when is it time to say goodbye

[TrenchMonkey]

Hey all,

I was wondering at what point do you think you should call it a day on archaeology and get a proper job. I am at the moment 24 and keep hearing that if ya not a supervisor by 25 ya might as well get out of archaeology. To make matters worse all my mates have good graduate jobs. Admittedly though they all hate there jobs! I have a ba and msc all in archaeology and am about to embark on 2 months dig. If when i get back i cant get a arch job then i think i might give up and become a office gimp.

[troll]

You really should`nt believe everything that people offer as good advice mate. If you want to work in archaeology-do just that.Being a supervisor really doesn`t make one an archaeologist ya know-just work shy! Some may say that ladder-climbing is for the emotionally or socially insecure! Why do people yearn for positions that take them further away from the business end of a trowel? Tiz beyond me.The only people that should be supervising (in my humble opinion) are those who come from a strictly field archaeology background and, are voted in by their peers. An extra tenner a week? No thanks.Go and be an archaeologist mate-what do you need more accolades for?:D

[destroyer]

I was 25 when i finished my degree, and had 4 years exp before that. At that point i set a target for myself of supervisor within a year and PO by 30, or i'd go and do something else. This was a purely personal choice relating to my own circumstances and I've just about managed it.

As Troll says, being an archaeologist doesnt mean you have to become a supervisor etc, but obviously most of us, what with student debts and funny ideas about being able to live in a house, want a promotion because we need the cash and hopefully added stability to our contracts. However i know a few people who are quite happy plugging away at the the bottom of the scale into their 40's and beyond.

So its a personal choice, if you stick with it you'll probably move up the grades sooner or later by dint of long term service, but whether thats soon enough to suit you is another matter. The idea of 25 being a cut off point is probably due to the fact that most people who do leave the profession, just happen to do so in their mid 20's or later - probably because their personal circumstances have changed, ie new kids/wife or husband/mortgage, and they need a bit of stability in their job

[Curator Kid]

I finished my degree at 22, and was supervising sites at 26. I actually liked supervising and running sites because I got a much better overview of the process, and got to do loads more post-ex which in turn made me a far better digger. I moved out of the field eventually because I was knackered, but still dig when I can. Is there really a need to impose such draconian self-targets? And when would you be satisfied - would you want to quit again if you're not a County Archaeologist or running your own unit by the age of 40? Do what you enjoy - have fun with the digging and keep learning how to do it better, or, if you hate it, leave. If you like digging, but fancy the look of responsibility and/or more money, then keep going, and situations will arise where you have an opportunity to progress if you want to. As for getting a "proper job" - well last weeks' Guardian had a curatorial job for £30-35k, and I know of Consultants who earn loads more than that. They sound like proper jobs with proper wages to me. Remember that archaeology is a proper job and you'll do fine.

[Tim]

Started digging in the 70's as an amateur when I was a teenager, went through the MSC schemes of the 80's, got an HND, BSc and Msc in archaeology and a total of nearly 10 years trench/fieldwork time but have only been hired as supervisor or above very rarely. I decided to work abroad where I was paid 4 and a half times my UK salary and pay 10% less tax. It was the only way I could survive in the profession and pay my debts. Apply to jobs outside the UK. Keep plugging away, in my experience the Supervisors and PO's are not all necessarily the best field archaeologists and sooner or later they get caught out or bull****/**** up once too often. The reason wages/conditions are crap are because the Site staff are the mostly young inexperienced easily replaced and willing to work for peanuts. The more Academically qualified you are the more difficult it is to get site work, there is an assumption that you're too qualified, often more than the Field Officer,PO, unit director - probably the insecure ones

Little Tim

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by TrenchMonkey

keep hearing that if ya not a supervisor by 25 ya might as well get out of archaeology.

I presume that you and others keep hearing this from those out there whose entire opinion seems to be formed from the pages of the UK's best selling archaeology magazine.

http://www.archaeology.co.uk/further/begin/jobs.htm#15

Frankly, I don't believe a word of it. Everyone progresses at their own rate some move swiftly through the ranks and others take a while to get there. Indeed, although I know this is a perennially controversial view, there are even some who should probably never make it onto the site in the first place, let alone be promoted to run it.

The main thing is not to be too concerned about the time it takes, but to keep one eye on the options offering the best or most useful experience. And if someone asks if you can do something you haven't tried before, just keep the handy phrase "how difficult can it be?" in the back of your mind.

