Full details of Nottingham Meeting

[kevin wooldridge]

In reply to David I haven't worked in the Netherlands so can't comment on the the Dutch system, but it doesn't sound dissimilar to the Norwegian practice.....In Norway the heritage laws are drafted in such a way as to create two types of archaeologist.

There are archaeologists who work for the counties or cities carrying out evaluations and highlighting the potential of archaeological sites under threat through the planning system. In effect these archaeologisrts are allowed to uncover limited areas of archaeological sites, evalute what they have found, but are not allowed to excavate.

The second type of archaeologist works for one of the 5 archaeology museums in Norway or for NIKU (the national heritage organisation) and these persons are allowed to excavate on sites that have been approved for excavation by the state archaeological monitoring service. There is no official licencing system in Norway, but if you don't work for one of the 5 archaeology museums or NIKU you cannot excavate. This rule also applies to amateur archaeologists. All prehistoric and historic remains dating prior to 1538 are automatically protected in Norway as are some sites of later date. Each of the 5 museums has a monopoly over a defined geographical area (although there is occassional shring of projects close to the touching borders of geographical areas).

As a result of the restriction on who is allowed and where they can excavate, archaeological employment in Norway is heavily geared towards the supply side rather than demand led. Archaeologists and archaeological opportunities are limited resources. As a result wages and conditions are comparable with other graduate professions....Archaeologists try to be helpful, but there can occur occassions where developers are required to wait for archaeolgoical works to be carried out if there is no space in the work schedule. As in the UK the cost of archaeological work is met by the developer.

I mention this in passing to illustrate that there are alternatives to the 'free market' approach favoured in the UK. And not just theoretical alternatives, but alternatives that (as in Norway's case) have over 100 years of applied practice to demonstrate their effectiveness.

More on the hypothetical side.......My own feeling on the situation in the UK is, that whilst I would not discourage anyone from studying archaeology (fascinating subject after all), the only way to create a highly paid, highly motivated professional workforce is to limit the number of persons able to professionally practice archaeology. I would refute any suggestion that this might be considered or become elitist by suggesting that entry as a professional archaeologist should come from a variety of sources, NVQs and apprenticeships as well as from university or college graduates. In fact I would like to see (perhaps sponsored by a vocationally interested body such as the IFA) entry level competence qualifications and staged professional grading above and beyond traditional academic study. Maybe some of the enlightened universities might be willing to come on board with such a scheme...I am not expecting this to happen over night and I personally would be happy to see a staged scheme introduced linked to a raising of wages and benefits that would reward currently practicing archaeologists who came on baord the scheme, as well as providing a career framework for a smaller but more skilled and wider experienced number of new entrants.

I would also be in favour of a quota system to address some of the inbalances in the demographic, gender and social profile of the profession...purely hypothetically of course...