Unsurprisingly I find myself in total agreement with Chris. I suspect that
more money is going into archaeology now than before, but it is not the
amount of money going in so much as what is being done with it and how it is
being used. I refer mostly to training but also to joining research, which
should underpin all work, with archaeology in the market place. There is a
requirement on all archaeological projects to address regional and national
research agendas but at the same time there has been a denudation of skills
because commercial units cannot put in budget elements for training within
commercial projects and hope to win the work. At the same time budgets are
getting tighter and the time budgeted to do a site shorter. The argument
being that why should large developers pay for training, when they want the
archaeology out of the way (de facto contaminated land as Chadwick so
eloquently put it) so that they can build. Graduates do not spring forth as
fully formed archaeologists, the bulk of training in excavation
methodologies and recording comes after the degree has been completed. This
training used to be as a form of apprenticeship and I remember units like
MKAU, DUA, Leicestershire Unit (among others) being nothing short of
brilliant at this training. EH used to undertake some massive research and
rescue excavations in which there was an overt commitment to training, SYAU
used to have paid trainee positions on its excavations. All of these could
do so by having developer project funding augmenting their own core funding
and it was the core funding that provided the surety of a wage for those
doing the training. It also used to be the case that there was time for the
digger next to you and the supervisor to take "time out" to provide on the
ground, context based training. I am not sure that this is the case anymore.
I have no problem with developer funded projects, If I do have a problem at
all it is that I regret the passing of the core funded local county/city
units part of whose responsibility was to train (we all need training/to be
trained by those with more/different experiences and the process of learning
never ends). These units (though by no means all) were centres of excellence
and It is a shame that this particular recommendation, to set up
replacement, core funded, centres of excellence as articulated in the EH
Draft Research Agenda has not been taken forwards.
This then ties into my feeling about job cuts at MOLAS. Historically the
contribution of the DUA to methodological development in Urban archaeology
has been incalculable, they, along with other centres of excellence in Urban
archaeology in the UK have transformed the way we dig and importantly record
in towns and have set an international gold standard. It is sad to see that
this centre of excellence is being denuded of some of the people who made it
as brilliant as it is/was. These job cuts must be because of the market and
while no-doubt making economic sense at the same time leaves the practice of
archaeology and the process of interpretation the poorer.
As an analogy, more money is being spent on the NHS than at any time before,
whether it is a better NHS than 25 years ago is a moot point, when for
example eye tests were free as was a trip to the dentist.
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list of Archaeologists for Global Justice
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Birte Brugmann
Sent: 29 March 2007 10:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: job cuts at the Museum of London's Archaeology Services
Just wondering: in relation to the gross national product, has the money
spent on British archaeology increased or decreased since the 70s, 80s,
90s...?
Birte
On 27 Mar 2007 at 12:51, Chris Cumberpatch wrote:
Date sent: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:51:07 +0100
Send reply to: Chris Cumberpatch <[log in to unmask]>
From: Chris Cumberpatch <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ARCH-JUSTICE] job cuts at the Museum of London's
Archaeology Services
To: [log in to unmask]
> Of course some of us have been pointing out that the market is
> an inappropriate economic model for a research-based discipline such
> as archaeology for a number of years now. Not that it has done any
> good - fieldwork, post-ex and publication standards continue to
> decline in the face of demands to reduce costs and overheads and the
> quality of the information that we are generating is limited to the
> extent that reliable inference is barely possible in many cases.
> Not to mention the quite outrageous condition of our museum archives
> and stores. But how we get a government which sees archaeology as
> no more than a source of 'wonderful treasure' (to quote the relevant
> minister), to understand what we are actually doing, is beyond me.
>
> Chris Cumberpatch
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Reuben Thorpe
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:12 PM
> Subject: Re: job cuts at the Museum of London's Archaeology
> Services
>
>
> The ramifications of our collective failure to effectively oppose
> the politically inspired introduction of competitive tendering into
> archaeology in the late 80's and early 90's.
>
>
>
> R
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list of Archaeologists for Global Justice
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jasmina Cenan
> Sent: 27 March 2007 12:21 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: job cuts at the Museum of London's Archaeology
> Services
>
>
>
> This is terrible news. I would like to forward this to other UCL
>
> archaeologists
>
> students and staff. Is there someone from Prospect, MOLAS I can
> speak or refer
>
> to. Is below a press release? Hopefully we can make clear to
> Cassidy
>
> that MOLAS
>
> archeologists are not on their own and bombard him with messages
> against the
>
> cuts.
>
>
>
> Jasmina Cenan
>
> BA Archaeology degree student at UCL
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Umberto Albarella <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>
>
> > Dear All,
>
> >
>
> > I have received this and I am passing it on as it is revealing
> of the con=
>
> > text in
>
> > which archaeologists operate nowadays. One of the goals of
> Archaeologists=
>
> > for
>
> > Global Justice is of course campaigning for the dignity of our
> profession=
>
> > and
>
> > against the loss of knowledge and expertise. I believe that this
> is not o=
>
> > nly of
>
> > concern for British-based colleagues.
>
> >
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Umberto
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Museum of London Branch of Prospect=20
>
> > Stop job cuts at MoLAS!
