 Wel, wrth gwrs, ydych chi'n gweithio'r sefyllfa yma, a mynd i'n gweithio'r strategiaeth newydd o'r Pelylithu Brytysg, felly mae'n gweithio'r amgylchedd, amgylchedd, a'r enthysioedd. Yn ystod, mae'n profesi Mark White, o'r Dyrwm Universty, o'r Loth Lansgapes o Brithnol. Rwy'n gweithio'r Loth Lansgapes o'r projag, a'r ddau'r ddechrau ar gyfer archif, of it, which we used as a way of proposing a kind of new, a new type of framework before the British Paleolithic, and one in which I want to move away from specifics and towards a number of general, which I think of philosophies rather than actionable plans at the moment. I'm trying also in this to be very inclusive. I notice that maybe a lot of this morning's discussion has been focused on Paleolithic archaeology for Paleolithic archaeologists, and I just want to try and move the discussion in a more general way and offer some ideas as to how we might move this stuff forward. There is a lot of text on my PowerPoints. I am not going to read out the bullet points that there is an aid memoir for myself, mostly because the excesses of my youth are haunting me in my middle age. Moving on, I'm speaking on behalf really of all the people on this list. At the time that the Lost Landscapes project was going, we all signed up to this. I'm sure that we disagree on a number of issues, but we agree to disagree. If anybody doesn't like what I'm saying, don't blame anybody on that list, blame me. What was or is Lost Landscapes? It was a project that was initiated by Historic England, then English Heritage under the auspices, I think, of Jonathan Last. It was aimed specifically at disseminating the results and implications of the Aggregates Levy fund, which ran from until 2011. The project proposal was led by Liz Stafford and was awarded in 2013, and the book came out I think late last year or early this year. These were the results of the Lost Landscapes project, a book, an edited book with different chapters tackling different parts of the record. We've got the marine, we've got the terrestrial, we've got methods, and we've got fauna. I topped and tailed this book with a general kind of rationale. At the end, instead of producing the usual summary in chapter one we saw in chapter two, I decided actually just to write a polemic to try and push things forward. On the left here you've got the archive document which has been rebadged, rebranded by Liz and I think has been circulated to some degree. Okay now we've seen this morning the fact that I think that the British Paleolithic is an exceptionally vibrant place. It's very busy, it's very exciting. There are some very good field projects, exemplary even, field projects taking place. There are books and papers in abundance. We've got MAs, at least three institutions, and Paul Petty and I have been asked by Durham to try and develop one for our institution. Most importantly I think is the fact that we've got a new generation of postdocs coming through and from my perspective I'm really pleased to see a number of those people in the audience today because they've got to live with the decisions that we make and the directions that we suggest are the ones we want to follow at the moment. And also I think that British Paleolithic has got what I term the post ahob glow. Mr Leverhune can't seem to stop throwing money at Nick Ashton at the moment and so there is this thrust, this initiative, this agenda growing around the British Paleolithic and again in inclusivity Nick I do include the upper Paleolithic in this. OK now I want to say a few words about rates of discovery because it kind of leads on to where my emphasis lies. During the lifetime of the aggregates Levy I've got these six sites which I can think of as being major discoveries, well excavated, giving us quite a lot of very useful information. Now there's six sites there, sorry if I've left your pet site off, please let me know about it afterwards. If we look just a bit further back in time, pre 2000 this picture doesn't look quite so good, we've got red barns which we've heard about Box Grove, Waverly Wood and Fandham Fields which I think were pretty much the new sites discovered during the period from about 1970s onwards. Contrast that with old sites which have been revisited for a variety of purposes, beaches pit is so important it's on there twice. Now the point I want to make here about this is that Rob's distribution map would probably have looked very similar to John Evans and looking at that distribution map there's not really anything north and west of his line from the 7th of the Wash, there are odd fine spots but it still is very much a south east England dominated record. OK so that's just a bit of context about the sort of that thing that we found it came out of the lost landscapes and a little bit about the way that paralithic archaeology works and has worked. Now I want to turn my attention to frameworks and I think there's three ways in which I consider that the paralithic is lost in the ground or underwater in museums and in the stakeholders minds and I want to explain that a bit now by going through a framework that we have developed which we don't see necessarily as being the answer to everything but which could perhaps provide a series of overarching structures under which planning advice agendas and priorities would fall. OK so framing agendas at shaping frameworks I'm sorry to have to say that I don't think we should be producing any more frameworks of the type we currently have the research agenda. They're written by academics they're written for academics and they're speaking to academics and I noticed when I was writing Lost Landscapes that if we take both frameworks and we look at the research agendas and then we look at what we might call the conservation agendas almost every single one of the research agendas was hit and only one of the conservation agendas was hit and I've got a very sneaking suspicion that it was on the framework because it had already been achieved. Now one of the problems I find with these research agendas and I've heard this morning that we've got a series of very interesting questions and we're developing new ideas and new methods but actually I think that most of these questions were probably in the mind of Hugh Falconer before he persuaded Joseph Presswich to to pop off to Aberville while he was on his Easter jolly and I think that what we do with the language is different the information is different but I think what we're trying to do now is not a million miles away from what they were trying to do from the 1850s. I've also got a problem with the use of jargon and I also think that they as I said they fail to talk to everybody and this is I think they fail to talk to the public they fail to talk to developers they fail to talk to many people I'm sorry I've had a hand in writing both of them and I think it's time now to stop. Okay so what do I think we need in its place I think we need something which builds capacity I think it needs something that we can share with everybody archaeologists the public developers curators all the people on Frank's list and I think we need to do much better to explain our interests our wants if you like not needs it's like Christmas Christmas is for wants not for needs and that should be our framework should be for wants they should be aspirational but we might not get everything that we want there will be no xbox 360 here and as I said I think we should include young researchers who would have to work with with the things that we champion so we came up with a model which is based on three principles the the ecube framework as Clive pointed out archaeologists love threes the first one is expansion and of course this is this is what we're talking about with most development control can we find new sites we need new sites desperately and this is what why at the beginning showed you this rate of change or the rate of discovery we need new sites I mean David finds more sites probably in his back garden than we've discovered in 20 years that that's got to change there is I think an urgent need for new surveys and for using models of the type that Frank was talking about for predicting deposits not me predicting deposits predicting where these deposits might actually fall in there sort of that pedagography and for moving forward with those but the second one and I think that the more actually I think as equally important as finding new sites is making the best at what we've got and the thing is we're really really good at this and Rob's work at brew Frank's work at Baker's hull has taken sites which we could have lost and by use of um a targeted field work but more importantly an understanding of the archive and that this is what I want to emphasise more than anything else is the archive there is archive out there in museums that we just do not know about they keep coming up as a chat with Peter Hor at Coffey and he's discovered a raft of unknown letters from Worthington Smith to various people around the sort of Dunstable area and this is all new stuff which has got the possibility of shedding new light on sites that we know of but we may not know enough about and so one of the things I think that we we need I don't know how we're going to get this funded I don't know how we're going to any of this funded don't ask me about that please is we need an archival database we need to be able to link objects and the materials that actually tell us what those objects mean um and so as I said we've got to to move on I think in this because if we can bring these two things together ideally online so that people have got access to them I think we can actually start to motor on rather than just plod okay and the final one of my things is engagement and I think this is really important and it's not just engaged it's engaged with everybody that expresses an interest in what we do and and I think it needs to be a partnership that's based on a mutual understanding we need to develop a language that we can all understand um I think and we this was brought up a kind of before the the um before the break is that we need a national network we need something along them along the the the route of of nyan the national ice age network because I think that's the philosophy of that um was spot on um there were just things that happened during the lifetime of nyan which subsequently led to its its demise and and I think that what we really need to do is we need to reboot this as something more user-friendly and and the british ice age network gives you the the usual action of brian although of course we might get into trouble with copyright issues with Confuse.com on that one um and of course the elephant in the room and this is really I think possibly the most important thing I've got to say is the government's impact agenda and what it means for the academics in this room because we uh have to make our work count it can be policy it can be economic it can be social but the worker's got to count now okay why is that important well as I understand it if my institution is anything to go by universities are terrified of impact particularly archaeology departments and universities are putting money into seed corn funding and into developing impact related projects now if the government turn round and say that impact is going to be reduced in importance this money will disappear so we need to be very quick about developing seed corn ideas and I think these ideas should be cross institutional and the reason I think they should be cross institutional is if I'm beavering away in Durham and Rob's beavering away in redding and um Dan's beavering away in Royal Holloway then we could end up with a best of series of diluted case studies and diluted impact agendas which are there cynically just to conform to the government and the government's desires for academics rather than something that could actually make a difference for our discipline so I think what we should do is we should subvert impact and make it work for us make it part of what we do in terms of everything we've been talking about today um okay a new horizons um paraphrase and clive as I like to think in biggest too small um we need to look to the continent if we've heard a lot about this um today um when we do look to the continent we find this forest of literature and David I'm sorry your English is excellent my friend is apocalyptic bad so this this needs to be sorted out into that and one of the things I think we could do one of the things we struggle with in this country and when we look to the continent is that there's nothing the equivalent of turps another English heritage historic England initiative which I think has given us in this country an unparalleled database and it's now online it's available for study it's generated I think a vast number of papers I use it Rob uses it Nick uses it Becky we all use this um and so on one of the things I think we should explore is try to with European colleagues develop an idea for a a turps for Europe which I think tropes the rivers of Palinus at Europe kind of fits it this is an idea that Danielle de Britain and myself have been discussing the problem is this is just a nightmare it would be a little bit like trying to find one person in this country to work with on developing a thing what you need buying from from many many people so I think that one of the other things we need to do and sorry Hannah I want one more sentence one of the things we do is we need to talk to our our continental colleagues about whether they're interested in this and how we can do it thanks thank you Mark um again save your questions for the end and um if I can introduce my colleague Jonathan last from Historic England who's going to talk about heritage 2020 effective frameworks for the paleolithic okay um good afternoon everyone and I'll get my apologies in first um I'm not a paleolithic specialist so I'm not going to give you a framework for the paleolithic um I'll try and say something effective but we'll see how that goes um and also I'm speaking towards the end of the day so most of these points have been covered already um but again hopefully um we can uh build towards a bit more of a discussion of some of these points so it was presented with this title um but I think it proved useful in thinking about three senses of frameworks and I wanted to just pick up and perhaps extend the comments on a few of the things that Mark and colleagues said in the the documents that um he was just talking to so first the frameworks in the archaeological sense um we have a plethora of these documents they set out what we know a resource assessment what we want to know a research agenda and how perhaps we're going to go about finding it out a research strategy um research frameworks have been championed by Historic England and English Heritage its predecessor over the last 20 years and they aim to provide a common agenda for different parts of the sector to work to um to provide a research focus for developer funded work and a means of uh of deciding on priorities um on the other hand they can tread a fine line between the generic and the specific um and they can be seen as part of what Marilyn Struthern has termed the audit culture that they're perhaps they're more about organising and controlling research than the facilitating it um and Mark's critique you've just heard so there are different views on the values of these documents and that would be a whole talk in itself um but the the quote at the top um is from uh Mark's document and as he said suggest that at this academic level our high level research questions haven't really changed for 150 years um I don't know about the 19th century but the the 1948 cba document which is the first kind of formal research framework for British prehistory has these questions for the uh the paleolithic age as it's called I'm not going to read them out you can have a look and decide whether these are still the same questions we're trying to answer in a different guise or not but the key assertion that that the lost landscapes team have made is that research frameworks have kind of taken precedents over survey and discovery and they're arguing for a shift of focus from academic research questions to as we've heard finding more sites and developing better understanding of old materials um my response to that is that I don't think it's an either or question um and I don't think we can oppose discovery to to research I think it's all part of one process you could argue that a lot of the the kind of landscape modelling type work that took place under the the aggregates levy was designed to facilitate the the discovery of sites by refining understanding of the areas most likely to to produce them um but I think the key thing is that the frameworks need to be owned by everyone um and not imposed on it whether it's by organisations like Historic England or by academics um so really it's up to us as a as a group to to decide what we need um whether we need the the research framework and the e3 but I think the key thing is actually to think about how it might work and how to embrace technology um perhaps develop a more interactive framework uh with a with a digital platform that is more responsive and scalable um so the scope there perhaps we're better linking discoveries at the site level to some of these these bigger questions um so rather than saying no more research frameworks I'll say what sort of research frameworks do we need and how do we integrate this work at different scales um the second kind of framework is the legislative and policy context and again these are quotes from the the lost landscapes kind of extra document um and we've heard a bit about this from Francis earlier but this has two aspects really heritage protection legislation and planning policy um and the main issue with the former is the problem of sites without structures as we have been termed which is basically all open air paralithic sites failing the definition of what can be legally scheduled heritage bills in Scotland and Wales have both amended their definitions but England still lags behind although the work we did for the aborted heritage bill at Westminster a few years ago was made available in the form of the bottom right there the scheduling which is basically a scheduling selection guide for sites you can't schedule so I don't know I'm not sure whether anyone else in Historic England or DCMS has picked up on the irony but it's available for you to read in any case um of course there are other other mechanisms for protecting sites with a paralithic interest including the geological conservation review and the SSI system that natural england administer and working with them obviously has the advantage of developing relationships between archaeologists and the geoconservation side and when we do this there's a lot of approaches in common also occasional differences of practice which lead to kind of constructive um discussion I think about um maintaining accessibility of uh of sites and that kind of thing um other people might argue that we don't want sites scheduled because that would might just close down any any field work I think this again is a slightly um misguided um I think instead what what scheduling does provide is a a sense of importance for a site like Starcar I think the scheduling actually enabled um research field work and funding to uh to flow to that site and there's also access to um to funds such as the the heritage at risk funding for field work at Baker's Hole which is a an anomalous old paralithic scheduling which we probably shouldn't mention too loudly but the fact that it existed allowed money to be targeted at understanding the condition of the site so continuing to press for these this kind of the ability to have assigned this legal status to key paralithic sites is perhaps something we want to to maintain. The second aspect of this policy framework is the planning and development led investigations side I think there are a number of things that we can and must continue to do in this respect a lot of these we've heard about during the course of the day improving the representation of the period in HERs not only ensuring that the data is accurate but also structured in a way that suits the nature of paralithic archaeology so the deposit model the character area approach perhaps we need guidance and training to support curators and units who are investigating paralithic potential the middle document on the slide was prepared by John Wymer at the end of the TERPS project in back in 1998 I think it it badly needs updating to reflect the methodological technological and policy developments of the last 15 to 20 years and we need to improve the the implementation and communication of of planning conditions archaeologists paralithic archaeologists image problem if you like with industry some of which we have we've heard about and the consistent application of planning policy to to paralithic sites and paralithic interest and then the the third type of framework is the kind of overarching concept really of heritage or the historic environment and where we see the paralithic sitting in this at historic England we've moved from the the NHPP the national heritage protection plan under which the the top set of bullet points was the kind of work we were doing we're now in a kind of intermediate stage developing the a new action plan which will address what is a a more nebulous and not yet fit finalised sector wide initiative called heritage 2020 and the key sort of draft headlines for that are in the bottom and and and I think it's about seeing how we can take the opportunities that arise from that and even even at a level beyond that where does the paralithic sit in this bigger conversation about the value of heritage how do we position ourselves to get a share of the resources that flow from it relation to culture science landscape these kind of big concepts and this is an issue with advocacy and outreach at a at a wide level we've heard about the kind of attention I think we've heard about the citizen science the range of interested parties the fact that everyone is in it you know is really interested in flints when we talk to them about them and perhaps attention that with the view that still persists in in some areas that the paralithic is difficult and that people are not interested or they don't get kind of deep time so I think we need to kind of understand more sort of the values of the wider public and the wider and wider society really and I think this this links to what mark was saying about impact how we kind of you know beyond just the academic definition how we increase the impact of of what we do amongst the widest possible audiences how these invisible aspects of heritage can be incorporated into perceptions of landscape into local communities sense of place and into educational initiatives linked to the the national story I think we need to present the paralithic as a kind of seamless part of the the long jury of human occupation present it it sometimes seems to be treated separately from the rest of archaeological heritage because it is often found in different locations done by different people subject to different protection regimes maybe and not well represented on key databases but I think everything that that we've heard today has shown that um we have these engaging and relevant stories about deep time that includes human origins where we all come come from and the changing relationships between people climate and environment so you know the three questions like what what kind of research frameworks do we need what do um curators units and others need for a consistent and a proportionate approach to the paralithic and how do we sell the paralithic and make it part of the bigger kind of cultural and scientific picture as I say we have these um engaging relevant stories and after all who can think about the mega floods that formed the English Channel um without wondering what the simple hominins who were around then thought about it all thank you thank you Jonathan um so if uh Mark would you like to come up for questions um just before the break then Liz you got cut off short a little I don't know whether you wanted to where have you gone so it's here she's gone oh okay I was going to see if Liz wanted to pick up what she was saying um just before the break but um if anyone else wants to take that up and feel free does anyone have any questions yeah can you hold the mic closer to the right representation of the period we're not western continental written in the last research joint and not only the methods that I use but also relating to the archaeology directly to the rich landscape because it is actually part of that landscape as well and I'm wondering how that has become part of research genders in lots of the UK Jonathan I'm not sure I'm in a position really to talk about the uh this is a continental picture I think that probably says something about historic england and um uh but I think the initiative that um that was developed I think with the North Sea prehistory framework um a few years ago there's something that we could could pick up again and I think that the sort of maritime work that we've heard about really um provides a you know a means of of engaging you know a number of countries around the the North Sea basin and the channel in particular and I'm sure um I can't talk but Mark can maybe talk about common research interests but I think um we can begin to talk about um how we address some of the the sort of um conservation management and um knowledge issues that that document um identified I put it in my presentation because I think it's it's rather languished slightly of late and it would be interesting to pick that up again yeah I mean one point I'd like to make is the fact that I mentioned France as an example of course if you're if you're looking at continental connections you have to take the entire seaboard and um I would also suggest that if we're I mean this idea of this European rivers project this grand design to go all the way over to the Urals you know and then we panicked a bit so I pulled it back in pulled it back in so you know you then get the Lowlands France and Spain I don't include Spain I know it's not a nearest name necessarily but it could be a potential refugia and I think that these are the types of questions that we can answer with this starting off in the sort of zonal approach and you get across but I agree with you we have to do it but the problem is um well it's that the middle's missing the middle is missing we've got all the edges of the jigsaw but we haven't got the middle you know it's underneath the