10th September 2009, 11:00 AM
I think the article is absolutely correct and Headland deserve praise for highlighting the discussion on how archaeology needs to improve its image and thus improve its prospects. All these things are connected but at present companies cannot unilaterally start trying to charge more on the basis of quality because they will be undercut by those that don't care. For larger projects there is likely to be greater control but for smaller ones it seems that the cost cutting free-for-all is becoming worse, in my experience at least.
Note as well that none of the comments from the business experts say anything like 'archaeology, what's the bloody point of that?/why should anyone pay for that?/you should think yourselves lucky to have such a job' and yet the way some archaeological organisations cost for jobs and treat their staff that seems to be what they are thinking. We need to think more highly of ourselves otherwise we will we be in a permanent downward slope of putting off talented people year after year and losing any will to continue.
Note as well that none of the comments from the business experts say anything like 'archaeology, what's the bloody point of that?/why should anyone pay for that?/you should think yourselves lucky to have such a job' and yet the way some archaeological organisations cost for jobs and treat their staff that seems to be what they are thinking. We need to think more highly of ourselves otherwise we will we be in a permanent downward slope of putting off talented people year after year and losing any will to continue.