2nd September 2009, 02:45 PM
I did write a long response but it disappeared. So here is a short one.
I broadly agree with RedEarth, and certainly disagree with David's comment that: "...by 'professionalising the profession' we have in fact created the very reasons that archaeology companies are in crisis...". I would suggest that crisis in archaeological firms come from a variety of factors - external (the state of the economy, for example) and internal (poor management, for example). I would hope that increasing professionalisation is a route by which your desires for greater parity with other professions in terms of influence, wages and working conditions can be achieved.
On the subject of 'private versus public', it is my personal opinion that archaeology is a 'public' activity, regardless of how it appears to be funded. Yes, in the UK our funding appears to come from private developers and goes into private units. However in reality this is not a transaction that takes place purely in the private sector. For a start our actions are mediated by public bodies (usually local planning authorities) who are employed by local taxpayers and are part of a system of local democracy. Secondly the money from private developers really comes from their consumers (ie. the public) - albeit through a higher-priced house, or higher prices for goods and services in that new industrial estate, or through taxation in the case of road and other public infrastructure schemes. Finally our outputs are public ones - admitedly often not resulting in a widely-read book or a local museum display - but certainly publicly accessible through HERs and online resources such as OASIS.
I broadly agree with RedEarth, and certainly disagree with David's comment that: "...by 'professionalising the profession' we have in fact created the very reasons that archaeology companies are in crisis...". I would suggest that crisis in archaeological firms come from a variety of factors - external (the state of the economy, for example) and internal (poor management, for example). I would hope that increasing professionalisation is a route by which your desires for greater parity with other professions in terms of influence, wages and working conditions can be achieved.
On the subject of 'private versus public', it is my personal opinion that archaeology is a 'public' activity, regardless of how it appears to be funded. Yes, in the UK our funding appears to come from private developers and goes into private units. However in reality this is not a transaction that takes place purely in the private sector. For a start our actions are mediated by public bodies (usually local planning authorities) who are employed by local taxpayers and are part of a system of local democracy. Secondly the money from private developers really comes from their consumers (ie. the public) - albeit through a higher-priced house, or higher prices for goods and services in that new industrial estate, or through taxation in the case of road and other public infrastructure schemes. Finally our outputs are public ones - admitedly often not resulting in a widely-read book or a local museum display - but certainly publicly accessible through HERs and online resources such as OASIS.