the sea and this is where Rachel and her colleagues you know and this is why I was talking about paleogeography in that why don't you look at South East England recently I said the examples we've had with North East in France have captured a very different kind of virus than we did in South East England we've got how many huge extensive genealysic causes by these multiple steps that we've heard in this fashion. Is it the fact that Lewis isn't here with the Lewis gone? Where's Simon Lewis? I mean if talking to Robin Dennell a couple of weeks ago I mean Robin who's if you want to learn about archaeology and Lewis talk to Robin but Robin's of the opinion that it was here it is gone you know this is why when we were on jersey talking about the fact we're talking about the the plateau at the cotton when you could actually physically drive mammoth across it it's a really broken rolling landscape there's a lot of reasons why you wouldn't be able to run mammoth over it and Robin Dennell said we'll turn it into a tabletop full of full of Lewis you know so there are these questions about you know the the landscapes we've got today compared to what the landscapes were like in the past. Francis. Yes hello there's lots of interest we've been saying about all these presentations. One particular point I wanted to make was this about public engagement and appreciation of the paradigm actually in terms of France we're in England we're trying to say that the paradigm is part of how to try and tie support but France itself has got the whole separate subject called prehistory with its own mythology so it's some ways compared to France as part of a separate field for the rest of our project but in Britain the public are generally really interested in the ice age and the man and mammoths and all that but people are most doubtful about archaeology. It's your grizzled curator and grizzled and rolled up smooth and fueled archaeologists who's going about monkey rocks and with friends like that so I think that is where the first occasion to generally use to address. Yeah I think there's a grain of truth in that but I think to a certain extent it's because people feel they don't understand it for some reason and so I think there is a community there is an onus on us to to communicate to them and make the case. I think we can also be our own worst enemies I think we're very good at repeatedly saying why the paleolithic is special and different and difficult and perhaps we need to try and do a little bit less of that and focus on the common things that we can say. Mark do you want to pick up on? No I agree with the whole engagement thing and with Frank's point of it but the other thing is is that I would say that if we can get people young as well we can win their hearts and minds. I'm excavating in South Yorkshire in the summer and I've already got four local school groups coming it's going to save me two whole days to sort of like show that. If we find a single flake that would be a remarkable discovery believe me but you know they're coming they're interested we're just going to talk about you know mammoths and stuff like that get them early with the interested stuff and it will be an interest that goes on. Yeah I think that the fact that prehistory is now in the national curriculum for history is a great opportunity but of course it's in the primary curriculum so we really need to think hard about giving teachers the resources that they need because I think they're another group that feels they don't understand it's not just the paleolithic but prehistory in general give them the resources that will allow them to actually teach the children of that age in an appropriate way and as you say try and hook them young. Yeah we also we also can actually mould what we do to what they're doing as well because one of the things that these year they're year the age of nine year olds is that year four or year five I can't remember and they're doing biomes and they've already been down to the gorge where I'm working and they've done the biomes of the gorge and so my thing to the teacher I said like I said I'll do I say biomes I'll get them to imagine everything that's different about this and pop it over different you know and we've got a tiny little cave that we just want you to have a look in there isn't it dark but yeah we can do all of this but as Frank said you know we do need to start talking amongst ourselves in a common language as well there is an habit as well for little research groups to develop their own languages. There has just been a project undertaken at Historic England looking specifically at how heritage science can feed into the science curriculum which I think we're waiting for a report shortly and we've got three questions waiting one at firstly at the back and then... I'm sorry Frank, I'm not having that. I'm just not having that. It's certainly when I started that I was a pre-schooler in the field of archaeologists and I happened to be two of them too. Now again we need a bit of a size. I'm having a single archaeologist in the commercial sector that when they have encountered good archaeology have been entirely fascinated by it and have thrown themselves into it and have really enjoyed understanding about it and I think a bit of the community is going to do a lot more said earlier on in actually in a broadening out here in the horizons a bit and engaging the rest of the archaeologists out there who do the rest of British archaeology and I think maybe some so you're right, being two years a lot of good to go out and dig you know on the chains or filler or wash or sand and well that's a very important cemetery too you know there is more out there and I think perhaps if it wasn't you know the sysilos that I think there is a sysilos here at the archaeology we've seen it even this morning you know this thing of good nature to the other people in there you know the sort of angax and flintbashes down a lot so I think that sysilos has to break down a bit and the other thing is I would agree entirely Mark but the research I like to write bits of the resource assessment and a research strategy a far on the way it was useful bits of any of that I found when I learned nature archaeology use this stuff was the resource assessment because he actually had somebody of you paid to sit down go through all the dots on the map read the excavation reports and just sit down and actually tell right down from the piece of paper what we know about a particular period that had a particular time yeah and that's sort of generating knowledge yeah that's the most and that's the starting point for any research yeah and you know but the rest of it you know the agenda and the strategy is transient and you come down to some limiting yeah and one of the one of the reasons I was I forgot to say but one of the reasons I was emphasising survey and going on about we need to sort of re-survey I wasn't saying that we need to read in terms don't get me wrong what I do think we need to do is we need to redo the 1968 um cba gazzateer of paddynithic um fine if if for no other reason the closure of museums in the intervening 50 years because there are as I say archive there's archive there's unknown the entire passport upwards is something some halo in Essex apart from the victor in my office but um so yeah I absolutely agree with you uh john if I just make one point it requires a quick one is the curators who feel they cannot justify how it should work that's the real peolwch, rym ni'n rhaid i'r pethau yn ymddangos, a'i ei wneud am addresses, er mwyn yn y gwneud y prydwyd? Mae'n wneud byddai'r tyfu waith ymddangos, rydyn ni'n deilio i'r hebodau i'r cyfnod letter hynny'n diolch yn y cydnod rydyn. Mae'n hynny'n cydnod i'r llun. Rhaid i'r llun yn y cydnod yw wedi gwneud yn ei adael cynydau yn y rrwynt, oedd ychydig ar y cael ei ddylch ne HUion. I agree with Mark that we really do need to focus on impact, but I don't think this is the way to do it. I think what we need to do is actually go back to what makes us scientists in prehistory. We need to focus on what are the big research questions. The public is excitingly interested in this period, but we're not picking up on that. They want to know what makes us human. How are we different from the Andrew talks and other species? When did we get to Britain? How were we able to survive there? There are lots and lots of big questions that we should be trying to answer, and the public will come along with us. These are the things they want to know as well, and use this as the framework rather than simply listening. We want more science. We want a database. With all due respect, Randy, I don't think that's what the government understands by impact. It's not about the results of our research. It's about the economic, social and the other benefits in the much wider world. It's not about just having a programme on Channel 4 saying we've got the oldest site in Britain. What they want is to make sure that we contribute to society. If they want the people to be happy with what we're doing, that's what impacts all of that. We've got a member of the last ref panel there, hopefully enlighten us. I think... Well, after all, remember that the impact agenda emerged after the ref had been announced. Everyone was running around trying to discover what impact was. It was extremely broad. It's more interesting to actually ask what impact has been in 2020 or 2021, whenever the next ref or whatever it's called actually comes in there. The government is looking to see that the research that it's been funding through Hefke actually has an impact on people's lives. The impacts are described in a whole raft of ways from policy to economic to social to cultural to whatever. I thought that in the last ref, archaeology was extremely good at a very short notice of matching what it did to those impact agendas and had a very strong shown. Where it fell down was if it just said, you know, I had an excavation and 20 people came to visit it, and that sort of outreach engagement just didn't wash. But when you had a strategy impact and you could show how you delivered on it, then archaeology was doing as well as any other subject. So I think we're coming up for half past. We've got two more questions. Rob and then Becky. Are you okay? All right. All yours, Becky. Yeah, it was just a side really rather than a question, but are we going to work up about impact on what we're expected to do and blah, blah? The government will expect us to do this yet, but we have a responsibility to share and communicate what we do with anyway, because this isn't our stuff. We don't own it. This is everybody's panellethic heritage. And, you know, we have a