 The Society's Manifesto addresses a major issue that forms a hurdle for the future of archaeology, not just in England, but around the world. The issue the manifesto addresses is a need for more communication and synthesis in all parts of archaeology, from planning to fieldwork to research and dissemination, and proposes overcoming that issue with umbrella organizations that can foster a healthier environment for collaboration. However, there is a more pertinent issue with communication collaboration that is not addressed in the manifesto, and that is the fragmentation of conversations on the discipline of archaeology itself. Discussions like this exact one with the Society are occurring separately, but regularly on a daily basis. In England, this conversation is regular in the Badger Facebook Forum, in CIFAS-SIGS, an advisory council, in the CBA, in university departments, and it extends beyond just England as archaeology across the globe is facing similar issues. The conversation is regularly seen at TAG, EAA, SAA, and AAA conferences, as well as dozens of smaller regional period or specialist-focused conferences. It's seen in articles in the German DGF, or in the Norwegian Archaeological Review, or Antiquity, and many other journals. The problem is constantly being addressed, but because of the structures that have been established in archaeology, these discussions never reach the critical mass they need to ever make meaningful change. This isn't just an issue for the future of archaeology in England, it's an issue for the future of archaeology around the world. More importantly, many of these discussions are occurring behind closed doors, relying on personal experience and anecdotes, and case studies that often do not represent the wide diversity of practitioners in archaeology, nor the diverse and creative methods, theories, and ideas that are driving the discipline forward. The manifesto briefly addresses the issues with using the outputs of archaeological investigations on a larger scale, but misses the broader point. Case studies of any aspect of archaeology are not suited for discussions on a broad scale, as there is too much variation between fragments or traditions of archaeology to make broad assumptions about the state of the discipline. These case studies are often supplemented by discussions, workshops, roundtables, lunchtime talks, and informal conversations that are vital to the development and progression of archaeology, but are lacking the meaningful representation of archaeologists that can provide evidence and support to the state of the discipline. The groups that represent archaeologists across England, the UK, and the world are ignoring the most valuable resource at their disposal, a body of informed members and practitioners that want their voices to be heard and are at the forefront of archaeological practice and research. More importantly, there is a breakdown in communication between archaeologists and the organizations that represent them. There is simply too much going on in archaeology in terms of organizational support for the discipline, and that topic needs to be addressed urgently. The Society of Antiquaries itself is a relative unknown to many, including myself, as entry into the organization is restricted. More troublingly, when seeking to gain entry to the society, most members I have spoken to suggested that it was not worth the effort, and is not an organization worth joining anymore. This can be seen across organizations in archaeology and is often amplified depending on the part of the sector in which an archaeologist works. CFA, for example, is often widely despised in academic departments, while others in commercial units refuse to even utter its name. Those same archaeologists in commercial units often have little interest in the society or other organizations like the CDA, because they do not feel it relates to their careers or represents their type of archaeology. This is troubling as these small discussions composed of very specific individuals become siloed and often lack the input of the diverse traditions and practitioners that make up archaeology. Other organizations, umbrellas and groups are seen as mysterious, opaque, and it is unclear what the role they play in archaeology is and how they actually interact with archaeologists. Many archaeologists, at least in the fragment in which I work, have never heard of the Archaeology Forum, for example. It is seemingly a forum of the heads of major groups, and to those who are not included, it is a complete mystery what they actually do. This is a common case in archaeology where one must be actively engaged as a member of an organization to know what goes on. Again, a breakdown in communication as many of those people cannot be included. For reference, the only information that exists on TAF online seems to be an overview from the CBA and a website that hasn't been updated since 2007. Adding more of such structures is unnecessary and would only seek to complicate the issue of communication and fragmentation in archaeology. Again, the simple issue is that there's too much going on in archaeology and not enough archaeologists to need so many different groups. It is an unnecessary division of resources, manpower, and money, and most importantly, voice. What we need is a reassessment of the discipline that involves the entire discipline, not small roundtable discussions or workshops. There needs to be a discipline-wide effort to collect views, data, and information about the state of