![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Abstract
Looking at it from a European perspective, Brexit is a looming catastrophe with wide-ranging repercussions, also in the realms of archaeology and heritage management. In addition to its legal consequences for heritage protection, Brexit will have an impact on UK-based EU personnel, in both academic and commercial sectors, and also on funding, when EU sources will no longer be accessible. Whether or not this represents opportunities for Europe is debated. Raising the question of the predictability of Brexit, I also point at ingrained challenges relating to the enhancement of localism and the denigration of expertise, and conclude with a warning on the possible populist undertones of archaeology and heritage funding in post-Brexit Britain.
Notes
1. This argument was first presented at the CIfA annual meeting held in Newcastle on 19–21 April 2017. My heartfelt thanks go to CIfA, to the organisers of the Brexit session, and to its participants. This text was finalised in the days following the 8 June 2017 general election. It therefore reflects that moment’s distinctive mood of increased uncertainty and relative sanguinity.
2. See Schlanger, Nespoulous, and Demoule, “Year 5 at Fukushima.”
3. Gramschi’s original quote is ‘I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will’. From a letter written in prison 19 December 1929.
4. The reduction here of British to English appears justified on both qualitative and quantitative grounds.
5. Source of figures; https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/eighth-report-la-staff-resources/.
6. See for example Trow, “25 Years of Development-led Archaeology,” 61–62.
7. Jackson et al., “Engaging Communities.”
8. See recent appraisals in Baxter, “Mainstreaming Policy and Pragmatism”; Flatman, “Past, Present and Future”; Schlanger, “Entering History”; Schlanger, “If Not For You”; and Trow, “25 Years of Development-led Archaeology.”
9. Schofield, “Heritage Expertise and the Everyday,” 1–2, 7ff. This point is admittedly extracted from a boarder and more complex argument. On the issue of expertise and Brexit, see also https://thepipeline.info/blog/2016/07/05/listen-we-are-some-of-the-experts-archaeologists-brexit-and-post-truth-politics/.
10. The ‘Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society’ (Faro 2005) has yet to be signed and ratified, let alone implemented, by most European countries, including Germany, France, Sweden, Spain, Russia, and the UK (see https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/199).
11. Olivier, “Communities of Interest,” 9–10, passim. The same caveat as in note 9 applies also here.
12. On the damages brought about by metal detecting, see the thorough and compelling study by Hardy, “Quantitative Analysis,” as well as the Heritage Journal website https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/ethics-acquisition, and Paul Barford ‘Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues’ blog, https://paul-barford.blogspot.com/.
13. Comments on Brexit and its archaeological impacts have been made by, inter alia, the CBA: https://new.archaeologyuk.org/news/post-referendum-archaeology, CBA and CIfA: https://www.archaeologists.net/news/cifa-and-cba-release-joint-general-election-statement-1497017817 and the Archaeology Forum: https://new.archaeologyuk.org/Content/downloads/4398_What-does-the-EU-mean-to-the-Archaeology-sector.pdf. See also the thorough data compilation and analysis by the Heritage Alliance: https://www.theheritagealliance.org.uk/tha-website/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Brexit-and-Heritage-Briefing-FINAL-with-Royal-Society-Report-1.pdf, and by Doug Rocks-Macqueen: https://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2016/06/20/what-brexit-or-exit-will-mean-for-archaeology-really-all-of-the-uk/, and a recent Guardian piece, with responses: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/20/trouble-brewing-british-archaeology. Note similar concerns in related fields such as museums and arts, e.g. the Museum Association: https://www.museumsassociation.org/news/29062016-brexit-briefing-museums-association, as well as heritage science and conservation: https://www.heritagescienceforum.org.uk/news/item/nhsf-statement-following-brexit-vote, and https://icon.org.uk/news/statement-brexit.
14. It is acknowledged, of course, that emigration is also covered by legislation, not least in the immigration bill and in the great repeal bill (I am grateful to Rob Lennox for this observation).
15. On those anticipated shortages and required skills, see https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/national-infrastructure-development-and-capacity-2015-33-assessment/national-infrastructure-development-and-archaeological-capacity-shortages.pdf, as well as a joint CIFA/FAME statement: https://www.famearchaeology.co.uk/wpfb-file/cifa-and-fame-response-to-appgebe-inquiry-post-brexit-construction-skills-pdf/.
16. Euclid, “Assessing the European Union.”
17. In proportion of EU funding, of course, not in real sums where like all humanities archaeology is dwarfed by hard sciences and engineering. See the Technopolis report at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/2017-05-technopolis-role-of-EU-funding-report.PDF, and specifically for archaeology pp. 7–11 in the case studies volume, at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/2017-05-technopolis-group-role-of-EU-funding-case-studies.PDF.
18. Pitts, “British Archaeology Fears Brexit Cost.”
19. Ibid.
20. See on these terminological distinctions Schlanger, “Dire l’archéologie en européen.”