ARCHAEOLOGY
AND THE GLOBAL
ECONOMIC CRISIS
MULTIPLE IMPACTS,
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
Edited by Nathan Schlanger
and Kenneth Aitchison
Published 2010
by Culture Lab Editions,
Elisabethlaan 4 B-3080 Tervuren
Belgium
www.culturelab.be
ISBN 978-2-9600527-7-0
Produced on behalf of Archaeology in
Contemporary Europe: Professional Practices
and Public Outreach.
Designed by Pascale Coulon
Copyright © CultureLab and individual authors
This publication has been produced with the
support of the European Commission (through
the Culture 2007-2013 programme) in the
framework of the ACE project – “Archaeology
in Contemporary Europe. Professional Practices
and Public Outreach”.
The European Commission cannot be held
responsible for any use which may be made
of the information contained herein.
All contributors to this publication have done
so in their personal capacity. The views and
analyses expressed here remain their authors’ sole
responsibility, and do not necessarily reflect or
represent those of the publishers, the sponsoring
organisations, their institutions or the European
Commission.
Cover Photo: Archaeologists defending higher
education, research and employment (Paris,
January 2009, photo: Nathan Schlanger).
Download PDF file at:
http://ace-archaeology.eu/fichiers/25Archaeology-and-the-crisis.pdf
ARCHAEOLOGY
AND THE GLOBAL
ECONOMIC CRISIS
MULTIPLE IMPACTS,
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
Edited by Nathan Schlanger
and Kenneth Aitchison
5
Contents
Preface and acknowledgments
7
1. Introduction. Archaeology and the global economic crisis
Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison
2. The crisis – economic, ideological, and archaeological
Jean-Paul Demoule
9
13
3. The impact of the recession on archaeology in the Republic of Ireland
James Eogan
4. United Kingdom archaeology in economic crisis
Kenneth Aitchison
19
25
5. The end of a golden age? The impending effects of the economic collapse
on archaeology in higher education in the United Kingdom 31
Anthony Sinclair
6. Commercial archaeology in Spain: its growth, development, and the impact
of the global economic crisis 45
Eva Parga-Dans
7. A crisis with many faces. The impact of the economic recession
on Dutch archaeology 55
Monique H. van den Dries, Karen E. Waugh & Corien Bakker
8. One crisis too many? French archaeology between reform and relaunch
Nathan Schlanger & Kai Salas Rossenbach
69
9. The crisis and changes in cultural heritage legislation in Hungary:
cul-de-sac or solution? 81
Eszter Bánffy & Pál Raczky
10. Archaeology in crisis: the case of Poland
Arkadiusz Marciniak & Michał Pawleta
87
11. The impact of the economic crisis on rescue archaeology in Russia
Asya Engovatova
97
12. The effect of the global recession on cultural resources management
in the United States 103
Jeffry H. Altschul
13. Postscript: on dead canaries, guinea-pigs and other Trojan horses
Nathan Schlanger
14. Annex I
Job losses in UK archaeology - April 2010
Kenneth Aitchison
107
117
15. Annex II
Note for administrators and liquidators of archaeological organisations
Roger M. Thomas
Abstracts in English 131
Résumés en français 135
Deutsche Zusammenfassungen
Resúmenes en español 144
139
127
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
Preface and acknowledgments
The texts presented here are extended and updated versions of the papers given
at a session entitled “Archaeology and the global crisis - multiple impacts, possible solutions”, held on the 17th September 2009 at the 15th annual meeting of
the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) in Riva del Garda, Italy. As coorganisers of this session, we were particularly happy to see that over a hundred
colleagues attended and took part in some lively discussions, where sober realism
was mixed with hope and determination. The session furthermore beneitted from
the friendly atmosphere and excellent organisation of the EAA meeting itself, as
skilfully orchestrated by Franco Nicolis together with Martina Dalla Riva, their
teams and sponsors.
Indeed the European Association of Archaeologists as a whole, so we feel, has
amply fulilled its vocation as meeting-ground and think-tank for professional
archaeologists from Europe and beyond (http://www.e-a-a.org). We are grateful
in any case that our session at Riva del Garda was sponsored – in an intellectual
sense – by three EAA committees or working parties. One is the “Committee on
archaeological legislation and organisation in Europe”, chaired by Christopher
Young and Jean-Paul Demoule: the crisis and the structural changes that follow
make the critical and comparative work of this committee more important than
ever before. Further support was received from the “Committee on professional
associations in archaeology”, chaired by Kenneth Aitchison, a committee that is
acutely concerned with working practices in European archaeology and how they
are being affected by the economic situation. The third and most recently created
of these EAA groups is the working party on “ACE - Archaeology in contemporary Europe: professional practices and public outreach” (www.ace-archaeology.
eu) – a European Commission ‘Culture’ programme funded network gathering
a dozen of partners from across the continent to examine together the ields of
practice and social dimensions of contemporary archaeology. In addition to the
invaluable material support provided by the ACE network, many of its partners
contributed their comments and insights to the preparation of the ‘Crisis’ session, and also through subsequent meetings in Thessaloniki (with our Aristotle
University partner) and in Budapest (with our KÖH partner). In this volume, ACE
partners have contributed the chapters on the situations in the Netherlands, Spain,
France and Poland. Another relevant European initiative is the “Discovering the
Archaeologists of Europe” project (www.discovering-archaeologists.eu), a review
of the archaeological labour market in twelve European Union states with the support of the European Commission ‘Leonardo da Vinci’ programme in 2006-2008.
As data for the project were collected in 2007, at the height of the economic cycle,
they give us very valuable information and insights for critical comparisons with
the ongoing crisis situation.
7
8
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Thanks are due of course to all the contributors to the session. As is frequently
the case, not all the papers given there could be included in the present publication, for various reasons. This could be compensated, however, by a couple of
new chapters which it well with the volume’s aims and coverage. We thank all the
authors for working under a tight schedule, and for responding to several last minute requests. While the authors retain full responsibility for the contents of their
contributions, it is us, as editors, who will have to be excused for any eventual
typos, repetitions or misplaced hyphenations that may have remained during the
accelerated production process of this publication.
KA would like to thank the following: Peter Hinton, Michael Dawson and
Gerry Wait for commenting on draft texts, and all colleagues on the Committee
for Professional Associations in Archaeology whose discussions contributed
directly or indirectly to the genesis of this volume.
NS would like to thank friends and colleagues in the ACE network and at the
EAA for their discussions and encouragement. Thanks are also due to INRAP,
the lead-partner of the ACE network, and especially to the Cultural development
and communication team for their advice and support in the preparation of this
volume. The same goes to Pascale Coulon who so eficiently put together, at such
short notice, the disparate iles and images into the shape of a proper publication. The ACE coordination team, Sonia Lévin and Kai Salas Rossenbach, were
as always here to improve and smooth things out, notably regarding the quadrilingual abstracts, which have been translated by Juliette Guilbaud (into German),
by Kai Salas Rossenbach (into Spanish), and in some cases through the individual
authors. Finally, special thanks to our publisher, Culture Lab Editions, for unwavering support.