As for proper jobs. I thought this was one but my better half keeps telling me otherwise.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
Deathstar House
Endor Industrial Estate
Milton Keynes
RD22 3PO

[disheartened]

Wow, what a pile of £$%&. Who wrote that article? If i could get my hands on throats... Do people actually believe this? Answer to that is I know, yes, they do. Archaeology isn't all doom and gloom, as some would appear to want to make out, to keep themselves in jobs i wonder...? I don't know, people today ... i despair of the world... time is a relative issue, it takes until you think you're ready and you can get a supervisor job, I'm a post-ex supervisor after 3 years, but there's not a chance in hell i'd take an excavation supervisor job (even if I was offered it) because I know i'm not ready to do that, despite the fact that that mythical deadline is only a year away... if you like what you do, keep with it. rant moan rant moan rant rant rant rant...

[Beardstroker]

quote:Originally posted by disheartened

Wow, what a pile of £$%&. Who wrote that article? If i could get my hands on throats... Do people actually believe this? Answer to that is I know, yes, they do. Archaeology isn't all doom and gloom, as some would appear to want to make out, to keep themselves in jobs i wonder...? I don't know, people today ... i despair of the world... time is a relative issue, it takes until you think you're ready and you can get a supervisor job, I'm a post-ex supervisor after 3 years, but there's not a chance in hell i'd take an excavation supervisor job (even if I was offered it) because I know i'm not ready to do that, despite the fact that that mythical deadline is only a year away... if you like what you do, keep with it. rant moan rant moan rant rant rant rant...


I believe the main author of that article was Andrew Selkirk, one of the editors of Current Archaeology. Lets just say that he tends to have a rather 1950's view of how archaeology in Britain should be run.:(Most people who work in the contracting side of the profession have very little time for him, in my experience.

[TrenchMonkey]

What does a consultant archaeolgosit do exactly? do they work for commerical archaeology units or are they freelance guys who give advice to whoever wants it. I got that 25 thing from that article (current archaeology) good to know its rubbish - i can give it a few more years until i have to really decide about whether i want to live in a tent all my life or try and get a house.

[the invisible man]

Beardstroker, IMHO you flatter the gentleman. I'd say 1930's at best, possibly even 19th century. The worrying thing about him is that nearly all extra-mural students and amateurs are directed to his nasty little comic, and tend to believe every word of it. He is also gathering a little group of cronies some of whom get to edit the rag... I recall the piffle he talkjed about the Valetta Convention (remember that?) and the claim that "a great victory " had been won - when it was confiremd that the government intended to do what they said they would do, which is what was in article 3.... I even wrote to the august organ once. I don't think he understood what I said.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[destroyer]

just read that article and am having a major sense of deja vu. im sure we've had this discussion before - which was when i last read it.

I can sort of understand the logic behind it, trying to give newbies a picture of how the profession works, but its mainly rubbish - as i said earlier its all down to ones personal choice and whether youre happy or not in the job, whichever level you may be.

as for consultants trenchmonkey, at the risk of offending half of the forum :D, my experience of them is of them being freelance middlemen hired needlessly by a clueless developer to liaise with curator and contracting archaeologists. Generally i find the whole process can work quite happily without them. That said - nice work if you can get it, may have to give it a try myself one day...

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by Beardstroker
I believe the main author of that article was Andrew Selkirk, one of the editors of Current Archaeology. Lets just say that he tends to have a rather 1950's view of how archaeology in Britain should be run.:(Most people who work in the contracting side of the profession have very little time for him, in my experience.


I'd forgotten what a load of Pony that article was. Most of the people who work in the curatorial side of the profession have little time for A.S. either.

[BAJR Host]

Sounds like a job for BAJR people...

So... we all agree that the article is pants.. so can we do better... and then publish within the BAJR pages... let people know the truth (if their is one) the pitfalls the payoff etc.

It worked on the 101 tips and other articles.. (I expect you all avidly read the completed one in the BAJR guidance pages!!)
http://www.bajr.org/ResourcesLinks/LibraryGuides.htm

So who fancies having a go at writing an up to date version... then we can edit together?

I can let every Education establishment iin teh UK know about it too... I already get about 4 or 5 calls a week asking for advice... this would save me repeating myself over and over...

