19th February 2011, 01:22 PM
Improved pay and career prospects for archaeologists must come at a price.
Unless there was a change of heart by central or local government and they agreed to subsidise and/or underwrite archaeological salaries, administrative costs and benefit entitlements (not going to happen!!), the costs have to be passed onto either the 'users' of archaeology in the form of direct charging for the resources that archaeology benefits (museums, archives, HERs, educational facilities). OR to 'the abusers' of archaeology (those persons or industries that benefit as a result of being granted permission to offset the archaeological resource in pursuit of profit). In general, the UK archaeological business model is that the cost should be borne by the latter. (I agree there is a whole philosophical discussion to be had there, but it can't be one that ignores the evidence of customary practice).
I can't see under those circumstances that there is any justification for excusing any individual or corporation their responsibilities to fund archaeology. If they argue that their 'profit-base' is insufficient to contribute to the costs of archaeology, I think they need to address the question of their business model, and not the motives or aspirations of the conservators or curators. I note for example that similar 'profitability' fears were raised at the time of the introduction of the Landfill Tax and the Aggregates Levy. Neither measure however has significantl?y reduced the level of commercial activity....
Unless there was a change of heart by central or local government and they agreed to subsidise and/or underwrite archaeological salaries, administrative costs and benefit entitlements (not going to happen!!), the costs have to be passed onto either the 'users' of archaeology in the form of direct charging for the resources that archaeology benefits (museums, archives, HERs, educational facilities). OR to 'the abusers' of archaeology (those persons or industries that benefit as a result of being granted permission to offset the archaeological resource in pursuit of profit). In general, the UK archaeological business model is that the cost should be borne by the latter. (I agree there is a whole philosophical discussion to be had there, but it can't be one that ignores the evidence of customary practice).
I can't see under those circumstances that there is any justification for excusing any individual or corporation their responsibilities to fund archaeology. If they argue that their 'profit-base' is insufficient to contribute to the costs of archaeology, I think they need to address the question of their business model, and not the motives or aspirations of the conservators or curators. I note for example that similar 'profitability' fears were raised at the time of the introduction of the Landfill Tax and the Aggregates Levy. Neither measure however has significantl?y reduced the level of commercial activity....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...