29th November 2008, 01:48 PM
The recent IFA publication 'Profiling the Profession 2007-08' seems to have come out at exactly the right time in that it has recorded the 'peak' to which the number of archaeological jobs had risen immediately prior to our current problems. Their estimate is circa 6900 'archaeologists' and 700+ 'support staff. At least from here the depths of the seemingly inevitable downturn can be gauged.
I wonder though, re Peter's suggestion, whether any person or body is capable of making useful estimates of the depth that this recession might reach. 'Pro. the Prof.' published as recently as August 2008 reports that those questioned regarding the future growth of archaeology as an industry were 'confident'. Although the report does qualify this by adding that the question was posed before the 'credit crunch', it might as well have said 'those questioned were confident that the industry would grow, until it stopped growing after which they would be equally confident it had stopped growing. It's hardly Cassandra stuff is it!!
That said however, I think David's earlier comment that job advertising for excavator posts on BAJR had all but dried up (and seems to have dried up pretty much for the latter quarter of this year) says everything that really needs to be said about the depths of the recession.
My own personal view is that 'short' and limited contract staff make up more than 25% of our profession and that sector has basically ceased to exist in the last 3 months or so. Without being overdramatic (and not wishing to degrade its original connotation), I would call that an archaeological holocaust.
I did note one statistic from 'Pro. the Prof' that I found interesting and I am sure could be used to gauge the extent of our problems. The average age of a working archaeologist in 2008 was 39 for boys and 36 for girls. I would interested to see that statistic reviewed in a years time as I am sure that the lack of opportunities for youthful 'predators' at the bottom of the archaeological pond is going to result in an alarmingly older set of fat ducks floating on its surface. I wonder if it is possible even to create a direct correlation between the average age of the archaeological workforce and the size of the workforce e.g does the average age rise by 1 year for every 10% of the work force wiped out?
If the average age rises to 50+ Peter it will probably be a toss up between you and I as to who gets to turn the lights off....}
I wonder though, re Peter's suggestion, whether any person or body is capable of making useful estimates of the depth that this recession might reach. 'Pro. the Prof.' published as recently as August 2008 reports that those questioned regarding the future growth of archaeology as an industry were 'confident'. Although the report does qualify this by adding that the question was posed before the 'credit crunch', it might as well have said 'those questioned were confident that the industry would grow, until it stopped growing after which they would be equally confident it had stopped growing. It's hardly Cassandra stuff is it!!
That said however, I think David's earlier comment that job advertising for excavator posts on BAJR had all but dried up (and seems to have dried up pretty much for the latter quarter of this year) says everything that really needs to be said about the depths of the recession.
My own personal view is that 'short' and limited contract staff make up more than 25% of our profession and that sector has basically ceased to exist in the last 3 months or so. Without being overdramatic (and not wishing to degrade its original connotation), I would call that an archaeological holocaust.
I did note one statistic from 'Pro. the Prof' that I found interesting and I am sure could be used to gauge the extent of our problems. The average age of a working archaeologist in 2008 was 39 for boys and 36 for girls. I would interested to see that statistic reviewed in a years time as I am sure that the lack of opportunities for youthful 'predators' at the bottom of the archaeological pond is going to result in an alarmingly older set of fat ducks floating on its surface. I wonder if it is possible even to create a direct correlation between the average age of the archaeological workforce and the size of the workforce e.g does the average age rise by 1 year for every 10% of the work force wiped out?
If the average age rises to 50+ Peter it will probably be a toss up between you and I as to who gets to turn the lights off....}