Useful questions to politely answer are the usual

How do I make a living
which University do I go to
what qualifications do I need
what is teh best course
do I need mathematics?
what are my propects
can I retrain as a mature student to become an archaeologist
etc
etc

over to ........ Who??[:p]



Another day another WSI…

[Curator Kid]

Rather than writing a single definitive career guide (is such a thing really possible?), maybe we should each contribute a short piece (say 1000-1500 words?) on how each of us individually got where we are - wherever that may be? At least then, anyone wanting to know if archaeology is a viable career will be able to see how we've all managed it so far, and can read our experiences first hand. I'm sure all our career paths have been different - I'd be happy to submit something like this, but wouldn't have the time to do much more. :)

}:) I dont have what i need to get it done. B) B)


[/url] | ("] | [url=") |

[disheartened]

I like the sound of that Curator Kid, but is there the potential that it could end up a bit unwieldy if 100 people suddenly submitted pieces? And to who? Is some poor sod i.e. bajr or willing volunteers, going to have to sift through and edit and format and so on and so forth?
I'd like to read it though, but that could just be because i'm a bit of a keyhole kate!

[1man1desk]

Trenchmonkey,

Your question about consultant archaeologists got a bit lost in all the invective about Andrew Selkirk, so here's a reply straight from the horse's mouth (although, because I'm a consultant, most contributors here will probably assume I am talking from the other end).

Like consultants in most other fields, our main role is to give informed/educated advice to our clients. Often that will be aimed at reducing their exposure to risk as a result of archaeological discoveries - along the lines of 'if you put your new road there, it will cost you lots of time and money. Move it to the left a bit, and you'll miss all the archaeology.' The benefits to archaeology of developers receiving this sort of advice are obvious.

We also do a lot of desk-based assessments and similar, often as part of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). On EIA projects, we are often working as part of a multi-disciplinary team, usually with other environmental disciplines and with the designers of the development - which again enables us to influence scheme design, and client's decision-making, in a way that benefits the archaeology. People in archaeological units find this much harder, because they are not integrated into the multi-disciplinary team.

We also do a lot of consultation/liaison for the client - most obviously with curators, but also more widely. Curators often don't like us in this role, because we argue with them on behalf of the client. What they don't see is that behind the scenes we are also telling the client hard home truths about their obligations in respect of archaeology. Both sides can be unreasonable - our role is to find the middle way that meets the needs of both.

Another big area of work is in designing, commissioning and managing fieldwork done by archaeological contractors. Like it or not, most clients see archaeological contractors as being similar to other contractors - in other words, clients believe that the units are out to feather their own financial nest. They feel much safer, therefore, with a knowledgeable middleman in place to look after their interests. In this role, we are often able to do much more intensive monitoring than curators have the resources for, to make sure that the work is done to the standard set out in the Specification (you'd be amazed how often it is not).

Thats not all we do, but it is the big items. Hope it leaves you (and some others) better informed!





1man1desk

[star-nosed mole]

The CBA actually does do some pretty well researched advice sheets and their education person Don Henson is very useful to advise about careers, which courses are the best, which A-levels do you need etc. Might be useful to direct people towards these? I remember phoning Don up when I was trying to choose my A-levels (didn't want to do history, but wanted to know whether I'd need it to get into uni to do archaeology).
Also in response to the trench monkey - please don't give up on the subject entirely! You have to remember that digging isn't the only archaeological job around - you can aim to move up and up (supervisor, then project manager etc) or can try going sideways - working for local authorities, EH etc. There are actually jobs out there that involve archaeology AND offices - the best of both worlds. [:I]

[deepdigger]

"or can try going sideways - working for local authorities, EH etc. There are actually jobs out there that involve archaeology AND offices - the best of both worlds."
True but, the degree of Nepotism that exists in trying to get a good job wuth a local authority or EH, CADW etc makes it nigh on impossible for the ordinary mortal!!

deep

[gumbo]

With regards to trench monkeys question 'What do consultants do' the answer is that if they are independent then they cream off a load of the money that should be going to the archaeological workers by acting as an intermediary between the archaeological contractor and the client (e.g. a gravel extracting company and their agents).

The idea is that the consultant provides expert advice on how the archaeology should be done to the client so that no-one gets diddled. In practice the consultant is a graduate with two years digging experience but the gift of the gab, doesnt know what end of a trowel to use, and creams off a healthy chunk of the pityful archaeology budget that would otherwise go to the archaeologists (who are still expected to do a great job for f*** all money). Instead, this money goes to the consultants BUPA health scheme. Worse is still to come: some consultants (in their pointless middle management role) will then try to empathise with the archaeologists and recall the 'good old days' when they were slumming it too.


I hope this helps.


Gumbo

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by gumbo

In practice the consultant is a graduate with two years digging experience but the gift of the gab, doesnt know what end of a trowel to use, and creams off a healthy chunk of the pityful archaeology budget that would otherwise go to the archaeologists (who are still expected to do a great job for f*** all money).


I'll treat that with the contempt it deserves Gumbo. I'll answer your points one at a time, although I know that you won't read this because you're not interested:

1 - Apart from one or two of our younger members, all of the staff at my particular consultancy have (or 'had' if you are going to be pedantic and I know that you are) more years experience in one or more areas of field archaeology than you've probably had hot dinners.

2 - See answer above. I've also worn out more trowels than you've had hot dinners.

3 - I don't know how the hell you think the financial side of archaeology (or any other business works), but I don't keep any money destined for the field! I get paid an agreed fee by the client, as does the field unit. Your employers decide how much you get paid and how much they ask for when they tender. Don't blame me if they undervalue your services or make a profit by paying chicken feed. And before you suggest it, I don't spend my time trying to beat down their prices to starve you all, all our tenders are made to a standard specification/brief/WSI and usually there's nothing between units price-wise, so we usually decide on quality and compliance.

Sith

:(

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by gumbo

With regards to trench monkeys question 'What do consultants do' the answer is that if they are independent then they cream off a load of the money that should be going to the archaeological workers by acting as an intermediary between the archaeological contractor and the client (e.g. a gravel extracting company and their agents).

Are the consultants not archaeological workers too? If not, then who is an archaeological worker? The managers of a field unit? The finds specialists? Or is it the case that you believe that the only people who actually do any real work in archaeology are the diggers? I say "BAH and HUMBUG" to your ridiculous rant. You should take on board Sith's third comment and learn from him and others who are able to provide a balanced view of how the archaeology world works. True, some consulticks suck like an electrolux but not all of them, just like some field units don't deserve the name of archaeological units, while others are actually pretty good.

Cheers,
Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[1man1desk]

Gumbo might try to think a bit before venting his bile.

No unit will tender a lower price just because there is a consultant involved, so the consultant cannot lower the pay rates for staff.

We can (and in my company's case, do) give preference in our Invitations to Tender to units that are IFA Registered and that pay at least the IFA rate. Personally, I'd like the IFA rate to be higher, but that is beyond my power.

We also make it compulsory for the unit to provide welfare facilities (which they often don't want to, especially on evaluation jobs) and to adhere to defined H&S standards - which we check on.

We also insist on certain levels of experience for certain roles on site, and these are defined in the contract.

From a site workers point of view, the net effect of a consultant's involvement, therefore, can be to cut out the cheapskate units that pay poverty wages, to improve the working conditions and safety on site, and to put a premium on the value of experience.

Gumbo - how does any of that hurt you? and how often would any of it happen if there was no consultant involved?


1man1desk

[gumbo]

Dear Sith and Eggbasket,

Many thanks for your kind replies. In response:

Sith: In answer to 1 and 2: Im sure you have a world of archaeological experience, and I wasnt attacking your personal archaeological manhood. However, it is unlikely that you have more years field experience and/or have worn down more trowels than I have had hot dinners. At at least one hot dinner a day I have had 10,220 dinners.

In answer to 3: 'but I dont keep any money destined for the field' er... yes you do simply by existing. My employers pay me less because less of the clients pot of archaeological money is going to them because of independent consultants. I wasnt suggesting that you 'beat prices down' I was suggesting that you are a cost that is not needed: instead clients should trust units.

In answer to eggbasket: Ok, consultants are 'archaeological workers', albeit pointless ones: I kind of meant field-workers although I must apologise for my lack of clarity. I certainly do not believe that the only people who do real archaeology work are the diggers, far from it: my attack was specifically on independent consultants (i.e. those not attached to a unit).

Finally, I respect a lot of your posts Eggbasket: but if you agree wholeheartedly with Sith's point 3, then I think you slightly miss my point. Lets face it: consultants are a parasite on an already crippled profession.

Gumbo

[eggbasket]

OK, Gumbo,

My response may have been somewhat intemperate and ultra-pedantic. However, my experience of pay is that it is set by the field unit, not by the consultant. I worked for a council unit where they reviewed our pay after we underwent a reorganisation (and coincidentally lost a lot of staff along the way). The council's human resources department assessed our pay on the basis of our job descriptions, which we as diggers had all agreed. The final outcome was that we were paid on Band 2 (the bottom band) of the council's pay scale. Most site assistants' pay falls into this bracket, even if they work for private companies. This pay is not set by the companies that employ the field units or by the consultants that these companies sometimes employ, but rather it is set by the field units themselves. There may be some credence to the idea that a dig might be able to go on longer if there were no other people eating out of the archaeology pot, because there was more money available, but I am not convinced of this because the field unit puts in its tender and wins or loses on that basis. The developer is unlikely to say "you got the job and I have allocated this much more to the archaeology pot so you had better have that as well" and I do not believe that pay would be better without consultants. In some respects, and working for some consultants, I think that conditions could actually be worse without the consultant monitoring the field unit. Leaving aside my gripe with one particular consultancy, I think that many consultants can actually improve things for the field units by emphasising the importance of the archaeology to the developer and ensuring that the work is done to a suitable standard. This does not help the diggers' pay in the short term, but neither does it ensure that the pay is kept to a bare minimum.

Really, what I am saying is that consultants have something to contribute to the way archaeology is undertaken and I have known a number of consultancies that do so. I also know of one consultancy in particular that has its head so far up the corporate arse that I doubt it would recognise the archaeology if it bit it on the nose. BUT, I do not believe that the consultants are to blame for the pay of field staff. That lies entirely with the competitive tendering system and the field units themselves. When it comes to the costs of a development, the developer will pass on most of those costs to the purchaser anyway, except in the case of certain publicly-funded schemes, so they are not generally too bothered by a few additional costs, although they will always try to keep those down to maximise profit. Therefore, there would be room for higher wages if all units paid similar amounts to their staff, regardless of any consulticks' involvement. Anyway, that's how I see it.

Cheers,
Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[Steve Walsh]

I agree with Eggbasket - but I fear you are fighting a losing battle with Gumbo - who clearly has not the sightest grasp of the finacial realities of modern contracting archaeology, the competitive tendering process and/or environmental consultancy.

I my experience Archaeological consultants spend most of their time convincing clients to actually do archaeology not arguing with DC Archaeologists that they do not need to. Trying to convince a client to carry out pre determination evalaution works and desk based work ahead of detailed planning apllications so that they (the client) can be in full possession of the facts. Allowing them the opportunity to carry out review optioneering or even to walk away from a scheme is common sense.

Clients and developers use consultants becuase they get something of worth - its risk management, scoping and costing of projects. They will have a set charge rate for their staff, the cost of sub contractors does not come out of the same pot - this is illogical economics and anyone who has ever worked in such a situation will tell you that cost/charge rate ie staff costs, are calculated in an entirely different way to expenditure (ie sub consultants) therefore the Developer is actually paying more for their archaeology by using a consultant. They are paying to have the risk calculted and have the liason and project design works done by someone who knows what they are doing and they are paying for impartial expert (yes expert) advice on cultural heritage implications etc

And before you come up with that bluster about 'trusting the units' wait - Oh yes thats ethical isnt it? - asking the supplier how much time he needs. Get real look outside archaeology to what happens in the whole world of Environmental Consulting and you will see that in terms of Noise Pollution, Ecology, SEA, EIA etc etc, archeological consultants are still the lowest paid

As Egg Basket said - consultants have no power over what units pay - but! they can and do recommend quality over price because if the work carried out does not satisfy the planning conditions they are at fault not the unit.

So Mr Gumbo - I do not and will not resort to personal insults (which to be fair other than referring to consultants as parasites you havent either) but you really do not know what you are talking about

Still a good debate though

A trowel is a thing to lust for!

[1man1desk]

Gumbo,

I don't know what your experience of consultants is, but from your posts I reckon you just don't know or understand what it is they do. I have explained that in a previous post.

However, I certainly don't understand your distinction between consultants employed by units and others. What do unit-based consultants do that is different or better than the other consultants?

As for 'trusting the units', that is so naive it is laughable. Most units, on most of their projects, are very good, but some are very slippery and others are variable in their reliability. Sins that I have seen, all picked up and corrected by consultants (not by curators, who rarely have the time to monitor properly) include:

- not digging the correct location, or the correct size of trench
- ignoring the agreed environmental sampling policy
- not hand-cleaning when required
- not doing the written/drawn/photographic record properly
- omitting other key elements of the work that they have agreed to do, but still charging for it
- putting fewer staff on site than they are charging for
- not following the reporting requirements as specified or agreed
- not reporting at all
- not doing all of the specialist work that they are charging for
- using 'specialists' not qualified to do the relevant work
- recommending additional work, either in the field or during post-excavation, that they know is not justified
- not turning up on site when agreed, thereby costing their client thousands of pounds in plant standing time
- several other sins of omission or comission, each constituting a breach of contract.

