9th February 2006, 03:11 PM
I think the suggested annual glut of fresh graduates hammering on the door of archaeological contractors desperate for jobs that pay 12 to 13 and a bit grand is overstating the actuality just a tad.
It's been the case for many a long year that lots of graduates may dream of a job in archaeology but few amongst them want to get their hands dirty and certainly not for the paltry wage offered. A very small minority (I think maybe five from 90 when I graduated in the 1990's) may, in the past, have given it a year or so but financial reality usually kicked in fairly pronto.
The number of people applying for undergrad degrees in archaeology seems to be on the wane and this will only be exacerbated by the change in Uni funding and requirement to repay loans on graduation. As a consequence the number of recent grads looking for work in contracting archaeology (and possibly the number of University Archaeology Dept's) is likely to decline over the next few years.
Incidentally the flow of new graduates into archaeological jobs would seem to me to be only part of the reason for high staff turnover. It is the consequence of the nature of the beast, at the lowest levels this usually means - a repetitive, frequently tedious unbelievably poorly paid physically demanding job with limited security and benefits that offers career progression only to the limited few who by good fortune, or sheer sticking power, touch lucky. Other jobs that offer short term contracts as the norm at least usually offer reasonable financial reward.
The archaeological organisations of various sizes that I've worked for have had little time for totally inexperienced recent graduates because the prices quoted to win bread and butter work and thus stay in business do not allow the luxury of training people (and I don't think its the Uni's responsibilty to train undergrads to be field staff, so who's doing it ?). Only on large long term infrastructure projects have I seen a willingness to take on one or two inexperienced graduates
It is a shame that the constant refrain "we just can't get any experienced staff" has not led those in senior positions within contracting organisations finally to come to terms with the market economy and realise that if nobody wants to work for you, you need to do something constructive rather than keep tendering for work without sufficient staff to do it then crisis manage and demoralise staff even further.
I think contracting archaeology teeters on the brink and a number of outcomes are possible over the next decade.
In contrast to many others I think that the growth of archaeological consultancy shows that in some ways the "profession" is growing up. Integration of archaeology into environmental assessments and use of consultants by developers shows a growing awareness that impact of development on heritage must be considered.
However, it may become an irrelevance - lack of staff and public apathy means that nobody is carrying out fieldwork and that there is little protest over archaeology destroyed. (accepting that what's going on with local government funding and possible relaxation of planning laws may make it irrelevant anyway).
As an aside, the current murmuring that suggests people without archaeological degrees could be employed as "field technicians" seems to me to stem from some deranged fantasy on the part of some that they could employ people with no interest in the subject, who would put up with hefting a mattock all day, being soaked, frozen, knackering their own cars for the good of the company etc, and all for 13 and a half grand. Don't make me laugh hand me that customer facing telephone job in a warm office that pays more money!
We all know that salaries in archaeology will never compare favourably with other graduate professions but I'd like to think that a rosier outcome is possible i.e. that supply and demand must push up salaries over the coming years.
It's been the case for many a long year that lots of graduates may dream of a job in archaeology but few amongst them want to get their hands dirty and certainly not for the paltry wage offered. A very small minority (I think maybe five from 90 when I graduated in the 1990's) may, in the past, have given it a year or so but financial reality usually kicked in fairly pronto.
The number of people applying for undergrad degrees in archaeology seems to be on the wane and this will only be exacerbated by the change in Uni funding and requirement to repay loans on graduation. As a consequence the number of recent grads looking for work in contracting archaeology (and possibly the number of University Archaeology Dept's) is likely to decline over the next few years.
Incidentally the flow of new graduates into archaeological jobs would seem to me to be only part of the reason for high staff turnover. It is the consequence of the nature of the beast, at the lowest levels this usually means - a repetitive, frequently tedious unbelievably poorly paid physically demanding job with limited security and benefits that offers career progression only to the limited few who by good fortune, or sheer sticking power, touch lucky. Other jobs that offer short term contracts as the norm at least usually offer reasonable financial reward.
The archaeological organisations of various sizes that I've worked for have had little time for totally inexperienced recent graduates because the prices quoted to win bread and butter work and thus stay in business do not allow the luxury of training people (and I don't think its the Uni's responsibilty to train undergrads to be field staff, so who's doing it ?). Only on large long term infrastructure projects have I seen a willingness to take on one or two inexperienced graduates
It is a shame that the constant refrain "we just can't get any experienced staff" has not led those in senior positions within contracting organisations finally to come to terms with the market economy and realise that if nobody wants to work for you, you need to do something constructive rather than keep tendering for work without sufficient staff to do it then crisis manage and demoralise staff even further.
I think contracting archaeology teeters on the brink and a number of outcomes are possible over the next decade.
In contrast to many others I think that the growth of archaeological consultancy shows that in some ways the "profession" is growing up. Integration of archaeology into environmental assessments and use of consultants by developers shows a growing awareness that impact of development on heritage must be considered.
However, it may become an irrelevance - lack of staff and public apathy means that nobody is carrying out fieldwork and that there is little protest over archaeology destroyed. (accepting that what's going on with local government funding and possible relaxation of planning laws may make it irrelevant anyway).
As an aside, the current murmuring that suggests people without archaeological degrees could be employed as "field technicians" seems to me to stem from some deranged fantasy on the part of some that they could employ people with no interest in the subject, who would put up with hefting a mattock all day, being soaked, frozen, knackering their own cars for the good of the company etc, and all for 13 and a half grand. Don't make me laugh hand me that customer facing telephone job in a warm office that pays more money!
We all know that salaries in archaeology will never compare favourably with other graduate professions but I'd like to think that a rosier outcome is possible i.e. that supply and demand must push up salaries over the coming years.