror up to the present and draw our attention to current events in the light of
what has been documented in the past. Exhibitions focussing on matters such
as the Slave Trade and the horrors of mechanised warfare in the 19th and 20th
centuries may serve to alert audiences to issues which are still very much alive
in the 21st century (people-trafficking and the ever-present impact of war on
society and individuals). Similarly the treatment of particular sections of the
population in the past (including immigrant groups, political, social, religious
and sexual dissenters etc) will have resonances for many sections of society
today and we should expect museums to deal with these issues without fear of
the reaction of those who would seek to suppress discussion of such matters.
The notion of a ‘collective understanding’ (page 13) is one which must be
questioned in this regard; museums and galleries should not be afraid to initiate
or contribute to debate which may challenge such ‘collective understanding’
even where this may offend those with deeply held but essentially personal or
exclusive group perspectives on society and the world at large. Naturally we do
not advocate the giving of gratuitous offence, but the fact that a particular
world view may be strongly held by a specific cultural, religious or political
group should not be a reason to shrink from questioning it or to presenting
alternative perspectives to it.

Living collections
RESCUE is concerned that Living collections appears to focus exclusively
on the purchase of objects and material for inclusion in museum collections.
This entirely ignores archaeological collections, only a small and insignificant
part of which are acquired through purchase. The provisions of Planning Policy
Guidance notes (PPG) 15 and 16 ensure that local and regional museums are
the repository for archives (including written digital and photographic records
and artefactual collections) generated by the archaeological investigation of
sites threatened by development. It is widely understood within the
archaeological community that in many parts of the country conservation and
storage facilities are inadequate to receive these archives, although they
constitute an essential part of the principle of ‘preservation by record’ which is
central to both PPG 15 and 16. In a number of counties the closure of museums
means that archives are not being curated or conserved effectively or
efficiently. In the case of Northamptonshire, for example, archives derived from
work undertaken in the county are spread throughout Britain (they are currently
to be found in Edinburgh, Cirencester, London and Lincolnshire) as they have to
be held by the archaeological units and trusts which undertook the excavations
in the county. In short, collections of local, regional and national importance are
no longer able to be accommodated in their rightful place with the result that
they are not available for display or for the research that underlies the
preparation of displays, educational materials or dissemination via museum
websites. This situation is the direct result of the failure of local authorities to
fund museums adequately or effectively. Project funding, via initiatives such as
Renaissance in the Regions, is not available to support investment in
infrastructural projects such as the creation of stores and archives. All too
often, high profile Lottery-funded projects fail to include the kinds of high quality
storage and research facilities which are required by local and regional
museums, even where these involve new buildings or substantial enlargement
of existing buildings.
RESCUE agrees strongly with sentiments expressed regarding the
importance of the dynamism of museum collections (page 16) but we are
concerned that this entire section has been written apparently without
reference to archaeology. Archaeological collections are growing, both in size
and in their potential but the infrastructures required to enable these collections
to be drawn on for research, teaching, and display have been so systematically
ignored that it is extremely difficult for them to be used effectively either by
museum staff or outside researchers. It is with this in mind that we are greatly
disappointed to see that the priorities listed on page 18 (3 f and g) have been
drawn up apparently in complete ignorance of the very real crisis affecting
archaeological collections. RESCUE would argue for a third priority here along
the following lines;

• Government, the museum sector and the development industry must find
a way to increase the financial and logistical resources available for the
proper curation and archiving of archaeological collections derived from
PPG 15 and PPG 16 inspired archaeological activity so that their enormous
potential for teaching, learning and the dissemination of information can
be effectively realised.

Without such a commitment, we fear that any final document resulting

from the Understanding the future process will be of limited value and of no
relevance to archaeologists or to the huge audience for archaeology in the
community at large.