The use by the client of a consultant led to the identification of each of these failures, and therefore improved the archaeological quality of the job done.

From the point of view of a developer client (or a public body, such as the Environment Agency) an archaeological unit is just another contractor, and no more to be trusted or distrusted than a building contractor. They use consultants to control other types of contractor, and see no reason not to do the same with archaeologists.

1man1desk

[gumbo]

Dont we have the county archaeology system as our quality control system, and if the argument is that is is over stretched then that is not a good enough argument.

And so we should trust the consultant but not the unit. Which one is not a legal requirement but also gets paid by the client?

G

[Sith]

I don't think that when it comes to checking the work of units against agreed standards or specifications, that it's a matter of who to trust between consultants and curators. I was rarely visited on site by curators and can probably count the number of times they actually checked what we were doing against the specification on the fingers of one finger. They are just too busy looking out for those sites being bulldozed by unscrupulous developers, dealing with the public, checking planning applications, writing specifications and a million and one other things to have the time to check if the diggers are actually taking samples or photographs.

And as Eggbasket has pointed out, if the work fails to satisfy the planning condition, it's the consultant who gets it in the neck for not gripping the contractor.

Sith

[BAJR Host]

true indeed... a consultant who does not meet the specs that I set will cost their client plenty.. they have to come up with teh goods or fail their client and therefore have a very short career. Their job is not to cream off the cash, but to mitigate a response to archaeological criteria - set under the (fairly pathetic) PPG16 and/or NPPGs up in Scotland.

A consultant will have to be good at what they do, understand many disciplines and be willing to place head squarely on block if found out to be wrong... I can see a good programme of life swap... a digger swaps with a consultant... neither enjoy each others existance.. and go off to become security staff in baghdad airport for a more stress fee existance. ;)

Perceptions are never what they seem!

Another day another WSI…

[1man1desk]

Gumbo has misunderstood my point. I did not say 'trust the consultant not the unit' - the point was that to place blind trust in the units, as he suggests, overlooks the fact that some units are less reliable than others. There are bad units, bad consultants and bad curators - but in all of these categories the good ones outnumber the bad, in my experience.

Gumbo is quite right that there is never a legal requirement to employ a consultant. We exist, and are able to earn a living, because we provide a useful service that people are willing to pay for voluntarily.

I agree with Gumbo that it is unfortunate that the curators are under-resourced, but its a fact all the same. Even if it wasn't, curators have whole counties to look after, while consultants can focus on a few projects, and will always be able to put more effort into monitoring each one.

I would be very happy if curators were better resourced. Gumbo should note, however, that consultants get at least as much work in counties with well-resourced curatorial bodies as in less fortunate areas. I prefer to work in the well-resourced areas - it makes my job easier. I like to work in co-operation with curators and I try hard to establish good relations with them - usually successfully. However, developers are always going to be in an adversarial relationship with curators, and an employer/contractor relationship with units - it is surely not unreasonable to allow them access to advice that is independent of either of those relationships?

1man1desk

[troll]

Gumbo has an awful lot of good points, also, accurate ones too. I have to say though that there are consultants and, there are consultants. I personally feel that the role of the consultant is/should be one provided by the County Mounties-many of whom already provide this service "free" of charge. Unfortunately, my experience of "consultants" leads me into agreement with Gumbo on most points. A recent whisper is that one of the most incompetent, contrived and no doubt sexually handicapped commercial units in the east of this wonderful country-is about to give up and become a consultancy. After a superbly shi*te record of trashing archaeology for profit, they are about to put themselves in the position where they can advise "clients" as to the best way to do likewise. My view is fairly simple-your either a professional consultant or your a parasitic and usually failed field archaeologist. The issue here again, is one of policing.Any muppet can set up as a consultant-sadly, no archaeologist can undo the hideous damage wreaked by such.:D

[destroyer]

Well i'm more with gumbo and troll on this one, but maybe thats partly due to my location, where we have a strong curatorial presence monitoring the contractors. Any unit has to do the job properly - its not hard for a developer to pick one on their own, after all i dont employ a consultant to find me an architect or a lawyer.
I still fail to see the point of having additional middlemen/managers getting in the way, and this applies not just too archaeology but any other business. We're always hearing the cry to cut red tape and management from public services for instance, an arguement which certainly has an element of truth, and the same can apply to the private sector.

