Will the study of archaeology soon become a thing of the
past?
Richard III's discovery showcased UK academia, says Michael
Braddick. But as student demand for certain subjects falls, should we have
grave concerns for our future knowledge base?
 |
Greyfriars car park, Leicester, where the remains of King Richard III were found.
Photograph: Darren Staples/Reuters
|
Tuesday 19 February 2013 16.11 GMT Last modified on
Wednesday 21 May 2014 16.31 BST
Finding Richard III (on the premises of Leicester social
services no less) is testament to the ingenuity of archaeologists. Weaving
together findings from historical analysis of texts with scientific analysis of
the skeleton and the site, they have made an overwhelming case that these are
the remains of the king.
As a historian, I spend a lot of time trying to listen to
the dead. Every now and then a curtain seems to be pulled aside and we hear
them directly, and the feeling is very powerful. The way that the wounds to the
skull match with one of the historical accounts of Richard's death did that for
me: I was taken to Richard's final moments, as his helmet was lost and his
attackers closed in, his horse gone or stuck in the mud, the moments in other
words when he knew he had lost his kingdom and his life. That human connection
is precious, and rare.
This ingenious work has recovered an important part of our
heritage and will no doubt have direct economic benefits. "The King under
the Car Park", as Channel 4 had it, will no doubt stimulate our creative
and heritage industries. Leicester University's archaeology department will, I
hope, thrive on the publicity.
The findings go some way to resolving the question of how
the story of Richard's crooked back was exaggerated for political purposes. For
me, though, the real academic significance of the find is its demonstration of
the power of archaeological techniques.
Combining insights from natural and social sciences,
archaeology offers an exceptionally powerful way of understanding many of the
most inscrutable aspects of our past – think of the difficulty of interpreting
Stonehenge, for example, and what has now been achieved by this kind of
sophisticated analysis. Archaeologists have plenty to tell us about the impact
of climate change and fuel use, or the rise and decline of complex societies:
they give us access, in other words, to a vast store of human experience, which
is of direct relevance to some of the greatest challenges we now face.
Despite the value and interest of what they do, archaeology
departments up and down the country are now facing difficulty. The reason?
Undergraduate demand has fallen, and there is no other way for them to pay
their bills.
This situation reflects a key principle of the Browne
review: that investment in higher education should be driven by student demand,
informed by information about the price and quality of courses. Archaeological
science is expensive, and does not attract research funding driven by the
search for economic growth. Student numbers are low, nationally, and although
student satisfaction measures and price put it on a par with history and
English, archaeology departments cannot attract students in the same numbers,
and are finding it hard to cover their costs.
A second aspect of government policy exacerbates the
problem, the "core and margin" policy. Universities can now recruit
unlimited numbers of students with A-level grades of ABB or better (the
'margin' which can grow), but are allocated reduced numbers of places for
students with lower grades (the 'core' allocation). Archaeology has
traditionally recruited heavily among 'core' students (often those from poorer
backgrounds), and departments around the country are being caught by this.
Highly selective universities now have a relatively small 'core', and little
room for manoeuvre in mitigating short-term movements in demand among high
performing A-level students.
The intention is to allow such universities to grow, but it
also creates an incentive for them to disinvest from disciplines with weak
demand among applicants with high A-level grades. There is no corresponding
incentive for other universities to take up that provision. A likely outcome of
this is that there will be reduction in national capacity in archaeology, and
particularly in expensive archaeological science. We will all be the poorer for
that.
Archaeology is not alone. 'Hard' or 'small' languages are
also under pressure. They too, will struggle to make their way on the basis of
research grants so that the national capacity in Russian, German and Portuguese
are likely to decline. As with archaeology, a standard university response will
probably be to reduce costs – by concentrating on language teaching, and
reducing the provision in the politics, sociology, history or literature of
those societies. We might expect more degrees in, say, politics with Russian
language, emphasising accurate use of the language, and many fewer which
emphasise cultural understanding in the fullest sense.
While this may satisfy student demand, and allow
universities to continue to prosper, it would represent a significant loss to
our national research capacity and knowledge base.
The debate about the Browne review, and its implementation
has so far concentrated on the effects of high fees on the aspirations of our
young people, and on the prospects of our universities as individual
institutions. It's time, I think, to discuss a third dimension – the future of
particular disciplines, and the risk that students and universities, acting
rationally in the context in which they have been placed, fail between them to
generate the necessary investment to sustain these areas.
Small policy adjustments could help. Universities are
currently allocated places in strategically important and vulnerable subjects
(SIVS) irrespective of A-level performance. This is helping with languages, but
archaeology and other subjects are not protected, while all suffer from the
effects of the core and margin policy in selective universities.
It is a classic collective action problem – no university or
individual student has a particular interest in shouldering the costs of the
necessary investment, and so we run the risk that no one will make it. Letting
that rip is no less a decision than implementing a political solution to it,
and it would be cheap to solve.
Let's at least make a conscious decision, following a proper
discussion, that this is the way to plan the national knowledge base.
Michael Braddick is professor and pro-vice-chancellor for
the faculty of arts and humanities at the University of Sheffield
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To
get more articles like this direct to your inbox, become a member of the Higher
Education Network.