archaeology, and most importantly, the organizations that represent archaeology. Is the original purpose of these groups still being met, or has it changed over many decades, just like archaeology has? This is a difficult discussion to have because it means addressing sensitive topics that can often put people on the defensive. The issue was very briefly brought up by Neil Redfern at the How Do We Learn workshop from the Society, in which there was a clear demographic not only presenting, but in the audience as well. Neil asked the question, who is this for? How do we help young people who are doing these excavations understand the amazing resource that they are building into? And the second question is, who is that for? It's not going to be the people in this room who are going to do this, it's going to be somebody else. They're going to bring a whole load of different concepts and ideas, and we're nowhere near any of those discussions at the moment because we haven't brought them into the room. This isn't just an issue with generational representation, but across the sector. We need more than just the heads of organizations to meet and talk about their views. We need the members of these groups to be communicating and having difficult discussions that we usually shy away from. There are roughly 6,300 archaeologists in the UK, almost all of whom could fit in the Royal Albert Hall, and those from England certainly could all fit. It is not necessary to have a physical meaning of archaeologists, but it is direly important to talk to that body of practitioners, not just 20, 40, 60 archaeologists who attend workshops or conferences. There is nothing stopping our organizations, our companies, and our universities from talking to their members, their employees, and their students to understand the realities of archaeology. The only thing that is stopping this effort is a division of funding, division of manpower, and a lack of collaborative research of archaeology itself, and a general lack of understanding of the value of our own practitioners. Surveys like Profiling the Profession and the Countless Smaller Focus Surveys from English Heritage, CIFA, Badger, EAA, and other organizations are a good start, but our concerted and collaborative effort needs to be made to cross-cut the entirety of archaeology to understand what archaeologists are actually doing and how they are doing it. Knowing how many archaeologists there are in the UK is a good start, but we need to begin to delve more deeply into what it is that archaeologists do. What tools, what technologies, theories, or philosophies are archaeologists using? How are they using it in academia versus commercial versus public versus community archaeology? What do archaeologists call themselves? Their specialty, their sector? Is it commercial archaeology, professional archaeology, polluter pays, development led, rescue salvage, preventative cultural resource, or heritage management, or something else? It needs to be defined by the full body of archaeologists. Most importantly, we need to understand how members and archaeologists understand the organizational landscape. Who are archaeologists looking to for support? Is it CIFA, Badger, the Society of Antiquaries, CBA, University Archaeology UK, HE, Algao, Fane, Prospect, Icon, Icomos, EAA, or one of the other nearly 100 organizations that support UK archaeologists? How well are these organizations actually representing the needs and wants of the discipline, and how can these organizations react to the realities of archaeology at a practitioner level? Recently Badger released a survey on financial hardship in archaeology, which only reached 755 archaeologists in the UK. That is only 12% of a relatively small population, and likely only one small fragment of the discipline. The CIFA Chartered Archaeologist proposal, a decision that would impact all archaeologists, only reached 865 archaeologists, only 116 in person, just about a percentage more than the Badger survey. It is time that we start to understand how to communicate with the most valuable resource set that is available to archaeology. If we want to have a healthy and thriving discipline, we must talk to our members and talk to the archaeologists who work in the UK. We often skip to larger and more complex conversations like public benefit without ever addressing the health and well-being of our own practitioners. Questions like that of public benefit would be much easier to address from the insider or out if we had a more cohesive voice that is informed broadly by the archaeological population. We must first take ourselves seriously, understand what our discipline needs, and most importantly what archaeologists need before we can expect to be taken seriously by the government or by any other body. If we do not first value ourselves and what we do, we cannot expect others to value us. We must start regularly and longitudinally working to understand the realities of archaeology on a more granular level, essentially creating a sense of archaeology that explores the methods, tools, technologies, curricular theories, and general sentiments about archaeology year after year. Documents like the manifesto are a good start, but we need to work from the bottom up if we want to look positively to a strong and prosperous future of archaeology in England, the UK and the world. Once we start to communicate effectively, the future of archaeology will become more clear, and we will finally have the knowledge to provide a future for our discipline. Thank you.