Based purely on my personal experience I havent yet met a consultant who has been of benefit to the archaeological resource, ie by getting improved standards of work from the contracting unit, or by persuading their developer client that possibly a little bit of extra funding is necessary due to unexpected results.

A recent job i did, and i accept that this may not be a typical example but still occurs nevertheless, was a 2/3day, 2 man monitoring with post exc, totalling under a £1000, the sort of job which, in my area, there is no other unit who will bother to tender for. The professional consultant, who therefore must have spent all of 30 seconds choosing my unit to do the work, spent the best part of 3 days watching me work, chatting away and slowing me down, while being totally clueless about archaeological methodology and practice in the field, and had no knowledge of the local/ regional archaeology under investigation.

The net effect of this was I wrote my usual report, sent it to him instead of the curator direct, and never heard anything again. I just assume he told his client the report was ok, took his fee, and thereby doubled the cost of the project. Basically the poor developer, a private individual, had been taken for a ride.

[1man1desk]

Gumbo, Troll, Destroyer -

I note that none of you have attempted to answer any of the specific points I have made in earlier posts, preferring to stick to generalised abuse about consultants. I presume that means you can't answer those points, but don't want to abandon your prejudices.

Destroyer has quoted one example of bad practice (which does sound bad, if he's reliable) - but then I could quote dozens of examples of equally bad practice by units, all of which are more damaging to archaeology, because they are the ones digging the holes.

Also, you are concentrating only on the role of consultants in managing contractors. That is at most 20% of the workload of most consultants. I have described in a previous post why that part is worthwhile - I presume you are ignorant of all the other stuff we do.

Just bear in mind that most of what we do could be (and often is) done by archaeological units as well. Is a given activity somehow more politically corriect if it is done in a commercial archaeological unit than in a commercial consultancy? They work for the developer - as we do. They win their work by competitive tender - as we do, often against them.

1man1desk

[eggbasket]

Just a quick thought amid the general acrimony between consultants and field units but:

Should any of us dare to take the moral high ground since we all take the developer's coin?

Also, since excavation involves destruction of the archaeological resource, should we be allowed to undertake research excavations? Should the archaeology not be left for future generations if it is not under threat? After all, if it is not under threat it won't (in theory) get destroyed. Excavation involves destruction of the resource. Therefore no excavation should be undertaken unless the resource is under threat, n'est-ce pas?

Cheers,
Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[mercenary]

Eggy,
Being of a cynical bent because of the prevailing political wind, I'm not entirely sure that archaeological techniques are going to improve in the future, or that the current ideal of "polluter pays" will last for much longer. If I'm right about either of these, and I sincerely hope I'm not, then the idea of archaeological preservation in-situ is madness.

I've said it before, and I'll continue to bang on about it. The era of PPG16 may in the future be seen as the Golden Age of archaeology, never to be repeated. The challenges of climate change and related economic crises may well leave archaeology looking like an extremely frivolous hobby, that is an obstacle to the basic needs of society. What future for the profession then?

Let's look at it now while we still can.

PS On the subject of consultants, in the (20%)? of cases where a consultant is overseeing a contractor, because it has taken on commercial work and subcontracted, it is madness, but that's capitalism for you. If a developer cannot trust a contractor or a curator and feels the need to pay an outside body then they deserve to pay the price. My experiences with consultants over the years have been largely negative, and in the same vein as other postings here. I have however recently worked with consultants of a very different character, so I won't generalize. They definitely do things that I couln't or wouldn't want to do, which are not even vaguely related to fieldwork, so they are welcome to it if you ask me.

[destroyer]

In response to 1man1desk i'd like to plead innocent of the ignorance charges - i'm well aware that a decent consultant doesnt just monitor excavations.

However as a digger thats where i come across various consultancy firms, and so it is that aspect of their work that i moan about, based upon personal experience.

[1man1desk]

Well, most of the posts on this topic seem to be saying consultants shouldn't exist at all, because all they do is monitor badly. If you know they do other things, that argument falls down.

Personally, I suspect that the reason we get it in the neck over the monitoring is precisely because we do it much more thoroughly than curators.

Anyone, including unit staff, hates to be told they have done something wrong, or missed something out - and the more true the accusation, the more it is resented.

