ABSTRACT
One of the most significant changes in British archaeology in the past thirty years has been the change in the relationship of the discipline to the society in which it exists. This change-for there has unquestionably been a change-has been reflected in a wide exploration of the discipline’s relevance, value and meaning by those outside the discipline, and by attempts either to explain what archaeologists believe these are, or to question more widely what society wants and to tailor more of the output of archaeological research in this direction. The more sceptical reader might suggest that these activities reflect the desire for archaeologists to carry on their practice unchanged while offering token products to society to keep it happy. However, the reality is perhaps rather better balanced and less cynical. As archaeologists have come to better understand their resource and as they have developed more complex goals and methodologies, they have recognized the need to influence government and society in order to improve the framework in which the discipline is practised. This has involved influencing the direction of planning legislation to enable better protection of the resource base and improving the nature of the funding base to better provide adequate support. However, such implicit and explicit strategies have a cost. To change the ways things are done often involves detailed explanation of what is actually done and
why it is valuable to those groups in society who have the power to effect change. This inevitably leads to a critical exploration of what that ‘value’ is to those groups by those groups. And with understanding and such questioning comes the opportunity for those groups to influence the practice in return. In Britain, the change in the nature of the funding base of archaeology and the increased placement of professional archaeologists in local and national government has involved the profession and its professionals in wider developments in British society, especially in relation to concepts such as accountability, value-formoney, and marketing. The change in the relationship between the archaeological profession and society as a whole necessitates a far more detailed exploration of the role of managers in British archaeology, whether managers of archaeological organizations, managers of particular archaeological projects, or managers of particular specialisms and services. While many archaeological professionals would identify themselves as managers and spend increasing amounts of time on management activities, there is little discussion of what an archaeological manager actually does-or should do-and very little published guidance on the application of management techniques to archaeology as a whole (Cooper 1993).
