Finding Richard III (at 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 positioning, they’ve made an amazing case that these are the remains of the king.
As a historian, I spend various time looking to take heed to the dead. Now and again a curtain appears pulled aside and we hear them directly, and the sensation is awfully powerful. The way in which that the injuries to the skull match with among the historical accounts of Richard’s death did that for me: i used to be taken to Richard’s final moments, as his helmet was lost and his attackers closed in, his horse gone or stuck within 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 a tremendous component of our heritage and can indubitably have direct economic benefits. “The King under the automobile Park”, as Channel 4 had it, will little question stimulate our creative and heritage industries. Leicester University’s archaeology department will, i am hoping, thrive at the publicity.
The findings go a way to resolving the question of ways the tale of Richard’s crooked back was exaggerated for political purposes. For me, though, the important academic significance of the find is its demonstration of the ability of archaeological techniques.
Combining insights from natural and social sciences, archaeology offers a really powerful way of understanding a number of the most inscrutable aspects of our past – consider the issue of interpreting Stonehenge, as an example, and what has now been achieved by this sort of sophisticated analysis. Archaeologists have plenty to inform us concerning the impact of climate change and fuel use, or the upward thrust and decline of complex societies: they provide us access, in other words, to an infinite store of human experience, that’s of direct relevance to a few of the best challenges we now face.
Despite the price and interest of what they do, archaeology departments up and down the rustic at the moment are facing difficulty. The explanation Undergraduate demand has fallen, and there’s no wrong way for them to pay their bills.
This situation reflects a key principle of the Browne review: that investment in higher education ought to be driven by student demand, informed by details about the cost and quality of courses. Archaeological science is costly, and doesn’t attract research funding driven by the quest for economic growth. Student numbers are low, nationally, and although student satisfaction measures and value put it on a par with history and English, archaeology departments cannot attract students within the same numbers, and are finding it hard to hide their costs.
A second aspect of presidency policy exacerbates the difficulty, the “core and margin” policy. Universities can now recruit unlimited numbers of scholars with A-level grades of ABB or better (the ‘margin’ that may grow), but are allocated reduced numbers of places for college kids with lower grades (the ‘core’ allocation). Archaeology has traditionally recruited heavily among ‘core’ students (often those from poorer backgrounds), and departments across the country are being caught by this. Highly selective universities now have a comparatively small ‘core’, and little room for manoeuvre in mitigating short-term movements well-known among high performing A-level students.
The intention is to permit such universities to grow, nevertheless it also creates an incentive for them to disinvest from disciplines with weak demand among applicants with high A-level grades. There is not any corresponding incentive for other universities to soak up that provision. a possible outcome of here’s that there’ll be reduction in national capacity in archaeology, and especially in expensive archaeological science. We are able to all be the poorer for that.
Archaeology isn’t alone. ‘Hard’ or ‘small’ languages also are stressed. They too, will struggle to make their way at the basis of study grants in order that the national capacity in Russian, German and Portuguese tend to decline. As with archaeology, a traditional university response it is going to be to attenuate costs – by targeting language teaching, and reducing the supply inside the politics, sociology, history or literature of these societies. We would expect more degrees in, say, politics with Russian language, emphasising accurate use of the language, and plenty of fewer which emphasise cultural understanding within the fullest sense.
While it will satisfy student demand, and permit universities to continue to prosper, it’ll represent a serious loss to our national research capacity and information base.
The debate concerning the Browne review, and its implementation has up to now focused on the results of high fees at the aspirations of our youth, and at the prospects of our universities as individual institutions. It is time, i suspect, to debate a 3rd dimension – the way forward for particular disciplines, and the chance that scholars and universities, acting rationally within the context within which they’ve been placed, fail between them to generate the mandatory investment to sustain these areas.
Small policy adjustments could help. Universities are currently allocated places in strategically important and vulnerable subjects (SIVS) no matter A-level performance. That is helping with languages, but archaeology and other subjects aren’t protected, while all be afflicted by the results of the core and margin policy in selective universities.
It is a classic collective action problem – no university or individual student has a specific interest in shouldering the prices of the mandatory investment, and so we run the danger that nobody will make it. Letting that rip is not any less a call than implementing a political technique to it, and it might be cheap to unravel.
Let’s no less than make a conscious decision, following a formal discussion, that here is easy methods to plan the national knowledge base.
Michael Braddick is professor and pro-vice-chancellor for the college of arts and arts on the University of Sheffield
This content is delivered to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct on your inbox, join the better Education Network.