>
> >
>
> > Major redundancies and restructuring have been proposed by
> executive
>
> > managers at the Museum of London=92s Archaeology Service. Out of
> a pool o=
>
> > f
>
> > 13 finds specialists, 8-11 job cuts are proposed, with a further
> 5-6
>
> > redundancies in MoLAS=92s 15-strong management team. The job
> losses amoun=
>
> > t
>
> > to a 10% cut in the workforce and mean that vital skills could
> be lost
>
> > to the Museum completely. The threatened staff have worked at
> MoLAS for
>
> > at least eight years, some for over twenty years.=20
>
> >
>
> > Executive managers, advised by business consultants with no
> previous
>
> > experience of archaeology, argue in their redundancy
> Consultation
>
> > Document that there is a =91decrease in demand=92 or =91demand
> does not e=
>
> > xist=92
>
> > for the 13 Post-Roman Finds, Building Material, Animal Bone and
> Botany
>
> > Specialists. Yet figures show there is a total of four to five
> years=92
>
> > work waiting to be done by the threatened finds specialists. In
> addition
>
> > to this, MoLAS is about to start digging major archaeological
> sites in
>
> > London and elsewhere that will produce an avalanche of finds for
> the
>
> > specialists to analyse. Demand for the specialists is set to
> increase,
>
> > not fall. Executive managers also argue that the specialists are
> not
>
> > =91financially sustainable=92, yet increases in specialist
> charge-out rat=
>
> > es
>
> > in April will not be given the chance to take effect before
> redundancy
>
> > notices are handed out. The =A3250,000pa the specialists bring
> into MoLAS
>
> > from external clients will be put in jeopardy by the cuts and
> MoLAS may
>
> > not be able to honour existing commitments.
>
> >
>
> > The redundancies in MoLAS=92s management team don=92t add up
> either. Fift=
>
> > een
>
> > posts are threatened but with sixteen posts in a new proposed
> management
>
> > structure, executive managers can=92t explain how they have
> arrived at a
>
> > figure of 5-6 redundancies. They argue that the new jobs are
>
> > fundamentally different from the current ones. But is the new
> =91Post
>
> > Excavation Manager=92 job really that different from the current
> =91Proje=
>
> > ct
>
> > Manager (Post Excavation)=92 job, for example? Similarities in
> the job
>
> > descriptions between the current and the new jobs suggest that
> managers
>
> > will effectively be forced to reapply for their own jobs.=20
>
> >
>
> > The MoLAS website says that specialists =91are at the forefront
> of curren=
>
> > t
>
> > research in their fields and command international
> reputations=92 and
>
> > =91offer a comprehensive range of services that combine
> reliability and
>
> > cost-effectiveness with academic excellence.=92 The management
> team has
>
> > worked on hundreds of projects in London, the UK and abroad,
> including
>
> > the proposed Olympics sites. The work of specialists and
> management has
>
> > helped ensure MoLAS is one of the leading archaeological units
> in the
>
> > country and one of the foremost archaeological publishers in
> Europe. The
>
> > loss of their skills will damage not only MoLAS and the Museum,
> but
>
> > British archaeology and heritage too. =20
>
> >
>
> > In 1998, MoLAS staff were told by executive managers to accept
> cuts in
>
> > annual leave and other conditions to =91secure the long-term
> future=92 of
>
> > specialists and make MoLAS =91more competitive=92. But it
> didn=92t work =96
>
> > MoLAS is in trouble again. The current redundancy proposals will
> also
>
> > fail to improve MoLAS=92s long term financial viability because
> they too
>
> > ignore the underlying problem =96 that, just like other
> archaeological
>
> > units, MoLAS does not charge clients enough in the cut-throat
>
> > archaeological market.=20
>
> >
>
> > There is an alternative. Prospect is currently negotiating
> with
>
> > employers=92 organisation SCAUM to mitigate the affect of the
> cut-throat
>
> > market. The idea is that archaeological units agree to work
> together to
>
> > make improvements that benefit everyone rather than undercutting
> each
>
> > other. Instead of axing skills, executive managers should be
> using
>
> > MoLAS=92s dominance of the London market and influence with
> the
>
> > archaeologists=92 professional body the IFA in backing
> Prospect=92s
>
> > initiative. They should be investing in specialists and
> managers, not
>
> > making job cuts.
>
> >
>
> > What you can do: write to Michael Cassidy, Chairman of Museum of
> London
>
> > Board of Governors, Members' Room, PO Box 270, Guildhall,
> London, EC2P
>
> > 2EJ, [log in to unmask]
>
> > telling him to stop the job cuts.=20
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --=20
>
> > Umberto Albarella
>
> > Department of Archaeology
>
> > University of Sheffield
>
> > Northgate House
>
> > West Street
>
> > Sheffield S1 4ET
>
> > United Kingdom
>
> > Telephone: (+) 44 (0) 114 22 22 943=20
>
> > Fax: (+) 44 (0) 114 27 22 563=20
>
> > http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/albarella.html
>
> > For Archaeologists for Global Justice (AGJ) see:
>
> > http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/global-justice.html
>
> >
>
> > "There is no way to peace. Peace IS the way".
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> E-mail message checked by PC Tools Spyware Doctor (5.0.0.172)
>
> Database version: 5.06940
>
> http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Birte Brugmann FSA
68159 Mannheim C2, 2
Germany
mobil. 0049 (0)170 7741299
|
