What do you want?

[tom wilson]

I want (1) to be paid a living wage and then (2) left alone (3) to do something worthwhile, (4) well.

Food for thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

[RedEarth]

I want (1) to be paid a living wage and then (2) left alone (3) to do something worthwhile, (4) well.

Food for thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Absolutely spot on. Low pay is not really the issue, it's being paid enough, meaning a sensible and realistic amount, and that includes not being exploited by being expected, for example, to do masses of overtime for no extra etc.

[RedEarth]

That one is difficult to gain - unless you show people round the site on an open day - as most sites don't reach the public domain till years later.

However, most/some sites appear as a note in a local authority archaeology magazine, and some make it to local archaeology days. But neither directly feed back to the diggers.
You could read regional resource assessments if a site is old enough to be included......these state how important sites are. But other than that its just a case of waiting years until sites are published, later still for the site to be mentioned in contrast to others and even later still for it to appear in a regional or national period synthesis.

But am guessing thats not what you mean?

Not exactly, I mean more like turning up on site (this is entirely from the point of view of commercial, developer funded work) and feeling that you have as much reason to be there as everyone else on site and that your contribution is worthwhile.

Getting the information out to the public or into regional syntheses or publication is something that should happen as part of the process, to whatever level is suitable (depending on what is found). The people on site doing the work should understand enough of the process to know that this happening and shouldn't need members of the public looking on in appreciative wonderment at their fabulous work, as it happens, to feel it is worthwhile. It is surely the job of their employers to emphasis the value of what they do to the archaeological and wider community. If they don't they are guilty if using their staff as cattle and seriously demotivating them.

Local authority archaeology magazine - never heard of that before. Which utopian county are you dealing with?

[Marcus Brody]

Not exactly, I mean more like turning up on site (this is entirely from the point of view of commercial, developer funded work) and feeling that you have as much reason to be there as everyone else on site and that your contribution is worthwhile.

This is something that I'm sure anyone who's ever worked on a commercial site is familiar with - the feeling that the main contractor views your presence as nothing more than a nuisance, an annoying hoop he has to jump through before he can get on with the main business of construction. The fact that the other trades on site see no value in your work and view it only as a source of delay and lost bonuses can have an incredibly demoralising effect.

To a certain extent, however, I feel that commercial archaeologists are their own worst enemies in this regard, often being far too quick to cave in to the demands of the developer. How many times have you seen a company agree to an unrealistic start date or completion target, simply to avoid inconveniencing a developer ('Oh, you need us on site tomorrow? Well, we've not agreed the project design with the council's archaeologist, and all our staff are out on another site, but we'll definitely be there!' or 'You've booked the concrete for a week today, so we have to finish digging this deeply stratified medieval settlement by then? No problem!').

If more companies had the bottle to stand up and say 'No, that's not acceptable. We're here to help you fulfil a requirement of your planning consent, which says that you have to deal with the archaeological issue to the satisfaction of the council, and that means that we’ll have to agree the scope of work with them before you start / you'll have to delay the concrete until we've finished', the sector as a whole might get a bit more respect. At the moment, too many archaeologists appear to adopt an apologetic semi-embarrassed tone when dealing with developers, almost thanking them for allowing the archaeologists on site, and bending over backwards to avoid causing any inconvenience. While a good working relationship with the developer is always an advantage, sometimes it’s going to be necessary to say no, making it clear that we’re not on the site at their sufferance, but as a requirement of their being granted planning permission. They're not doing us a favour by allowing archaeological work to take place, it's something they have to deal with if they want to implement that consent, and construct their building.

[RedEarth]

This is something that I'm sure anyone who's ever worked on a commercial site is familiar with - the feeling that the main contractor views your presence as nothing more than a nuisance, an annoying hoop he has to jump through before he can get on with the main business of construction. The fact that the other trades on site see no value in your work and view it only as a source of delay and lost bonuses can have an incredibly demoralising effect.

To a certain extent, however, I feel that commercial archaeologists are their own worst enemies in this regard, often being far too quick to cave in to the demands of the developer. How many times have you seen a company agree to an unrealistic start date or completion target, simply to avoid inconveniencing a developer ('Oh, you need us on site tomorrow? Well, we've not agreed the project design with the council's archaeologist, and all our staff are out on another site, but we'll definitely be there!' or 'You've booked the concrete for a week today, so we have to finish digging this deeply stratified medieval settlement by then? No problem!').

If more companies had the bottle to stand up and say 'No, that's not acceptable. We're here to help you fulfil a requirement of your planning consent, which says that you have to deal with the archaeological issue to the satisfaction of the council, and that means that we’ll have to agree the scope of work with them before you start / you'll have to delay the concrete until we've finished', the sector as a whole might get a bit more respect. At the moment, too many archaeologists appear to adopt an apologetic semi-embarrassed tone when dealing with developers, almost thanking them for allowing the archaeologists on site, and bending over backwards to avoid causing any inconvenience. While a good working relationship with the developer is always an advantage, sometimes it’s going to be necessary to say no, making it clear that we’re not on the site at their sufferance, but as a requirement of their being granted planning permission. They're not doing us a favour by allowing archaeological work to take place, it's something they have to deal with if they want to implement that consent, and construct their building.

You're right of course, but it's surely a bit of a chicken and egg situation, or perhaps a vicious circle. If one organisation doesn't immediately jump and do the work with no notice/finish on time before the concrete arrives they will probably find another that will, and so on and so on, as we continue to stab each other in the backs on more than just price. Plus, it helps if the monitoring by the county is as strong as it can be, but that has its limitations. The archaeologists doing the work and their managers are not entirely to blame - the general culture of capitulation and helplessness is the real problem.

[BAJR]

Both well said. And what do we do to solve this? WEll we stab in teh back, argue or ignore. IfA BAJR CBA working together? not yet my dears. I would like to say I am willing to work with anyone - will contact the groups to see what an answer is.

a dear friend of mine (and a detectorist - well he don't actually do that much of it!) once said to me in baffled confusion " Why is it that archaeologists are the only army that kills it own? Defeating itself before joining in the real battle"

[kevin wooldridge]

Can I add a couple of extras: Decent toilets and good food!!

(I always prefer self-catering accommodation rather than B+B where at least one gets the chance to make decent breakfast, sandwiches, dinner.....but if not a decent vegetarian restaurant in close vicinity or at least a restaurant with a vegetarian selection....and of course working from home is even better...)

[Carrickavoy]

to be treated with respect would be pretty important, that and a decent wage and good working conditions.

[monty]

Well being as we never get decent money it's gotta be good archaeology as numero uno for me.....

[RedEarth]

My issue with the wish for quality archaeology is severalfold - you can't dictate what will turn up, it's entirely relative depending on what you find interesting and where you are working, and it is therefore unquantifiable. At least wages and conditions can be controlled in some meaningful sense. How happy would people be if they had decent archaeology but no idea what their pay or hours were going to be one week to the next? I also worry that it makes archaeologists sound like spoilt brats - they are doing a job that many people think sounds fantastic anyway (compared to their 'mundane' employment) and then people complain that the quality of the archaeology isn't good enough. Give me a break! Do people realise how insulting that is to someone who does a genuinely grim job on poor wages?