Then what is the way forward!,perhapes one way would be to get local societys talking to each other more,have a county day when all the societys in that county or region come together in a agreed venue,and invite the public to come along!!,but local museums also have a big part to play,a way forward needs to be found.Rodney gunner Worthing archaeological Society.
> From: Catherine Petts <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2003/07/04 Fri AM 09:46:21 GMT
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Time Team Big Dig - programme versus digging
> Nick Boldrini said:
> >If BD was a missed opportunity (and your right it was, but then again, only
> >if it is a one off) then the major amount of blame has to lie >with its
> >organisers, IE Time Team, not the various people (in LA's, Societies,
> >interested viewers or otherwise) who did not or could >not get involved
> >because of TT mistakes.
> You seem to have misunderstood my point, I am not criticising people for not
> getting involved. There simply was not enough time to do so properly. That
> fault lies with Time Team, but ever since the Big Dig was announced, until
> the last two or three weeks the tone of all the mail on this list has been
> anti-Time Team and anti-Big Dig. The connection with the loss of jobs is
> that if archaeological jobs are to be protected at a local level it is
> necessary that the local population are aware of and concerned about their
> local heritage and have an understanding of the need to have professional
> archaeologists working locally. If the archaeological profession are going
> to be so utterly negative about one of the best ideas around at present to
> get people taking part and thinking about the past who would not normally be
> reached through the usual mediums of Societies, classes etc, they can hardly
> complain if there is a lack of local interest when archaeological jobs are
> cut. Jobs in archaeology are often selected when cuts are being made because
> they are a soft target and neither local papers nor local people will be
> bothered one way or another.
> Nick also wrote
> >I coordinate a volunteer group, we seem to have plenty of inquirers who
> >briefly join, and then disappear when they (apparently) realise that to get
> >something out it theyare going to have to put in something, like some
> >Groups do have toadvertise themselves, but you can spend a lot of time
> >doing this for noappreciable increase in interest, in my experience.
> >acompromise/suggestion would be for TT to put details of local Socs in
> >BD pack next time, or team up with The Current Archaeology directory to get
> >a copy of that to all Fan club members to see if that inspires them to
> Some local societies are very successful, some are not. Local Societies of
> all kinds have always had a high turnover of members. What is needed is some
> forum to bring together Societies to learn from each other. It could be that
> the way we organise and run our Societies is out of line with what people
> want and that successful societies are doing things differently. Time Team
> and all the other archaeological programmes have given the amateur sector of
> archaeology a window of opportunity that has generally gone unexploited.
> People who are not used to joining groups will not be drawn by putting names
> and addresses of Societies on a website or sending them a directory! To
> use a cliched phrase we need to start thinking outside the box.
> Catherine Petts
> Catherine Petts