Latest Job Losses in Archaeology Report Available

[chiz]

quote:Originally posted by Mna

Oh to be an academic!
I wonder if Dr Hamilakis has any direct experience of working on developer funded excavations in any country ....

Quite. Nice idea that we could tax all developers and use the 'surplus' to go and do some proper research digs. I feel well and truly patronised, but then I don't have a masters or phd so I'm just worthless on site according to him.

Whilst the archaeology will normally expand to greater than the time available, I think we get it pretty right most of the time, as good if not better than the demo contractors/builders -I mean they never over-run or go over budget do they? I am proud to be a commercial archaeologist, and I have worked on some fantastic sites producing 'academic' level research, and outreaching to thousands in the local community.

Well done Kenny A, very well put. I did think that Kenny should have mentioned the role of curators to explain that its not all done at the behest and control of the developer but is controlled and monitored.

[trowelmonkey]

To state my position from the beginning, PPG16 needs overhauling. We've been saying that for years.

But, I really feel I have to stick up for commercial archaeology in the UK. Personally, I think a lot of the problems with negotiating for time and money in commercial archaeology stem directly from our lack of professionalism at the business proposition end. In later years, I personally thought that this had begun to improve.

Research and developer-led archaeology need to work in tandem because I do not think that it is possible to 100% excavate in a meaningful way in commercial archaeology. Not unless we enter YE GREATE DEPRESSION and Person Power Plus is introduced. (Don't mention the Ireland or I shall have steam coming out of my ears, the policy has not been a success there in my opinion and time will show us up.) However, commercial archaeology can and does make us of new techniques and theories proving valuable feedback for the academic community.

In this regard commercial archaeology can be a great asset. One of the criticisms I continually hear in academic circles is that we dig to fast. When this is applied to whole sites I agree. We've made huge leaps since the 1980's, but high on my wish list is a proper contingency plan for the odd site which turns out to be way more important than anyone could've imagined. Often though, I've heard the "too fast" criticism applied to the actual archaeologists and then I really do have to take issue. Discounting those who do shoddy work (there are some of those in every profession) someone who excavates practically every day develops a good eye and a feel for the geology, not to mention have honed their technique and are pretty fit too.

I've seen some pretty shoddy research digs too. Not because the the master plan wasn't good but because most research digs are essentially teaching exercises too and students who come fresh to archaeology are in at the deep end. In my dream world (all those unemployed archaeologists?) there'd be a qualified mentor at a ratio of no more than 1:5. I've been to conferences and symposia, where it has been painfully obvious that the presenter isn't aware of that part of interpretation where the coalface goes onto paper works. I for one am glad that I couldn't afford to go straight into post-graduate studies because I feel that I am a far better archaeologist for having worked in the field. I don't read site reports in the same way at all anymore.

And then, as Old Girl pointed out, PPG16 has had a good record of getting results published. I wish I could say the same for research where there's sometimes a 30 year lag. Dr Hamilakis came across as if he's never actually looked at an SMR or ordered up a report from the archives. Mind, I recall SMRs being briefly mentioned once as a student and never explained at all. I believe this has changed greatly since a lot now have an on-line presence, but maybe the curators need to remind their local universities from time to time what a wonderful resource they are?

I thought Kenny acquitted himself well. I still wish someone had mentioned the curator's role in planning though. We await the future.

Sorry Peter, will get off soapbox and return thread to topic

[kevin wooldridge]

To reply to Peter's question

What the job survey shows in that smaller companies are now affected by the down turn and there is a skill shortage in people who do DBAs and building recording - the very start of the archaeological/building process and that the people who do post excavation specialist work are less affected.

How serious a problem is this?

The most depressing aspect of the latest IfA report is that we don't seem to have reached the bottom line yet regarding redundancies. I don't have a direct involvement at the moment, so can only imagine that any 'spare fat' in organisations has already been trimmed by the first and second round of redundancies late last year and early this year. The prediction by the majority of organisations that further redundancies are likely, would seem to suggest that the next round will hit the more specialist roles.

I personally feel that vacancies in posts concerned with DBAs (as a multi-skilled activity) could be taken up by staff redeployed from elsewhere in the organisation. This must be especially the case with smaller companies where surely everyone wears at least 2 if not more hats at anyone time. I mean if its a case of the industry suddenly being innundated with a flood of DBAs, I am sure that there are many amongst the estimated 650 redundant archaeologists who already posess the requisite skills and just need to be given a job...

Building recording is a more specialised role and undoubtedly there is a loss to the industry if those skills cannot be retained. But then again much the same thing seems to have been said about potential job losses amongst Roman and Medieval ceramic specialists over the past 10-15 years or so and somehow we seem to have been able to stumble onwards.....

With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...

[chiz]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
What the job survey shows in that smaller companies are now affected by the down turn and there is a skill shortage in people who do DBAs and building recording - the very start of the archaeological/building process and that the people who do post excavation specialist work are less affected.

How serious a problem is this?

Interesting survey. I would have liked to see real numbers for the Skills Loss survey, as well as ranking 1, 2 or 3.

Smaller companies may appear to be more affected this quarter as they were masked by several huge lay-offs at larger units in previous quarters? I haven't looked closely at the figures so may be wrong!

Is there actually a skill shortage though? Or is the survey not asking whether they have 'lost skills', ie laid off staff working in these areas. I don't think that is the same as suddenly having a skills shortage. If there's no work for them to do, there's no need for the skills. This may lead to a skills shortage in any upturn, but that is completely different. And as the survey says, these 'skills losses' are exactly where they would be expected.

Archaeology goes in ups and downs all the time, what we have now is a deep and general 'down' in most areas, after a historic 'up'. The high allowed people to stay in archaeology for longer than normally the case, so we will see a higher than usual number of archaeologists leaving the profession. Some will come back, some won't, many would have left this disfunctional poorly paid profession anyway. The high drop out rate in archaeologists is there and always has been. This constant loss of skills has always existed. Is it really any different now?

[BAJR Host]

I agree that Kenny did well... and the concept of a Developer Tax.. its been seen to be unfair. I did wince at the polluter pays - as it does return to that concept that archaeology is basically temporal contamination. the loss of jobs seems to be from field staff.. however, I have seen over 150 digging jobs being advertised recently so.. is this still the case? The idea that we may collapse as a profession is perhaps overplayed.. and out of date. as bob says... what is different?

Now the loss of development does affect, and so whither now... ?? Should be more creative... I always say you create your own luck... Dr P has shown that, and with his new ventures too - and there is opoortunity for training, community engagement, education, publication, research etc etc..........

disfunctional poorly paid..... but can we actually work together to stop it? Perhaps ?

"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli

[kevin wooldridge]

David asked: the loss of jobs seems to be from field staff.. however, I have seen over 150 digging jobs being advertised recently so.. is this still the case?

It struck me yesterday after reading the IfA report and considering recent adverts on BAJR for excavation staff, that we have a classic example of the 'dead cat bounce'....i.e a dead cat dropped from a high enough building will appear to exhibit a little bit of life after hitting the ground.

Question we all need to be clear about with surveys such as the IfA's is: Are we are measuring the height of the building from which the dead cat was dropped or the height of the bounce after it hits the ground.

With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...

[oldgirl]

I was going to quote from Trowelmonkeys last bit to agree - and then realised that I agreed with pretty much all of it, especially the 'too fast' critisism from academics!

In the last few years I've been involved with a number of sites which proved to be FAR more significant than was originally thought. In all cases, further funding and time was negotiated and the work was done amazingly well - and is being written up NOW!

So, I'm standing up and saying I'm proud of the work that I and 'commercial' colleagues have been doing since PPG16. We've moved the underestanding of the archaeological resource, as well as archaeological skills, on tremendously. Good for us!

And a 'developer tax' is, as always, far more contentious than many people will make out. This has been discussed before, but to hit some of the high points
- what if there's a few REALLY important sites one year that uses up all the money? does everything else go?
- Who gets paid to do the work? Are we back to a 1 unit/county/region situation? (and what happens if they're already busy?)
- Who ensures standards?
- What happens to the 'speculative' sites - where there isn't really a whole load of evidence, but that's because no work has been done there before?
- Who makes sure it's written up (If nothing else, the developers know that they HAVE to make us write it up, of the planning permission isn't completely discharged!)

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge


Question we all need to be clear about with surveys such as the IfA's is: Are we are measuring the height of the building from which the dead cat was dropped or the height of the bounce after it hits the ground.

Or how long it stays in the air when it bounces. Many of the jobs lost last year and this year were permanent contracts, many of these newer ones appear not to be.

[Paul Belford]

@oldgirl... and the other point about a 'developer tax' is one which Kenny made - namely that such a tax would remove any direct link between the developer who pays their money and the site which is being "preserved through understanding" (a nice phrase a

[BAJR Host]

just to bump onto this page... from Paul
Just "listened again", well done Kenny...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00jxfqn


"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli