Alasdair and Fellow HistArchers:
As there is considerable variability in motives, practices and abilities among commercial archaeology firms, so too is there variability among developers and their other consultants. I think they are often mischaracterized. While it is true that most, but suprisingly not all, are irked by historic preservation laws, their responsibilities under these laws often are meager relative to all of the other regulations with which they must contend. And the costs often are relatively small. Some will act like they are enraged, but almost invariably it is an act or their resistance has more to do with political ideology than disrespect for archaeologists and archaeology.

In my 25 years of running my own consulting firm, I have found that applicants look for somebody who can clearly explain to them what their responsibilities are and the most cost- and time-effective means of meeting those requirements. I have several long-term clients who don't even put projects out to bid because experience has shown that my firm and theirs is a good fit...and I see that with consultants in other fields as well, we often forming teams representing a client from one project to the next. They like to have their 'expert,' and I've got several who, despite years of working together in informal settings whereby everybody is on a first name basis, they insist on calling me Dr. Gibb. I've given up trying to change that behavior. It is important to them.

From the perspective of pay rates, this is important. Developers aren't rattled by what we pay technicians...it is the bottom line that concerns them, both in money and time-to-completion. We don't need to convince them about pay rates...we need to convince them that we can keep their projects on schedule and on budget. Given that more than a few of them have high school and college aged children enamored with the idea of becoming archaeologists, zoologists, paleontologists, etc., they are disinclined to quibble over pay rates. And they know what they pay guys with shovels and no college loans.

Clients aren't the enemy...we are. 

Jim
 
 
 
James G. Gibb

Gibb Archaeological Consulting

2554 Carrollton Road

Annapolis, Maryland USA ?? 21403

443.482.9593 (Land) 410.693.3847 (Cell)

www.gibbarchaeology.net ? www.porttobacco.blogspot.com
 
On 09/30/13, Alasdair Brooks<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
All,

I've read the discussion about pay rates with interest, and it's worth noting that this is essentially a global issue. I've been fortunate enough to work professionally in a mixture of academic, commercial, and museum historical archaeology on four continents (and from this coming Thursday will be adding a Asia to Europe, North America, Australia, and South America), and the observation that archaeologists, especially low-level staff in a developer-funded context, is more or less universal where archaeology is an established part of heritage preservation and development legislation (I add that caveat because to a large extent, this is a First World issue. In some of the countries where I have contacts, what passes for a professional archaeology community would probably prefer the luxury of having jobs in the first place).

The specific context varies from country to country, as does the relationship between academic and commercial archaeology salaries (for example, I once had a conversation with Pat Garrow where he gently expressed surprise at how much better off UK academic archaeologists were compared to UK commercial archaeologists), but there are some common issues across continents and countries, particularly when it comes to the historical / post-medieval period. While not specific to periods of economic recession and/or limited growth, as most of us (except perhaps Australians) have been experiencing over the last 5-6 years, several of them are more acute in the latter circumstances. And I concede in advance that some of the following involves a few oversimplifications in the service of being a little more concise.....

1) Heritage is often seen as a luxury by government institutions, especially in time of recession. Heritage / archaeology is therefore usually among the first programmes to be cut, or to have its protection legislation scaled back, in the name of economic growth / balancing budgets when there is a recession.

2) While we could all name honourable exceptions (and their existence should be assumed in subsequent references to developers), many developers see archaeology as a costly diversion from the main purpose of development / construction, and few would willingly engage with archaeology unless forced to do so by legislation.

3) As very few developers have senior staff with any real appreciation for archaeological issues, they're naturally inclined to go with the most profitable (for them) lower bids so long as the regulatory requirements are otherwise met. For many developers, the cost of the statutory heritage requirements is therefore usually more important than the quality of the archaeological team meeting those requirements.

4) The more recent the site, the less likely most developers are to sympathise with the importance of the archaeological component. This is a particularly acute problem for historical / post-medieval archaeologists. In the US and South America, an early colonial site will likely be seen as far more intrinsically 'valuable' than a later 19th-century site; in Europe, the prehistoric, Roman, and medieval periods are all seen as far more 'valuable' than post-medieval sites, especially later post-medieval sites. Australia's in a slightly different position in that so few land-based sites (and virtually none outside of Sydney) predate the 19th century anyway, but even here earlier sites (loosely defined here as Gold Rush and earlier) are generally seen as "sexier" by the broader public; when you can convince said public that the 19th century is worthy of archaeological attention in the first place, that is.

5) Too many students are studying archaeology in university because they think it's cool/sexy. Which may not initially sound like a problem, but it means we're producing far too many university graduates who are in turn chasing the same small pool of introductory archaeology jobs, and are then far too willing to accept a low pay rate if it means they can find a job in the discipline they love. Introductory archaeology positions are therefore in the curious position of being filled by largely middle class individuals wholly prepared to undertake very non-middle class manual labour at a pay rate often lower than that of working class construction workers simply because they love archaeology. Paradoxically, the very fact that we work in a discipline that so many people are passionate about therefore has a deflationary impact on archaeological wages, especially for introductory positions in the discipline.

So while arguing for increased pay rates for introductory field and lab positions is all very well - is in fact wholly commendable - I'm not sure it addresses the systematic structural issues that assert a negative impact on archaeological wages across a significant proportion of G-20 nations, and which offer particular challenges for historical / post-medieval archaeology.

Which may not be a particularly cheery thought this Monday lunchtime (I'm at UTC +4), but there you go.

Alasdair Brooks