Archaeology and the global crisis

[BAJR Host]

Archaeology and the global crisis - multiple impacts, possible solutions
Seminar at the EAA meeting (15th Sept - 20th)

Discussion Paper

I noted that Kenny A says the following

Archaeological practice in the United Kingdom is essentially a private sector activity, undertaken by
commercial companies on behalf of property developers.

Perhaps thats the problem.. we have become something which we should not have.....?

Discuss :face-smart:

[kevin wooldridge]

I think I agree with that David. Looking around areas of Europe where there is still archaeological work ongoing and hardly any of it is generated by the private sector.

[paulbelford]

It looks like a very interesting session with a lot of potentially contrasting views on this and other aspects. It will hopefully be a robust discussion - looking forward to it!

[BAJR Host]

Could we ask then if you agree that the statement above is part of the problem - and would this be argued at the seminar?

[paulbelford]

I agree with the statement, but not sure what you define as the 'problem' in this context.

Looking at the abstracts of all of the papers in the session, it seems that the impact of the current economic situation is being felt everywhere regardless of whether archaeology is predominantly private- or public-sector. The session includes contributions from the USA and the Netherlands (for example) who have a strong private sector, from Poland and Spain (with a mixture of public- and private-sector organisations), and from Hungary, Romania and Russia (where archaeology is still predominantly a state concern).

I think some of the problems we associate with commercial archaeology in the UK are echoed in countries where archaeology is funded in other ways: downturn in fieldwork, problems of synthesis, dealing with backlog, training and loss of skills... and so-on.

I have no doubt, from previous similar discussions at the EAA, that all of these issues will be fiercely argued from all sides!

[BAJR Host]

Indeed the question that springs to the fore, is 'whether' archaeology should be a essentially private sector activity - and that as such has divorced itself in the main from the very source of support.

By 'professionalising the profession' we have in fact created the very reasons that archaeology companies are in crisis.
and are possibly not in a position to act as the rest of the professions.. which charge upwards of 10 times more, have a respect from developers, and have a far greater ear of government.

Hotly debated topics are great fun... BUT... do they cause real change. Or are they destined to end up on the, that was interesting pile of history.?? one example from an EAA debated topic leading to significant and measurable change would be good and give heart..

[RedEarth]

I don't think we've professionalised enough and that that is the problem. There is too much variety, too many companies running in completely different ways - some charities, some limited companies, some part of universities, some part of local councils, some sole traders. They are all going to react differently in the current crisis because they are set up and run in different ways. I think it's a bit simplistic to say its a private sector activity undertaken on behalf of the developer and also that that statement has a slight hint of meaning 'and the developer then controls the results'...

[BAJR Host]

There is too much variety,

ah, just like other professions like architects from sole traders to large groups, from partnerships to council public sector...
I agree we all react differently, but at the end of the day are we ever going to be proper suited and booted professionals... therefore should we not try to be something we are not and strive to what we can be ??

[BAJR Host]

The old view of professionals (er..spelt wrong)

[paulbelford]

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.