Consultant Archaeologists from engineering firms such as Babtie or WSP or Scott Wilson to name a few. Are they what you can traditionally call archaeologists or are they an altogether different enterty. I have absolutly no wish to slag off consultants but I am intregued at their overall role. They are curious animals as they have good pay, stability in employment, pension and a bonus and are like a feild archaeologists cousin twice removed. I have meet a couple and found their overall knowledge of feild archaeology lacking to say the least. Do they get these jobs straight from Uni or is it a case of knowing your ppg`s from your pan`s and reading the bluffers guide and applying... any comments [?]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
What do you mean by traditional archaeologists? Pitt-Rivers? Mortimer Wheeler? A digger? Anyone who works in a field unit? It's quite a broad term and I think consultants fall within it fairly well.
Consultants provide advice. Where they are part of a large engineering firm, they will generally provide that advice to other parts of the firm but they may also be employed to provide that advice to external contractors. Occasionally, they may manage projects for their own or other firms. One thing they do not generally do is dig. Most consultancies are probably not set up to do that so they would employ a field unit to excavate sites. Does that clear it up?
Based on the adverts I have seen and my own experience of them, most consultancies do pay better than field units. WRT to pensions, contracts, etc. I thought that there was a legal requirement these days for all employers to offer pension schemes. I suppose that consultants' contracts are more secure than diggers', but I don't see that they are any more secure than other posts in a field unit. Once you get out of the field, most posts on field units become more secure although they are far from the kind of permanency you might wish for.
As far as their competence goes, some are as evil and blackhearted sons and daughters of the Dark One as you could never hope to meet, while others are reasonable and are doing their best by the archaeology within the current legislative system. Some are no doubt not really competent to do their jobs while others are good at the job. Some will have oodles of experience while others are hired on as graduates and trained up to do the job. Really, the competence and attitude of the consultant is no better or worse than the balance in the rest of the archaeology world. There are incompetent diggers out there, who should have been stripped of trowel and mattock ages ago. In the same way there are consultants who are generally good eggs and want what is best for the archaeology, while there are others who are thoroughly rotten and should be drummed out of the business. I have met a full range of all types in my archaeological career.
Hope this helps.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
eloquent response Eggbasket! I would ask the question-Why are consultancies in the business anyway? Are we suggesting that senior feild archaeologists are`nt capable of providing a client with the same information as a consultant? I would prefer advice and services offered by a field arch` any day. Consultancies charging ?600-800 a day for the services of mediocre staff alone, are partly why front-line field archaeologists are forced to work for a pathetic wage. With very few exceptions, I have found "consultancies" to be sycophantic and by definition-parasitic. Simple really, if the construction industry requires the services of an archaeologist, should`nt he/she talk to people who do the job for a living?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Peter Wardle archaeological consultant here.
In the early days we all had PhDs and extensive experience of field archaeology. Then came a wave of consultants from a host of backgrounds who were in the right place at the right time ? in one case the qualifications was an evening class in archaeology. In addition a number of X curators became consultants.
With the introduction of PPG 15 the need for people to advise developers increased. Every Unit started doing consultancy. People with relatively little experience were appointed into junior positions and have subsequently been promoted.
Being a consultant is not something a new graduate can do. Knowledge of planning law is required ? some have qualifications in Town and Country Planning. On the other hand doing desk based assessments is seen as a very junior role when in fact it is the key to good consultancy.
Our role ? to act as the interface between the planning and regulatory system, the people who wish to do something controlled by that system as well as the field archaeologist who undertake work on site. To make an assessment of what the historic environment situation is and what is a suitable way for the objectives of the employing organisation to be achieved within the context of a regulatory system which has few fixed points, can be arbitrary and a matter of opinion.
Our role is defined by PPG 16 and is very much to prevent confrontation between archaeologists and developers. Some people view consultants as the developers advocate arguing their case for them others see them as being an independent expert advisor. Some people see the role as being the ambassador of heritage at the enemy court.
We act as expert witnesses in legal cases or planning enquiries.
We have a role in awarding contracts for field work and ensuring that the contractors give value for money in the same way a quantity surveyor does.
In terms of pay and conditions a consultant is a BAJR grade 6 or 7 post ie 20k+. While this may seem a lot we are invariably the lowest paid in any project team. The ecologists and tree specialists tend to be paid more and get promoted higher. For what we do we are actually very badly paid.
As for our detailed knowledge of field archaeology I am unclear what is meant or how it is judged. A consultant tends only to do survey work rather than actual digging in any event. Not knowing how to interpret aerial photographs or geophysics is a major handicap. We might not use a trowel or mattock but we do do field archaeology.
Peter Wardle.
Here are a few things I doubt digging archaeologists will be able to answer.
What is the developer legally obliged to do?
What is the likelyhood that something will be found
What is the likelyhood that the planning authourity will refuse permission
What are the rules of evidence and procedures for court and public inquiries
What is the fine if I go ahead and bulldoze everything
Which of these bids is a good bet
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
A very good job description there...
Consultants are archaeologists who perform a specific function (as laid out by Peter there) which is just like Diggers who perform a function or Surveyors or Enviromental archaeologists etc etc... they are paid better in archaeolgical terms but not in terms of teh rest of teh project team... sometimes embarresingly so
I once acted as a consultant for an Enviromental team (last year.... I decided to chance it and saif I would cost ?400 a day... they did not even blink and even said they were glad to see I was cheaper than they expected!... Thank god they had never worked with archaeolgoists before!) Before you all think I am drriving around in a Merc! I only worked 3 days that month... !
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
David,
One of the things you learn early on about being a consultant is the right car to drive. MERCs are a bit overpriced and not that reliable in any event.
The golden rule is not to have a better car than the person who is employing you. There are archaeologists who drive Porches but they are not that cost effective. (I might swop my MG for a porche - the insurance will be UKP90 and they only cost UKP 5000 to buy a good classic one).
At present if you are self employed you can tax deduct .43p per work mile. A brand new Skoda or VW polo will cost about 20p per mile .... giving a profit ... and nobody will think you are earning too much.
SEATS are available on interest free loans.
What is wrong with archaeologists earning reasonable amounts, having job security and almost normal lives.
Peter
Who drives a 1600 Honda Civic.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Fair enough really. All other equivalent professions have consultants, and the moolah questions seems to follow on from the comments on the 'jobs jobs jobs' thread that managers don't get paid enough. And plenty of units do consultancy as well....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2004
Curious. As a curator I also advise developers on:
What is the developer legally obliged to do?
What is the likelyhood that something will be found
What is the likelyhood that the planning authourity will refuse permission
What are the rules of evidence and procedures for court and public inquiries
What is the fine if I go ahead and bulldoze everything
The only one I dont do is a tender review, but I do review WSI's prior to contracts being awarded to make sure they are fit for purpose.
I do this for no cost to the developer, now the question is Dr Wardle,do you think there is an assumption on the part of developers that my advice to them will be misleading?
By the way, I have met a lot of very good consultants and I think the standards of employment they enjoy have gone some way to raising diggers wages over the last ten years.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Cannot the role of the consultant be summed as to provide independent and impartial advice and assistance to a client, usually a developer?
In theory a curator or contractor could have a conflict of interest.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
There is that assumption by developers. I once attended a meeting with a curator and afterwards she commented that I told him exactly the same thing she did but why did the developer not believe her.
Given the amounts of money involved developers want their own advice not that of a council employee who is judging their planning application. It is rather like saying that developers also do not need highway engineers, landscape architects or even on occassion architects because their is a free advice service available from the council.
I would also question if council tax payer money should be used to provide a free planning advice service to large profit making companies. (There are council elections on at the moment so I hope may be forgiven for being political.) There is also the question of liability of advice - for example if a curator advises that not very much will be found what compensation or recourse is open to the developer.
Curators also do not do the research neccessary for the planning process on which the advice is based. Their advice is not neccessarily impartial ie it may be that the advice is about what is the most favourable means of handling something. This may differ from what a contractor or curator will say. Certainly a contractor has little incentative to avoid those expensive excation rather than a PIS mitigation strategy.
Peter