So - a lot of the bile about consultants on these threads is probably sour grapes from people who got caught out by a consultant, and knew they were unlikely to be caught out by a curator.

1man1desk

[troll]

Is it not the case though, that curators simply do not have the staffing or the resources to do their job to the standard required? Consultancies, on the other hand I think are rather more "invested" in. I feel a common thread drifting in here, it seems that most gripes over consultants come from field staff. This again re-asserts a point raised elsewhere; what happens in the field is a reflection of the work of many hands before it reaches the trowel. Field archs are seldom asked their opinion and yet it`s this species that sees how method statements/project designs pan out every day. Compromises start at the very beginning and at the top of the slide. Further compromises are made on the way down until, even more compromise at the point of trowel dillutes the original to such an extent that it`s barely recognisable.:D

[mercenary]

quote:Personally, I suspect that the reason we get it in the neck over the monitoring is precisely because we do it much more thoroughly than curators.


quote:So - a lot of the bile about consultants on these threads is probably sour grapes from people who got caught out by a consultant, and knew they were unlikely to be caught out by a curator.



My negative experiences with consultants (which outnumber the positive ones by about 10 to 1) mean I have to categorically reject these assertions. I have NEVER been criticized by a consultant for doing too little or doing something badly, but frequently been criticized for doing too much, too thoroughly (too expensively).

Has it not occurred to you 1man1desk that this bile is perhaps coming from very good and consciencious archaeologists that resent the watering down of archaeological conditions imposed by some consultants. Most of the crap archaeologists I know don't give a **** about the consultants role as long as they land the work.

I suspect what we have in these discussions is good archaeologists arguing against good consultants about bad representatives of said roles, who probably don't contribute on BAJR! I realize that the good archaeologists(who are in a position to do good work) are probably in a minority. Will the consultants out there be similarly honest about their colleagues, or are you going to stick to the party line?}:)

[gumbo]

My gripe with consultants is not because 'hate to be told we have done something wrong' any decent professional welcomes constructive criticism. 1 man 1 desk seems to not appreciate the irony in the statement 'i suspect the reason we get it in the neck over the monitoring is precisely because we do it more thoroughly than curators'.

What I am essentially arguing for is public vs private. True, archaeology as a profession lives in an increasingly privitised world. But Curators lack of funding is not something to just accept. However, those who happily exist unquestioning in this private world are increasingly lording it over those who are financially having the p*** taken out of them.

One of the last posts called my grasp of economic realities naive in the extreme or something like that, I prefer idealistic.

G

[1man1desk]

Finally, something that I can agree with Troll, Gumbo and Mercenary about.

I would love it if curators were better resourced. As I have said in a previous post, I get just as much work (or more) in well-resourced counties as under-resourced ones, but I have the opportunity to work in a more effective co-operation with the curator. However, it is no more in my power than in that of any digger to change the resourcing decisions made by county councils.

On the public/private issue - I was as upset as anyone when archaeology went private/commercial, and it had a profound (unwelcomed) effect on my career. I was busy building a successful career in the then public sector. However, that is the world we live in, and we can either make the best of it, launch a political campaign to change it or change profession. I don't see any sign of a political campaign, so either launch one or make one of the other choices.



1man1desk

[1man1desk]

Mercenary -

You may well be right about the nature of the argument (good diggers versus good diggers, quoting examples of bad ones).

I am not giving out any party line - just my own personal opinions. I have referred to my own observations of bad consultancy practice in several previous postings.

The point of my involvement in this argument is not to say that any branch of the profession is better than any other - it is just to oppose the blind prejudice that says, 'because I have had a bad experience with a consultant, all consultants are parasites'. That really gets my goat, as a person who has devoted over 20 years to archaeology, none of it with the cynical attitudes ascribed to all consultants.

I have had plenty of bad experiences with units, and with curators, both before and after I became a consultant. I don't let that make me think that all units (or all diggers) or all consultants are bad, just that there are bad examples. It is, in part, the existence of those baddies that makes consultants necessary.

As soon as you and the rest of the contributors to this argument can say 'there are good and bad consultants, as there are good and bad units, and the good ones have a useful role to play' - then I'll shut up and go away.

1man1desk

[mercenary]

Fair enough, and we are probably guilty of generalizing to make stronger points. What I would like is to see the number of good consultants AND good field archaeologists outnumber the bad. I'm not sure that is true at present, and I don't think the ratio is improving.

[1man1desk]

I'm with you all the way there, Mercenary.

1man1desk