Nathan Schlanger and Kenneth Aitchison
August 2010
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
1. Introduction. Archaeology and the global
economic crisis
Nathan Schlanger
Kenneth Aitchison
Nathan Schlanger
ACE project – ‘Archaeology in
contemporary Europe’
Institut national de recherches
archéologiques préventives, Paris
nathan.schlanger@inrap.fr
Kenneth Aitchison
Head of Projects and Professional
Development,
Institute for Archaeologists, UK
kenneth.aitchison@archaeologists.net
This is probably the irst multi-authored attempt to take a global, or at least
international, look at the current economic crisis and its effects on archaeology.
Archaeologists of course have always shown much professional interest in crises,
even if only from a distance. There have been as we know many and varied crises
throughout human history: natural disasters such as earthquakes, lash loods or
droughts, or human-created famines, epidemics, and wars have all left tangible
traces in the archaeological record, subject to much research and numerous interpretations. Economic crises for their part are probably more dificult to identify
in the record: what can be found of the 1630s tulipmania speculative bubble in
Holland, of the commercial blockades of the Napoleonic wars, or indeed of the
Wall Street collapse of 1929? But while economic crises may be elusive to grasp as
archaeological events and processes in the remote past, they are certainly impossible to miss when, as has been the case since 2008, they hit the profession at full
force. Unmistakable as they may be, however, the effects of the current economic
crisis on archaeology still need to be detailed, elaborated, and analysed – this,
broadly speaking, is what the present volume begins to do.
At the onset, it has not seemed to us necessary to propose here any strict
or even encompassing deinition of the crisis. In the current context, everyone
will readily gather that we are talking about this sharp economic recession
that settled over much of the world, following a series of catastrophic inancial
events that began to unfold in the United States in 2007. The overexposure of
many banks there in lending to ‘subprime’ borrowers led to an unprecedented
inancial shock to the entire economic system across the western world, which
has continued – in differing forms – until the present day. Most contributors
provide further details regarding their respective countries and sectors, including
quantitative information and projections, without for that transforming their
texts into macro-economic dissertations. In fact, alongside the sheer mass of data
and numbers, it is striking to note just how rapidly has this notion of ‘global
economic crisis’ become something of a collective representation, a shared syndrome, a fateful mantra that leaves much leeway for interpretation, extension or
application. Without delving here too deeply into the socio-linguistics or semantics of the term ‘crisis’, the politics of its uses nevertheless call for comment. As
it permeates both ordinary and professional discourse, this notion inds itself
expediently and strategically employed: in the name of the crisis, sometimes by
its mere mention, actions are legitimised, decisions are delayed, expectations are
raised, plans shelved, procedures reconigured, pills sweetened, plugs pulled and
so forth.
So while the ‘crisis’ is emphatically here with us (at least for the foreseeable future) we really cannot take its presence and its implications at face value
without some prior critical consideration or contextualisation. This applies to
all of us in general, as citizens, as voters and as taxpayers, but also speciically to
the ields of archaeology and archaeological heritage management that concern
9
10
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
us. Firstly, we need to remember that many different patterns and processes have
been going on before the crisis. A truism this may be, we still need to acknowledge, however briely and partially, that such antecedents help us set the crisis
in perspective and better understand its impacts. That the countries described in
this volume each have their different archaeological traditions, systems and conigurations is something we all know – it can however be novel and illuminating
to appreciate these differences through the singular prism of the crisis. Together
with that, we need also to consider what goes on alongside the crisis. While the
current events focus our immediate concerns, it would be far too easy for us
– and indeed for our elected representatives, our political and economical decision makers – to refer and defer all choices and policies to the crisis. Alongside
continuities or attempts to return ‘back to normality’ in heritage management,
we can also expect some broad changes and reorientations to occur, which their
instigators may claim to be simply accelerated, facilitated or indeed rendered
inevitable by the crisis. This may well be so, but it is our responsibility, as the
professionals directly involved, to remain alert and examine these changes for
their worth on a case-by-case basis.
As can be seen, the crisis is indeed a complex matter, the impacts of which upon
archaeology are likely to be multiple and far-reaching – on the practice of the
discipline, on its practitioners, and ultimately on the knowledge we produce and
disseminate about the past. Our guiding hypothesis (as presented at the EAA session that is at the origin of this publication) is that to a greater or lesser extent, all
sectors of archaeology will ultimately be affected. This has led us to distinguish,
with admittedly a certain degree of arbitrariness as well as overlap, between four
major themes or impact areas. For each, we raise a series of issues or possibilities,
which could, when substantiated, generate further thought and discussion.
– The irst theme concerns the impact of the crisis on research funding and priorities. We would like to know whether the budgets dedicated to research (be they
structural or project based, in universities or research bodies) have been affected
by the crisis, in terms of available funding, evaluation criteria, types of projects
selected, eligible expenditures, etc.
– The second theme, which has initially attracted the most attention for obvious
reasons, concerns the impact of the crisis on professional employment. Here the
issues are of employment, job security, recruitment and redundancies (notably in
commercial archaeology). This in turn relates to the health and prospects of various archaeological employers, in both public and private sectors. A further issue
concerns professional training and skills, by higher education institutions and by
employers – and how they are to be maintained in in times of crisis.
– The third theme, which proves perhaps too early to fully grasp, has to do
with the impact of the crisis on conservation and public outreach policies. This
concerns not only the fate of archaeological documentation and inds, as studied,
curated and stored by ield workers or by museums, but also that of the various
activities (personnel, publications, exhibitions etc) which are aimed at communication and public outreach – at a time when the broader public’s interest in the past
and its value may need to be reassessed.
– The fourth theme has to do with the impact of the crisis on heritage management, policies and legislation. In question here are the various structural,
policy and legal modiications that follow from – or are ampliied, accelerated, or
alternatively delayed by – various oficial or governmental responses to the crisis.
These include changes in the legal deinition of ‘archaeological sites’, changes in
Introduction. Archaeology and the global economic crisis
the intensity, monitoring, timing or funding of protective measures, the merging of
heritage management institutions or their functions, the effects of economic ‘new
deals’ and re-launch initiatives, etc.
With different degrees of detail, the contributors to this volume have addressed
these four themes, providing the reader with an in-depth comparative picture of
the multiple impacts of the global economic crisis on archaeology. In the case of
archaeology in the United Kingdom, the themes in question are actually dealt
with in several papers: mainly employment-related issues by Kenneth Aitchison
in his chapter and in annex I, research and higher education by Anthony Sinclair,
and matters pertaining to legislation and heritage management by Roger Thomas
in annex II. In other cases, the contributors have touched on all themes in their
papers: Arkadiusz Marciniak and Michał Pawleta for Poland, Nathan Schlanger
and Kai Salas Rossenbach for France, and more succinctly James Eogan for
Ireland. Most contributors have focused on a particular sector, broadly speaking
that of archaeological heritage management. This is either because, in comparison with the other impact areas, the evidence was particularly rich or topical
in that sector – as in the paper by Monique van den Dries, Karen Waugh and
Corien Bakker on the Netherlands, and that by Eva Parga-Dans on Spain – or
because there were useful quantitative or qualitative leads to follow, as did Asya
Engovatova for Russia, Eszter Bánffy and Pál Raczky for Hungary, or Jeffrey
Altschul for the United States.
Whatever the case, this volume as a whole focuses mainly on matters relating to archaeological heritage management. Interestingly, this focus is conveyed
through a range of largely overlapping terms used by the contributors: many
talk of ‘preventive archaeology’, and others mention ‘rescue archaeology’, the
‘industrial sector’, ‘commercial archaeology’, ‘cultural resources management’,
‘developer-funded’, ‘compliance driven’, and indeed ‘professional’ as distinct (?)
from ‘academic’ archaeology. We considered it important, as editors, to respect
this terminological variability, which in some cases relects some real conceptual
or even ideological differences, but which also rests on a common underlying basis
– which can be conveyed by the relatively clear and neutral term of Malta archaeology. This common orientation towards archaeological heritage management
is of course related to the areas of competencies and interest of the contributors
themselves, but even more so to the fact that it is at present at the archaeological forefront of the current economic crisis. Building on national legislations that
have been reinforced over the past 20 years – themselves based on the Council of
Europe’s 1992 ‘Malta’ or ‘Valletta’ European Convention for the Protection of
Archaeological Heritage (see http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/
Archeologie/default_en.asp) as well as the ICAHM – ICOMOS 1990 Charter for
the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (http://www.icomos.
org/icahm/documents/charter.html) – archaeological heritage management has
been a continuously growing sector in terms of economic activity, employment and
productivity – one that risks now feeling the full force of the crisis. It is also a sector that captures some of the social and political choices surrounding our attitudes
to our heritage and to the past, as Jean-Paul Demoule indicates in his opening
paper, and as Nathan Schlanger re-examines in the postscript.
Two additional comments to conclude this introduction. First, it might be pertinent to reiterate here the usual disclaimers. Rather than obtain formal, authorised
statements, our aim here has been to gain a sense, qualitative or quantitative, of
11
12
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
the stakes and the problems areas raised by the crisis. All the contributors to this
volume, whether they come from academia, the commercial sector, or state bodies, are certainly knowledgeable about the situation prevailing in their countries,
but they do not pretend, and nor are they expected, to present anything like an
oficial, sectorial or national viewpoint.
Next, as we noted at the onset, this volume represents something of a irst.
But it may well not be a one-off. Provided that suficient interest and goodwill
can be found, we envisage the publication – perhaps in a year’s time, for the next
EAA meeting in September 2011 – of a second volume in which information will
be updated and commented on, and of course new countries, sectors and impact
areas represented and analysed.
Please do contact the editors if you are interested in contributing to this publication and its aims.
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
2. The crisis – economic, ideological,
and archaeological
Jean-Paul Demoule
UFR Histoire de l’art et archéologie
Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne
jean-paul.demoule@univ-paris1.fr
1 Introduction
Since its creation more than a decade ago, the European Association of
Archaeologists (EAA) has served as a useful forum for debating different
understandings of the organisation of archaeological heritage management
across Europe. This has been one of the tasks taken on by the EAA sponsored
“Committee on Archaeological Legislation and Organisation in Europe” and
this is also one of the goals of the EC funded ACE project, “Archaeology in
Contemporary Europe”. This EAA session and the publication that ensues is
therefore highly appropriate for raising and summing up some of the broad issues,
economic, ideological and archaeological, brought to the fore by the current
global crisis.
2 Two world views
Broadly speaking there are in Western philosophy two contrasting concepts
of society. In the Anglo-Saxon ‘common law’ tradition, society regulates itself,
either, following the optimistic version of Adam Smith, through the operations of
a “hidden hand” or, in the more pessimistic versions of neo-Darwinism, sociobiology and economic liberalism in general, by means of the ‘struggle for life’.
For the American economist Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman, for example,
“the State in not the solution, but the problem”. This principle seems to have been
abandoned in a matter of hours at the beginning of the recent economic crisis, in
October 2008.
For the other tradition, mainly in continental Europe, it is the state, in its role
as the expression of the community of citizens, which organises and regulates
social life. Up until the 1980’s in many parts of western Europe, most of what concerned the general interest – such as education, a large part of culture, as well as
transports, energy, post and telecommunications, and indeed banks and insurance
companies – were the responsibility and the property of the state, that is to say of
the community of citizens. It was only during the 1980s that this state of affairs
was put in question, essentially for reasons of ideology rather than economic ineficiency, and without a real public debate.
As for archaeology: in the second model, it is the nation state that takes charge
of the protection of archaeological heritage, either through a state archaeological
service or through dedicated public bodies. In the irst model archaeological heritage is treated as merchandise or a service. Commercial archaeological companies
are at the service of their clients, the developers, with only the postulation of some
‘code of ethics’ to ensure quality control within the overall framework of the free
market economy. It should be noted that the term of ‘developer-led archaeology’,
as sometimes used in Anglo-Saxon countries (and in translations into English) is
13
14
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
in this respect misleading. In reality, it is not the developers who originated the
protective measures such as preventive or rescue archaeology, but rather it is the
community of citizens, as expressed through the state, its laws, regulations and
policy guidances. It is the state which decrees that archaeological remains need to
be studied prior to their destruction. The seemingly innocent term of ‘developerled’ in this sense reveals wider conceptions of heritage management.
It should be remarked that there has never been anything in the nature of a public
debate or consultation within the European Union regarding these two different economic and political approaches. For instance, it is possible to imagine and bring into
being a common European public service is such ields as railways, postal services or
electricity provision – just as there now moves towards common European airspace,
or, more topically, a common banking supervisory mechanism. Such an approach
was never really considered. In almost every ield of economic and social life, the
option of a generalised commercial competition was the one taken, as if as a matter
of course. The advantages of such generalised commercial competition, as claimed
by the likes of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, were supposed to result in lower
prices and better quality, on the premise that people will choose to buy the best
products at the lowest prices. This has not really been the case, for several reasons.
3 Half a dozen reasons for questioning the benefits of economic
competition
– First, as shown by the Nobel prize winner for Economics, Stieglitz, the “hidden hand” of the market would work only if people had complete information
regarding merchandises and services. But it is never the case: people often chose
the degree of information they feel they need, and they can also very easily be
manipulated regarding the information they have access to.
– Second, supposedly competing companies often engage in agreements of
various sorts, verging on illegality. Such deals between mobile phone operators or
between roads and infrastructure companies have recently occurred in France, for
example.
– Third, commercial companies and their shareholders prefer immediate concrete beneits to long-term investments – as can be seen with privatised railway
companies.
– Forth, regarding archaeology, the notion of competition is often seriously
misunderstood. It so happens that developers do not set out to buy the best possible archaeology, that is, the most securely dated and documented interpretation of, say, Early Bronze Age occupation in a given region of Northern Italy, as
could be provided by the best archaeological operator. Developers simply want,
following the regulations in force, their grounds to be cleared of archaeological
remains as quickly and cheaply as possible. Economic competition in the ield of
archaeology has therefore nothing to do with scientiic competition: it is simply
an incitement to excavate for the lowest possible costs, as unfortunately can be
observed every day. Scientiic research is of course also subject to various calls and
grants, many of them highly selective and competitive, emanating from national
and international bodies. But the criteria for choosing between competing proposals have little if nothing to do with the lowest possible costs, and much with the
research project proposed by the biding departments or laboratories, and their
record of excellence and delivery. Private sector research does of course exist, but
The crisis – economic, ideological, and archaeological
it thrives mainly in economically rewarding domains (such as medicine, weapons,
food, transport) where quality can be directly controlled and enforced, and where
research has mostly applied rather than fundamental objectives.
– Fifth, the ‘Code of Ethics’ is a noble notion that may be relevant or applicable
in some (possibly Protestant) countries of Western Europe, but is it not pertinent,
to be realistic, in many parts of our continent and in much of the world. Such a
code supposes in fact a shared commitment to strong scientiic control, which does
not seem to be the case, for example, with the irst attempts at introducing commercial archaeology in France.
– Sixth, as a inal point to return to our preoccupations with the current global
economic crisis, it is clear that the effects of such a crisis on commercial companies, in any economic or cultural ield, are quite different and more challenging
than is the case with public bodies operating under the guarantee of the State.
4 A case study : the introduction of commercial companies to French
archaeology
As we all know, and as we can further appreciate from the analyses and details
provided throughout this volume, the effects of the current economic crisis on
archaeology are serious indeed. Many colleagues in private companies have lost their
jobs, and there is also a risk that much scientiic data and documentation will deinitely disappear – just like the professional expertise generated over the years. We
have, of course, to express our feelings of solidarity with these jobless colleagues.
I would like now to take up as a test case the example of France, where commercial archaeology was introduced only in 2003 (see also Schlanger & Salas
Rossenbach, this volume). Over the years, France had accumulated serious delays in
matters of archaeological heritage protection. One of the reasons was that for long
archaeology did not play much of a role in the construction of national identity: the
country’s ‘noble’ ancestors were rather the Greeks and the Romans, and the Louvre,
with all its rich holdings in these domains, contains almost no inds recovered from
the French soil. It was only in 2001, some time after the Malta convention was ratiied, that the parliament passed a law which installed the ‘polluter pays’ principle
and which created a national research institute in charge of preventive archaeology,
INRAP, which took charge of evaluations and preventive excavations across the
country in collaboration with the universities, the CNRS, the ministry of culture
and the archaeological services of various towns and counties. For my part, I have
participated in the drafting of the law, and I served as INRAP’s irst president from
2002 to 2008 (see Demoule 2002, Demoule & Landes 2009).
The sudden generalised application after 2001 of the ‘polluter pays’ principle
to all development projects across France led to numerous reactions, especially in
regions where preventive archaeology had hitherto been poorly practiced. These
reactions coincided with the arrival of a new conservative majority in power.
Resentment against preventive archaeology in general focussed on the 2001 law,
and the parliamentary majority decided in 2003, among other amendments to the
law, to open archaeology to commercial competition.
Presumably made under the expectation that excavations costs would be
reduced, this decision was clearly ideological in its motivations. It certainly had
no scientiic justiication: the scientiic community as one vigorously protested
this decision, through demonstrations, petitions, newspaper articles and so forth.
15
16
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Internationally, the EAA board issued a declaration whereby, taking into account
the traditions in each country, the French system of preventive archaeology was
perfectly coherent. At the same time, the European Commission in Brussels
received complaints regarding the ‘state organisation’ of French archaeology – and
then rejected them (2 April 2003) on the grounds that it was the sovereign right
of each member state to set the organisation it saw it in the ield of culture. Thus,
for the member states of the European Union, there is absolutely no compulsion to
introduce commercial competition in archaeology.
In the irst years following the 2003 amendments, there was little competition to
be seen from commercial companies, who had to obtain a licence from the ministry of culture in order to operate. From 2007, however, this competition begun
to be increasingly felt, to the extent that it represents now something like a third
of archaeological excavations undertaken in the country. It should be stressed that
in France archaeological assessments or diagnostics prior to excavations can only
be carried out by public bodies, for the most part INRAP or the licensed services
of towns or departements (counties). The legislator sought here to avoid the risks,
observed in quite a few countries, of private companies, under pressure from their
commissioning developers, having so little luck at indings archaeological remains
at all. For the same reasons, private archaeological companies in France cannot be
directly linked to developers, even if some attempts are being made now to bypass
this rule. Of the twenty or so private companies now licensed to operate in France,
two are foreign (Swiss and English). At least one company, having applied highly
reduced costs, went into bankruptcy and raised the fate of the excavated inds and
related documentation (see annex II, in this volume; for some UK advice in this
matter).
The introduction of commercial competition in French archaeology has had a
number of effects, including several that were not anticipated. Excavation costs, to
begin with, have not actually seen any signiicant reduction – which at least shows
to the developers that the rates practiced by INRAP were in no way excessive.
Together with that, the defects of the system are becoming apparent. For example,
there are known cases of private companies which, having won their contract by
proposing lower prices, went to the developer to renegotiate and increase the price
on the pretext that the evaluation did not fully reveal the extent and complexity
of the area to be excavated. In other cases, some private companies simply ceased
excavating as soon as the limit of their revenues was reached, while others applied
far more summary (and cheaper) methods than initially commissioned. The reactions of the French ministry of culture have been variable. By law, its services are
responsible, in each region, for prescribing excavations, for issuing permits to
the operators, and for controlling the quality of their work. In some cases, the
regional services welcomed and even encouraged the arrival of private companies,
which made it possible for them to increase the number of participants and retain
power and importance. As well, their level of scientiic exigency towards private
companies is often reduced, in comparison with INRAP standards. A paradoxical situation was also observed where one state service unduly favoured a private
company at the expense of another state service, INRAP.
Another harmful consequence of this ideologically promoted commercialisation has undoubtedly been the fragmentation of the archaeological process.
Before then, the methodology for excavations and for the recording and analysis
of archaeological inds could be deined in a homogenous way by INRAP. With
the array of participants now in existence, it is possible to ind different parts of
17
The crisis – economic, ideological, and archaeological
the same archaeological sites excavated by different operators following different methodologies, making any coherent synthesis impossible. It is clear that this
system of commercial competition, however desirable it was to some for political
and ideological reasons, will have to be considerably reconsidered also in scientiic
terms as soon as circumstances allow.
5 Towards a coherent approach to European archaeology
In a recent issue of the journal World Archaeology, dedicated to ‘Debates in
World Archaeology’, Kristian Kristiansen wrote a paper entitled “Contract archaeology in Europe: an experiment in diversity” (Kristiansen 2009). Comparing the
different systems of preventive archaeology in operation, Kristiansen regrouped
them into two main categories – those of statist (or ‘socialist’) inspiration, and
those of ‘capitalist’ obedience – and concluded that the former offered the best
guarantees of scientiic quality and communication. With the crisis, it becomes all
the more timely for us European archaeologists to come and think together, especially within the EAA, on what could be the more relevant kinds of organisations
for European Archaeology. Decisions need not be taken of course in the immediate future. But we have to put on the table all the current problems, make them
explicit and debate them together.
The crisis shows us that, following twenty years of growing economic and
commercial deregulations, the ‘hidden hand’ of the market has somehow lost its
touch, and seems not to work, at least not in any simpliied form. Without the
massive state interventions of the states of the Western world, the economic situation would have been even worse. Closer to our concerns, there is ample scope to
reconsider the value of the ideas that cultural heritage might be just a merchandise,
and archaeology a commercial service to be provided.
More speciically to the discipline, recent research in methods and theories have
focussed on the conditions in which archaeological reasoning and hypotheses
– such as ‘post-processual’ or ‘critical’ theory – were being generated. However,
as archaeologists, historians and indeed social scientists, we need also to be critical and relexive regarding the concrete structures and institutions within which
archaeological research in conducted, concrete conditions which cannot be separated from the archaeological discipline as a whole.
To ind a source of optimism in the economic crisis, it can be expected that the
new programmes devised in France and in other parts of Europe to encourage the
economy will lead to large scale state investments in such publics works as roads,
railways or other infrastructures programs, which in turn will create more jobs
for preventive archaeology – and generate new knowledge about the past. Be it as
it may, the complex situation emerging from the global economic crisis was not
expected, and could well have serious and long lasting effects on archaeological
heritage management and scientiic research. Such bodies as the EAA can take a
leading role in the ensuing debates, and it is our collective responsibility as citizens
and as professional archaeologists to take part and to contribute.
References
Demoule J.-P., 2002, Rescue archaeology: the French
way, Public Archaeology, 2:170–7.
Demoule J.-P. & Ch. Landes (eds), 2009, La fabrique
de l’archéologie en France, Paris, La Découverte.
Kristiansen, K. 2009, Contract archaeology in Europe:
an experiment in diversity, World Archaeology, 41/4,
641-648.
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
3. The impact of the recession on archaeology
in the Republic of Ireland
James Eogan
Vice-Chairman, the Institute of
Archaeologists of Ireland
jeogan@nra.ie
1 Introduction
This paper provides a brief overview of the organisation and structure of
archaeology in the Republic of Ireland; it assesses the impact of the recession on
the practice of archaeology in Ireland and will attempt to consider the prospects
for the future. The Republic of Ireland is an interesting case study as the sustainability of the economic model that supported archaeological activity has been
challenged by the global banking crisis and a domestic economic downturn. This
has led to a collapse in the amount of archaeological work being commissioned
from private sector archaeological consultancies and a consequential steep rise in
unemployment among the archaeological profession in Ireland.
The paper is written in a personal capacity and should not be seen as an expression of the views of the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland or its members.
2 Organisation and structure
Archaeological services in the Republic of Ireland are provided by a state-supervised private sector. This model of organisation was effective and adaptable in the
face of the unprecedented economic growth experienced in the country in the era of
the so-called “Celtic Tiger”. The construction projects stimulated by this economic
growth led to the completion of thousands of excavation projects annually and the
employment of large numbers of archaeologists, particularly in the private sector.
The emergence of a private sector in Irish archaeology was not the result of an
explicit policy but was a response to the requirements of developers, initially public sector development agencies and later private sector developers, for archaeological advice and excavation services in the late nineteen-eighties. Its emergence was
facilitated by a general reluctance of state bodies or universities to get involved
in the direct provision of archaeological services to mitigate the archaeological
impact of proposed developments and the insistence by the relevant statutory
bodies of the application of the “polluter pays” principle. These actions associated
with the transposition of the European Union Environmental Impact Assessment
directive into Irish law in 1989 and the placing the national Sites and Monuments
Record on a statutory footing (as the Record of Monuments and Places) in 1994
created a market for archaeological services.
3 Scope of private sector activity
Archaeological services to the public and private sectors are generally provided
by commercial companies and sole traders. The services provided by these companies generally include archaeological assessment and evaluation, archaeological
excavation and post-excavation services. Assessment of the scope of commercial
19
20
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
archaeology in the Republic of Ireland is hampered by a lack of data and research.
Anecdotally the most signiicant aspect of the archaeological business in Ireland
is the provision of excavation services. Archaeological excavation can only be carried out with a permit granted by the Minister for Environment, Heritage & Local
Government in accordance with the provisions of the National Monuments Acts
(1930-2004). Summary reports on each excavation have to be published in the
annual Excavations Bulletin. Research suggests that more than 90% of the excavations carried out each year are in response to the requirements to comply with
development consents (Eogan 2008). As these excavations are generally carried
out by archaeologists operating in the private sector the Bulletin is a good proxy
for the health of the commercial archaeology in Ireland.
Fig. 1. Annual totals of
excavations reported in
the Excavations Bulletin
(red); annual totals of
archaeological excavation
permits issued by the Dept.
of Environment, Heritage
& Local Government
(green) [data for 2010 are a
projection based on the first
10 weeks of the year].
These data reveal (Fig. 1) that between 1995 and 2002 the numbers of archaeological excavations carried out grew by an average of 30% per annum, between
2003 and 2007 the numbers of excavations stabilised at a level above 1,500, with
annual luctuations in the order of +/- 15%. Data provided by the Department of
Environment, Heritage & Local Government show that the number of excavation
permits issued in 2008 was 37% less than in the previous year and that there was
a year-on-year reduction of 44% in 2009. In real terms the level of archaeological activity has reduced to levels last seen by the profession in the late 1990s.
Projections for the current year suggest that there might be slight increase in the
number of excavations carried out.
This growth in archaeological excavations impacted on employment levels in Irish archaeology. Research carried out as part of the “Discovering the
Archaeologists of Europe” project in 2007 has shown that commercial archaeological companies employed 974 staff in the Republic of Ireland (McDermott &
La Piscopia 2008, 20 ff.). Follow up surveys by the Institute of Archaeologists
of Ireland in 2008 and 2009 suggest that the reduction in excavation activity
has led to a consequential reduction in employment levels in the private sector
where employment fell by 80% in the two years following the collection of the
“Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe” data (Eogan & Sullivan 2009; Eoin
Sullivan pers. comm.).
It is dificult to make an assessment of the scale and scope of the private sector in Irish archaeology as, apart from employment surveys, no research has
The impact of the recession on archaeology in the Republic of Ireland
been undertaken. National Roads Authority data reveals that sixteen different
archaeological companies have won contracts to provide archaeological services
on national road schemes in the last 15 years. One area where data can be collated is in tender submission for public sector contracts where in accordance with
European Union procurement rules companies are required to provide information
on their turnover and staff numbers to demonstrate their competence to undertake
the contract being tendered for.
Data available to the author shows that between 1999 and 2006 the selfreported levels of employment in companies tendering for projects in the southeastern region rose from an average of 84 to 161. In the corresponding period
average annual turnover increased from €0.81 million to €6.94 million. At face
value these igures suggest steady growth in terms of employment and revenues.
However, they igures only tell part of the story as an examination of the employment statistics at individual company level show that over this period there were
large annual luctuations. Similarly, analysis of the self-reported turnover igures
show that companies experience large luctuations in the order of -40% to +200%
year-on-year. These igures suggest that for companies tendering to provide
archaeological services to mitigate the impact of major road construction projects,
the archaeological industry is a challenging one where on-going commercial health
and the ability to provide employment for archaeological professionals is dependant on winning at least one large contract on an annual basis.
4 Discussion
The Republic of Ireland is a small open economy. Over the past ifteen years
there was signiicant growth in investment by the public and private sectors.
Private sector investment was largely in property and was driven by low interest
rates, the availability of credit, a stable macro-economic environment, high levels
of employment and high levels of consumer spending. Public sector investment
was facilitated by booming tax receipts (mostly so-called transaction taxes) and
a structured approach to investment through seven-year National Development
Plans.
The global economic crisis has hit Ireland particularly hard because of the
speciic local conditions. For the archaeological profession the impact has been
compounded as since 2007 archaeological works have been completed on many
of the signiicant motorway projects; this coincided with the reduction in investment in private sector development projects due to the global economic downturn
and banking crisis. The collapse in tax revenues has meant that the public sector
has not been in a position to invest in other public projects that might require
archaeological services. The impact of the recession can be seen in the reduction
of about 66% in the number of archaeological excavations being carried out and
a drop of 80% in employment levels in the private sector. At least one established
archaeological services company is being wound up and a second company has
sought protection from their creditors in the courts.
The impact of the recession on the private sector in Irish archaeology has been
deep; however, the igures have to be seen in the context of the profession having
gone through a period of unprecedented growth and expansion over the previous ten years. This is, of course, cold comfort to those colleagues who have lost
their jobs or whose income has been substantially reduced. However, it should be
21
22
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
acknowledged that the “Celtic Tiger” years were good for archaeology in Ireland;
not only did it provide employment opportunities for professional archaeologists but it led directly to the generation of signiicant new data. Unlike much of
Western Europe up to the late twentieth century the Republic of Ireland had a
largely rural character, a low population density and an economy based for the
most part on the export of primary agricultural products, principally meat and
dairy products. The form of agriculture practised was low-intensity and did not
require large-scale mechanisation. Apart from the construction of canals and railways and some limited industrialisation, Ireland was not generally affected by the
nineteenth century industrial revolution. The last ifteen years witnessed the type
of urban, industrial and infrastructural developments that many other countries
went through in the middle of the twentieth century. However, in the case of the
Republic of Ireland this economic expansion took place in the context of a developed regulatory framework and an adaptable professional archaeological structure
that was able to respond to the scale of development to ensure that all signiicant
archaeological impacts were appropriately mitigated.
The challenges for the years ahead are manifold. Firstly, the profession must
lobby to ascertain that the legislative and administrative structures are in place
that will ensure that development in the future is subject to the same level of
archaeological assessment as took place before and during the boom; it would
be easy for some policy makers to argue that, in the changed economic circumstances, this level of archaeological assessment was a hindrance to future economic
development. The Minister for Environment, Heritage & Local Government has
received government approval to draft a new National Monuments Act that is
intended to provide a more eficient and streamlined legislative framework for the
protection of archaeological heritage in the twenty-irst century and to provide for
greater recognition and protection for archaeology (including landscapes) under
planning legislation. Historically the administration of archaeology in the Republic
of Ireland has been underfunded at central and local government level, and in the
current climate the likelihood of securing additional posts is low – nevertheless,
there may be scope to re-deploy some public sector staff to new areas of responsibility. A logical legislative framework and an eficient and responsive administration will ensure the optimum level of protection for the archaeological heritage
and will beneit the profession as a whole.
Secondly, the data generated through the compliance-driven excavations has to
be secured and made available for future study. The provision of secure long-term
storage for archaeological artefacts and archives has been a perennial problem.
The National Museum of Ireland has recently acquired a lease on an 18,000 m2
building which is being itted out as a Collections Resource Centre, the National
Monuments Service will sub-let part of the building for the storage of the “paper”
archives from excavations; therefore for the irst time there will be a single location containing archives from excavations.
Thirdly, the free exchange of data between the different sectors in the archaeological profession has to be maintained and fostered. Unlike some other countries
the degree of co-operation between the academic and commercial sectors in Irish
archaeology has been close; the academic sector has also taken a close interest in
seeking to develop the profession as a whole (University College Dublin 2006,
Royal Irish Academy 2007). This data generated from compliance-driven archaeology during the years of the “Celtic Tiger” has re-invigorated academic research
and has opened up many new avenues of investigations. Already a number of
23
The impact of the recession on archaeology in the Republic of Ireland
innovative projects have sought to harness the knowledge value of the lood of
data that has been produced over the last ifteen years, to integrate it with existing data sets and to revise existing narratives incorporating this data. Much of
this work has been enabled through funding provided by the Heritage Council
through its archaeological grants schemes and through the Irish National Strategic
Archaeological Research Programme (INSTAR) (http://www.heritagecouncil.
ie/archaeology/research-funds-grants/instar-web-archive/). This work is particularly important, as it demonstrates to policy makers and the public that the money
spent on archaeology in the context of development, yields data that can be
transformed into knowledge through analysis, which then enables us to reine our
understanding of how society developed on the island over the past ten millennia.
Discoveries made during the last decade and a half have been exhibited in
the National Museum of Ireland and local museums and this has heightened to
awareness and understanding of archaeology nationally and locally among the
general public; the National Roads Authority also has been particularly successful
at disseminating information at a local level. Funding for this sort of research and
dissemination can be particularly vulnerable in straightened economic times, and
while budgets to the Heritage Council have been cut over the past two years it has
been possible to maintain these programmes.
Undoubtedly the global economic crisis has had a signiicant impact on the
archaeological profession in Ireland. The challenge now is to ensure that the signiicant beneits that accrued in the previous period of growth are consolidated so
that when conditions improve we are in a position to provide the archaeological
services that society requires and to continue to contribute to the building of an
awareness of our shared national and European heritage.
Bibliography
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Martin Reid,
archaeologist, National Monuments
Service, Department of Environment,
Heritage and Local Government, for
providing me with figures relating to
the issuing of permits for excavation
in 2010.
Eogan, J., 2008, Archaeology and the “Celtic Tiger”.
Poster presented at WAC-6 (http://www.wac6.org/
livesite/posters/poster_files/WAC_154_Eogan.pdf).
University College Dublin, 2006, Archaeology 2020.
Repositioning Irish Archaeology in the Knowledge
Society. University College, Dublin.
Eogan, J., & Sullivan, E., 2009 Archaeology and
the demise of the Celtic Tiger. In The Archaeologist,
No. 72 (Summer 2009), 26–27.
Royal Irish Academy, 2007, Archaeology in Ireland:
A Vision for the Future. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.
McDermott, C. & La Piscopia, P., 2008. Discovering
the Archaeologists of Europe: Ireland. A Report to
the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland and the
Heritage Council. Institute of Archaeologists of
Ireland, Dublin.
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
4. United Kingdom archaeology in economic crisis
Kenneth Aitchison
Head of Projects and Professional
Development,
Institute for Archaeologists, UK
kenneth.aitchison@archaeologists.net
1 Introduction
Archaeological practice in the United Kingdom is essentially a private sector
activity, undertaken by commercial companies on behalf of private and public
developers. One direct consequence of the global economic situation has been a
downturn in the UK construction industry, which began in the summer of 2007 and
sharply accelerated in autumn 2008.This decline in construction work directly led to
job losses in archaeology.
Following a change of UK government in May 2010, economic policy for
dealing with the crisis has switched from the previously held Keynesian approach
which sought to reloat the economy through public investment to a set of policies
which aim to reduce the national budgetary deicit by cutting state spending. This
change in strategy is now directly impacting upon research funding and employment and skills.
2 The boom years and the link to construction
Following the publication of governmental guidance on the treatment of
archaeology within the spatial planning system in England in 1990 (PPG 16),
archaeology became a material consideration within the planning system. Put simply, this means that the presence or potential presence of archaeological remains
on a site where development was proposed would affect whether or not permission would be granted for that development.
It became very rapidly accepted that developers would fund investigations to
assess or evaluate sites to identify the extent, degree of preservation and quality
of archaeological sites to support their applications for planning permission, and
that if needed they would subsequently fund excavation and recording as either
25
26
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
a condition of or an agreement upon their permission to develop being granted.
Archaeology had become part of the sustainable development agenda – archaeological remains were recognised as an environmental resource, and if they were to
be impacted upon, the polluter would have to pay to mitigate against the damage
they were causing.
Within a few years, this system had been replicated in the other constituent
parts of the United Kingdom, and the archaeological sector grew at a rapid rate,
supported by a housing market that showed rising prices every year from 1992 to
2007. Over this time, housing represented approximately 65-75% of all new construction. In the ten years from 1997, economic growth was maintained not only
through the housing boom (and a credit boom that serviced this) but also through
large-scale investment in public services.
In 1997-98, approximately 4425 people were working in UK archaeology (in
all archaeological roles, not just in development-led ieldwork). By 2007-08, this
number had risen to 6865, an increase of 55% over ten years. At this time, two
in every three archaeologists worked in ield investigation and research roles, and
93% of all archaeological investigations were initiated through the spatial planning process.
3 The downturn hits contractors
In the summer of 2007, in the very week that the employment data for the UK
in 2007-08 was being collected through the “Discovering the Archaeologists of
Europe” project (see www.discovering-archaeologists.eu), the irst signs of the
oncoming economic crisis became apparent. The ‘credit crunch’ of 2007 meant
that August 2007 marked the peak of the housing boom, and the amount of work
being done by archaeology’s clients began to slowly decline.
In the autumn of 2008, the effects of the current global economic crisis suddenly and seriously impacted upon commercial archaeological practice in the
United Kingdom. Small- and medium-scale development was effectively halted
when the global economic crisis deepened severely to the accompaniment of
numerous bank bailouts, rescues and nationalisations.
The effects of September and October 2008 immediately led to hundreds of
archaeologists losing their jobs and several archaeological companies going out of
business.
Since then, the Institute for Archaeologists has been gathering data on the
effects of the crisis upon archaeological practice since the start of 2009, reviewing
labour market indicators and business conidence every quarter.
By March 2009, 650 jobs had been lost – the equivalent of 1 in every 6 ieldworkers’ jobs. This represented about 10% of all the jobs in the entire archaeological sector.
There was a certain level of recovery in the sector during the summer of 2009, but
by March 2010 the numbers in employment had returned to the low levels of one year
before and archaeological businesses remained uncertain about the future effects of the
economic situation. The situation is volatile, and business conidence is low.
Using average salaries and employment levels as indicators, it can be estimated
that approximately £148m (€179m) was being spent by developers in 2007-08. By
2009-10, this was likely to have dropped to around £130m (€157m).
United Kingdom archaeology in economic crisis
4 Heritage management, policies and legislation
The short-lived recovery in the number of archaeological jobs in the summer of
2009 was fuelled by capital investment by the state. A number of planned major
roads projects were brought forward as the government deliberately sought to
spend on infrastructure to boost the economy, but this was a temporary measure
which had ended even before the change of government in May 2010.
The government guidance on archaeology in the planning system in England,
PPG 16, which was in many ways the trigger for the growth of archaeological
practice during the 1990s and the irst decade of the 21st century was replaced in
March 2010 by Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment
(PPS 5). This document was not produced in response to the economic situation – it
had been in development for approximately eight years – and it will lead changes
in archaeological practice. It allows for a greater degree of selectivity in which sites
will be investigated, with emphasis being placed upon a site’s signiicance and with a
more proportionate level of information needing to be provided by the applicant for
planning permission before an application is decided.
PPS5 should have been accompanied by a new law on the historic environment,
but this was prevented by the economic crisis. The Heritage Protection Bill was
dropped from the government’s list of proposed legislation in December 2008 as
the scale of the economic problems overshadowed all other matters, and then it
did not ind its way on to the legislative agenda for the inal Parliament before the
May 2010 general election.
The Historic Environment (Amendment) Scotland Bill was introduced to the
Scottish Parliament on 5 May 2010, with the intention of harmonising and consolidating legislation in Scotland. This is not related to the economic crisis, but it has
to ensure that it does not bring additional cost implications for national or local
government.
The number of applications to study archaeology at universities in the UK
(which had previously been rising) fell from a peak in academic year 2006-07 until
2008-09, but then (in common with the total number of applicants for all subjects) rose signiicantly in 2009-10 and again in 2010-11, in response to the eco-
27
28
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
nomic climate as more people sought to enter higher education as an alternative to
the uncertain workplace. However, applications to study archaeology were much
lower than the aggregate increase for all subjects (the Universities and Colleges
Admissions Service identiies that overall applications to universities rose by 23%
for the 2010-11intake, but for archaeology by only 2%).
5 New government and cuts
The Conservative-led government that took ofice in the UK in May 2010
immediately sought to cut governmental spending in almost all areas. The irst direct
effect on archaeology and the historic environment has been in the annual budget of
English Heritage, the national agency for the historic environment in England, which
was cut by £4.8m (€5.8m) in June 2010, an immediate 3.6% reduction of the grantin-aid received from the state. The Government has already warned that this may be
cut further during this year, and future funding for this agency will be determined
following the Comprehensive Spending Review in September 2010.
This cut has led English Heritage to reassess current spending on research and
priorities, and this has meant that several training initiatives have been stopped.
The amount of money being granted by the state to universities has also been
severely curtailed. These cuts, which were irst announced late in 2009, can be
aggregated up to a total of £900m (€1,080m) across all universities by 2013, and
are expected to impact most heavily on staff numbers.
Similarly, the local government settlement through which local authorities
are funded will be revised from April 2011, and this will undoubtedly be greatly
reduced. This will have the effect of threatening archaeological advisers’ posts
within local government, which will then directly impact on the local authorities
abilities to manage development proposals which might affect archaeology.
The government is now also no longer in a position to fund as many infrastructure projects (and the associated archaeological work) as previously. The
Department for Transport’s budgets were cut by £683m (€822m) in May 2010,
cancelling or deferring three major roads projects and reducing the railway
network’s budget.