responsibility to communicate that anyway. We shouldn't be worrying about hitting the right button, getting the right sort of funding. We should be doing this for its own sake anyway, because, you know, we're doing this for everybody. I'm not doing this for my own sake, you know. Well, I think you're absolutely right, Becky, but I think that the opportunity to sort this out is now. I mean, as Clive has explained last time, we were running around trying to retrofit a lot of our practices to a strategy which we didn't have before they told us that we had to have one. Now we know that this is in place. We don't know how important it's going to be, but we can have a strategy. My point is, is exactly your point, is rather than what happens in some institutions, perhaps a little bit in my own as well, is that you're sort of going to people, have you got an impact case study? Well, I don't know, but maybe I could do it. We need actually to build these things into our research designs and what we do from the start, which should we do anyway. But the thing is, my point is, Becky, it's not outreach anymore. You know, it's not just about community digs and stuff like that. It's a more nebulous thing, I think, but something that we can actually adopt as a work in practice, that our work must be important to more than just the people that we speak to on a daily basis. I think there's a whole diversity of audiences that we need to think about how we address from eight-year-olds to quarry managers, to county archaeologists, to television audiences. And I think we need to spend more time thinking about that aspect. We need Brian Cox. Who's the Brian Cox for the Pallio Lift? It's apparently that clock is five minutes fast, so we have time for one more question, if anyone's got that. We were saying about making sure we make this count. I mean, as Becky says, we all have a responsibility as public archaeologists. We all spend a huge amount of our time, not paid time, time in the weekends, time in the evenings. Working in all kinds of ways outside of academia with all sorts of different audiences, but the trouble is none of this actually counts in a rep-impact framework, because none of it's accounted for, none of it's documented, time sheeted, none of it actually fits into strategies. Again, I think this is where talking about a kind of more networked approach to what we do means that everything could be accounted for. That would mean, as you've intimated, devolving an impact strategy across lots of different departments. It could no longer be the pet impact case study that's going to get that department to stand out among all the others. And it's how we make that work. I just wonder how you would see we would balance that. Well, I think we probably need some steer from the ref when the rules are eventually published. We'll probably know where we are on that. But I do think that from our point of view, from the point of view, and it might not be 2020-21, it might be the following one. But I could just imagine a time when the ref panel has got eight different impact case studies all claiming to have done this wonderful stuff with the power of the heritage agenda, and it's just been seen straight through. I think we need to be more coordinated. I mean, we do generally get on. I mean, at least we've got one thing for it. I mean, we have our spots, don't we, Frank? But you know, we forget about them and move on. And of course, there's impact with the little I, which goes much wider than the ref and the academic definition. And we can all work together, I think. I think that's where other public bodies come in to help provide that impact, because it's through working with people like ourselves at Historic England, with curators, with local groups, that you can bring that together. It's back to that network again. Has anyone got any final questions or comments? No, it's stunned silence. So, Rob. I mean, only to know that the value of the sort of networking that a number of colleagues have talked about should help us do one of those really tricky things with the more formal impact agenda, which is it's not just that you've done the outreach, it's can you document change behaviour? Now, documenting the fact that you've genuinely impacted on your audience, you've changed some aspect of what they do, how they behave, becomes much easier when you're all tied into a network where you can follow that through. And it's not six months here or a few weeks there. It's several years, and it allows you to track the effects that you're having over the longer term. I think for me, and I know for other people I spoke to about this, is actually of the awful word, evidencing impact is the difficult thing. I come from an institution where an ex-colleague was never off the television, but 4 million people watching the Channel 4 thing on the domestication, it needs to be something tangible, something that we can show. So I guess you don't start a project until you know how you're going to measure the impact? No, I think it should be built in from the beginning. It's something that we need to think about now. Everybody in the room is faced with increasingly ridiculous initiatives from the government, and we've just got to find a way. I'm fed up with fighting, I prefer to subvert. And if this is subversion by adoption, then that's over here.