Maximising the potential of people

RESCUE is in broad agreement with the aspirations expressed in this
section but once again, we note that many of the problems lie in the funding
arrangements for local and regional museums. Recent years have seen a steady
and systematic loss of experienced and knowledgeable staff as local authorities
have attempted to loot museum and heritage budgets in order to shore up
shortfalls elsewhere. Most recently we have seen one local authority (Bury)
starting to sell off its collections in order to fund social services but this is simply
an extension of the widespread policy of redundancies and cuts which have, in
some places, reduced heritage services in general and museums in particular to
a shadow of their former status. If the museum sector is to maximise the
potential of the many people who work for it, both salaried and on a voluntary
basis, then secure and adequate core funding is essential as the basis for all
other activity. As with the recommendations in the previous section those at
the end of this section simply fail to address this issue yet it underlies all of the
problems currently affecting our local and regional museums.

How museums fit together

A number of issues arise from this section. While RESCUE acknowledges
the importance of local control and local accountability in respect of local and
regional museums (paragraph 1), the fact is that there is deep seated hostility
to the museum sector in many local authorities (a fact attested to anecdotally
by our members and informants throughout the country). This, together with
the lack of any security of funding for museums and galleries within the local
authority system and the needs of other sectors, makes then uniquely
vulnerable to cost-cutting exercises at times of financial stringency. We are not
in favour of central control of local and regional museums, but we believe that
some form of central funding or ‘ring fencing’ of budgets is essential if our local
and regional museums are going to survive as effective institutions over the
next two to three decades.
In paragraph 3 it is asserted that the financial support for national
museums has been amongst the most hotly debated of subjects. This is
manifestly not the case in archaeology where the crisis in local and regional
museums is seen as amongst the most pressing of the several issues affecting
the heritage sector. RESCUE has raised this matter with the DCMS and other
bodies on numerous occasions in the recent past and it is indicative of the
absence of archaeology from the document as whole that the matter is barely
even mentioned and is certainly not addressed effectively. We are concerned
that the priorities outlined on page 25 fail to address any of the most pressing
problems affecting archaeological archives or the institutions which host them.
We look for a much more informed discussion of these matters in the next stage
of Understanding the future.

Priorities for DCMS over the next decade

As indicated above, RESCUE is disappointed to see that archaeology and
archaeological collections have been largely ignored in the document. We hope
to see this omission rectified in the next stage of the process and look forward
to

• An explicit acknowledgement that archaeology and archaeological

collections form a key part of the holdings of the majority of museums,
whether local, regional or national;

• A commitment to the adequate funding of the museum infrastructure

including stores, archives and conservation facilities appropriate to the
volumes of material being generated by commercial and research-led
archaeological projects throughout the country.

Summary and conclusions

RESCUE welcomes the publication of Understanding the future and in
particular endorses the following points made in the document:

• The emphasis on research as central to the work of museums;

• The commitment to museum staff through CPD etc;
• The central place of museums in the cultural economy of the country.

RESCUE remains concerned that the document fails to address two central
issues, specifically:

• Funding issues (specifically the provision of core funding) affecting staff,

buildings and collections, particularly in local and regional museums;

• The complete lack of acknowledgement of the issues raised by PPG 15

and PPG 16 in respect of archaeological archives, their curation and long
term use.

In conclusion, while RESCUE welcomes many parts of this document, the

absence of explicit mention of archaeology appears to indicate that the authors
have failed to take into account the importance of archaeology as an element
within our museums, the level of interest in the subject amongst the public (as
attested by both the passive reception of radio and television programmes and
active participation in fieldwork and research enabled by the LHI and other
Lottery funded initiatives) and the potential that archaeology has to, educate,
inform and fascinate people from all generations and all backgrounds. The
enormous expansion in commercial archaeology resulting from PPG 15 and PPG
16 has vastly increased the volume of material available for all kinds of
museum-related activities connected with archaeology but at present this is an
underused resource. We regret that discussion of this matter has been omitted
from Understanding the future.