From Britarch

[monitor lizard]

quote:Keeping a (more) beady eye on MoLAS' standards over the next few years will be interesting for the likes of me at least, to see how this affects the work and results

Yup. If standards slip as a result, then, at least in planning terms, that can be dealt with. Perhaps a bit of closing the barn doors after the proverbial horse bolting, but I am sure that this has been taken into consideration by their management team. After all, as a commercial company they cannot drop standards as that will have a knock on effect on how much money they generate.

I do take leic's point about a general lessening of specialist knowledge across the regions - and as a sometimes freelance one myself despair at poorly analysed assemblages where there is nothing more in depth than a catalogue in the publication. This is in part something the IFA bursaries are trying to address but agreed it is a big problem.

Cheers

ML

[leic]

The commercial environment is a totally artifical one which is its problem. If you produce houses or radios your customers will decide whether to buy on a mixture of cost and quality. The real 'hidden' consumer in archaeology is not the developer who choses the contractor and pays through a disguised form of tax but government and its heritage policy. They could abolish PPG16 tomorrow and end commercial archaeology or levy a flat tax on developers like the French and give all the work to a central unit if they so chose. The first is more likely than the latter. The problem is a lack of any proper quality control and unfortunately little imposition by many curators of even minimal standards. I have noticed recently that Welsh units are no longer marking finds in order to win contracts. All it needs is for curators to write that they should be so in briefs - a mere sentence- I await developments. As it is we are heading to a point where unwashed, unmarked and unclassified finds quantified by weight could be the norm. And yet again the reliance is going to be on the nearly retired free-lance. Where is the next generation of specialists going to come from. This is storing up problems for the future. No amount of EH training days is going to help if there are no jobs.

[drpeterwardle]

Curator Kid said

Dr. Pete are you sure you've read the Britarch message properly?

Yes.

Each specialist bring in 19k,ie earns Molas, which is not enough to pay the wages let alone the overheads. The 13 specialists should be bring in about 456K.

The figures I used for staff level come from the MOLAS web site.

I take Leics point about where are the next generation of specialists going to come from but this is not the issue we are discussing here. While these redundancies are a major issue (or liberation) for the individuals involved on the scale of things it is simply a re-alignment or should be because one contractor is not winning enough contracts.

However, it may be for some specialisms the economy of scale is such that no single company can afford to employ one because there are not enough contracts.

Peter
(who was very pleased to be made redundant and likes being self employed!)

[BAJR Host]

Took the words outta my mouth .. if they are bringing in 250k.. thats not enough to cover their wages.. however I would hope that the skills they hold allowing others to perform their tasks.. and thereby bring in money has not been costed in.. and we are seing only the bare figures of what can be directly linked to the specialists.

Specilaists are underrated (like illustrators, surveyors, GIS and CAD personnel etc etc as well as the archeobotanists and osteologists) where you start as an assistant and move on to a full job... er.... thats it.... not much room for progression there.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Tile man]

My reading is that the £250 000 from external sources would be in addition to the work carried out for ‘in-house’ excavations. However, I would be somewhat leary about using the (unreferenced) figures provided in order to double guess the operations of what is in effect a private commercial concern. Mind you that does not stop me being concerned at yet another whitteling of finds specialists, and I wonder what rationale there is behind jettisoning a potentially unique resource of specialists – I’m not sure how the decrease in demand has been arrived at – I understood that there is going to be a bit of development in London over the next few years (!) so who knows what finds and periods will be coming up then?

In terms of what leic has been saying – I personally seem to be thriving in the freelance sector, with the main drawback being I have upped a band for my IFA subs…
In terms of standards – I agree that appropriate marking should be part of the specification, although I would argue that if you are dealing with organisations that make reference to the IFA Standard &Guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials’ or the IFA Finds Group’s guide to finds have already obliged themselves to appropriate marking ( 3.4.4, 3.7.6, 3.10.2) as well as local archiving requirements. I also include in my standard terms and conditions the condition I expect the material to be studied should be in ( no one is going to send me unwashed pot again!)
My main concern is that properly accredited or recognised finds specialists are used as appropriate – which I think belongs to another thread….

[BAJR Host]

Please do start a new thread Tile... I think a discussion about Specialists - from Finds to osteos, surveyors and illustrators is very very important.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu