By Clare Burke

Here in State of the Arch, we would like to introduce a new series of pieces all centred around a similar theme: the role of the internet in modern academic discourse, and the place of internet journals and resources such as assemblage in the archaeological community. We hope that these State of the Arch pieces will open up the floor for debate, and we are very interested to hear the views of assemblage’s readers on this topic. Please feel free to use the comment facilities below to voice your opinions, or if you are interested in writing an opinion or research piece on the topic, email us at our usual address.
  We start with Pat Hadley, who has explored these issues through his work on Mesolithic Miscellany. His piece explores the opportunities and potential provided by dissemination of knowledge through the web, as well as the potential obstacles to this dissemination, not least, the perceived subversive nature of new methods of social sharing.

 by Clare Burke

In the bleak winter of 2010, the government put forward plans to raise the fees of undergraduate higher education from just over £3000 to up to £9000, with the expectation that the majority of institutions would charge around the £7000 mark.

To those of us who watched in horror, it was inevitable that most universities would rush towards the £9000 price bracket, not wanting to appear as the cheaper, low quality alternative.

With arts funding decimated by the government in a bid to drive science and technology based industry and training, those of us studying archaeology have been left to question the value of our degree. Are students now simply cash cows for institutions? Where do their fees go? If science and technology is so heavily funded what does that mean for other faculties and departments? Is knowledge simply a consumable? And does a degree have to be job training? We would be really interested in what you all think. What do you think of this in comparison to the American system?

Below are the opinions of two archaeologists at different stages of their career, discussing what these fee rises mean for the future of archaeology.

by Clare Burke

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5 was published by the government in the spring of 2010, replacing the existing Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 15 and 16. PPG15 and 16 had been in effect since the early 1990s as an attempt to incorporate the protection of heritage remains into the planning process; Their implementation largely resulting from a number of well-publicized cases where archaeological remains had been destroyed or were under threat of destruction during development, causing widespread public outcry. The most famous case being that of the Rose Theatre: http://www.rosetheatre.org.uk/index.php

PPG15 was solely aimed at advising planning officers about the consideration of the historic environment during development, whilst PPG16 was dedicated to the consideration of the archaeological environment. Both of these documents placed responsibility for the cost of excavating, recording and preserving remains affected by development with the development companies, often referred to as a ‘polluter pays policy’.
PPS5 has amalgamated these two policy documents into one and outlines the government’s national policy for town planning in relation to what it terms the ‘historic environment’, be that a listed building or a below ground archaeological site. It is legally binding and will have to be taken into account for all planning applications relating to development in England.
The full document can be downloaded here:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps5

This 'State of the Arch' article was first published in assemblage 3 (1997).

by Geoffrey Wainwright.

Today, archaeology occupies a solid and respectable position in modern society as the authorised producer and reproducer of the national heritage. This position is in most countries safeguarded by legislation, circulars and guidance notes that secure the identification, preservation, recording and presentation of the archaeological heritage of the nation. The reason for this is plain to see. Archaeology has a vitally important place and role within any country's commitment to culture and cultural development -- whether at the national, regional or community level.