6 Conservation and public outreach
The economic crisis has had relatively little visible effect upon conservation and
public archaeological outreach in the UK so far, although there has been one very
high proile casualty of the current Government’s spending cuts – the funding for
the new Stonehenge Visitor Centre was withdrawn in June 2010.
7 Conclusions
The United Kingdom’s archaeological profession was the irst in Europe to fully
embrace the competitive, free-market model. This greater exposure to market
allowed the sector to grow larger than in any other European state before the crisis
and the crash, which then meant that more people were exposed to its effects than
in any other state.
United Kingdom archaeology in economic crisis
Because of the professional structure in the UK, it is in the area of professional
employment and skills that the effects of the economic crisis have been felt most
keenly, as this was a direct, primary consequence of archaeology’s clients reducing
spending.
The second wave of the crisis is now affecting archaeological practice outside
the commercial sphere – in universities, national and local government, as research
and development funding is cut. This has been compounded by political decisions
that are aggravating the immediate impact of the crisis, although this is done in the
hope that they will, over time, ameliorate the situation.
The archaeological profession in the UK is suffering in the present economic
climate. It has grown with the market and now has to shrink with the market,
but twenty years of experience of how to operate successful businesses means that
entrepreneurial attitudes and real business skills have become embedded within the
profession. These are the skills and attitudes that are being relied upon to maintain
archaeology’s position within the process of sustainable development.
29
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
5. The end of a golden age? The impending
effects of the economic collapse on
archaeology in higher education in
the United Kingdom
Anthony Sinclair
Subject Centre for History, Classics and
Archaeology, Higher Education Academy
School of Archaeology, Classics and
Egyptology, University of Liverpool
a.g.m.sinclair@liverpool.ac.uk
1 Introduction
Quite by chance, the most recent audits of the two archaeological sectors in
the United Kingdom – the professional, commercial or developer-funded, and
the academic – were conducted at the very moment when the economic crisis
begun to surface (with the ‘collapse’ of the Northern Rock bank in the autumn
of 2007). For the professional sector this survey was Institute for Archaeologists’
Archaeology Labour Market Intelligence (LMI) survey for 2007-8 (Aitchison and
Edwards 2008); for the academic sector it was RAE 2008, the sixth Research
Assessment Exercise undertaken by the four UK higher education funding councils. Both surveys paint a picture of Archaeology in 2007 in better health than ever
before. Indeed, such was the strength of the profession in these two surveys that it
is tempting to describe the last decade (roughly 1998-2007) as a golden period for
archaeology in the UK.
The economic collapse has already dramatically changed this picture of health
for the professional sector in the UK. In the academic sector, its effects have not
yet been directly felt, but it is possible that the collapse will instigate a deeper and
longer lasting set of changes than elsewhere, because they may fundamentally alter
the current drivers or incentives for higher education institutions (HEIs) and academics in departments of archaeology. These changes will occur over the next ten
years and grow out of a number of present tensions that are already identiiable.
These include the effects of rising tuition fees on students’ perception of the dificulty and value of higher education (HE), falling application numbers, a concern
with employability, increased competition for academic posts and the wages and
working conditions in the professional sector of archaeology.
Even though these tensions are of long standing, it will be the current economic
crisis and its direct impact on the future funding of HE that will instigate change.
Since the changes have not yet started it is only possible at this moment to outline
the factors that will cause change and the possible change scenarios that might
occur. In order to make sense of these, I shall set out the current situation of
archaeology in higher education, as well as the basic principles that organise and
fund this level of education in the UK. It is important to remember throughout
that HEIs in the UK are independently funded and managed organisations; they
are also intensely competitive one with another in the UK, and increasingly with
other HEIs internationally. The policies and actions they follow are driven by how
they can effectively increase their funds and proits, and enhance their reputation
and competitive edge.
31
32
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
2 Archaeology in UK higher education, 1997-2007
Between 1997 and 2007, there was a considerable degree of renewed economic
investment in the UK HE sector; archaeology, in common with many disciplines,
enjoyed a considerable period of growth. This led to an increase in the numbers
of academic archaeologists educated and employed; the numbers of students1, and
new departments were created to teach archaeology in universities. Assessments of
teaching and research quality completed in this decade reveal a record of excellence in both areas in the UK.
There is no oficial record of the number of staff by discipline in UK universities. The evidence, however, from the IfA’s LMI survey, the RAE 2008 returns, and
institutional websites (for departments not submitted to the RAE 2008), makes
it possible to say that there were more than 600 individuals employed for the
purpose of teaching and research in archaeology in UK Higher Education 20092.
Looking back over the previous decade, using the three IfA LMI surveys for 19978, 2002-3 and 2007-8 (Aitchison 1999, Aitchison & Edwards 2003, Aitchison &
Edwards 2008), and the institutional submissions to the UK’s Research Assessment
Exercise for 1996, 2001 and 2008 (RAE 2010a, 2010b, 2010c), we can observe
a steady rise of more than 35% in total staff numbers engaged in teaching and
research (Fig. 1). The age spread and gender balance have remained roughly constant over this period with the average academic archaeologist still being male and
in his forties (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1. Numbers of
academic staff in
archaeology in UK Higher
Education.
1996
RAE staff (Cat A).
IfA staff (estimated)
1997-98
2001
2002-03
2007-08
2008
0
Fig. 2. The age profile
for UK archaeologists in
Higher Education.
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
1997-98
2002-03
60+
2007-08
800
33
The end of a golden age? The impending effects of the economic collapse on archaeology in higher education in the United Kingdom
These 600 and more academic staff are spread amongst approximately 30
institutions offering places where students can take a degree in archaeology as a
single honours subject. Additionally there are a few other institutions in which
students might study Archaeology as a signiicant component of either joint-honours degree programmes or degrees in related subjects such as Classics. In contrast
to many other countries in Europe, archaeology departments in the UK are large
in size (Collis pers. comm. June 2006 Conference on Teaching and Learning in
Archaeology 2006, Liverpool.). Although a small number of archaeology departments have fewer than 10 full-time staff, many have more than 15 full-time teaching/research staff, with the largest having 64 full time staff (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Staff & research
active staff numbers in UK
departments (RAE 2008).
70
60
Total Staff Numbers
Research Active Staff FTE
50
40
30
20
10
Cambridge
University College
London
Oxford
Leicester
Durham
Sheffield
York
Glasgow
Cardiff
Southampton
Liverpool
Bradford
Reading
Birmingham
Nottingham
Exeter
Bristol
Queen’s University
Belfast
University of Wales,
Lampeter
Manchester
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Bournemouth
UHI Millennium INstitute
Winchester
Central Lancashire
Nottingham Trent
0
From outside the HE sector, the activities of teaching and research seem
inseparably interwoven. Indeed many in the university sector would argue that
what constitutes the ‘higher’ element of HE is the fact that students learn about
their disciplines in an active research environment and from teachers who are
themselves undertaking basic research. This is often phrased as ‘research-led
teaching’. Be that as it may however, a signiicant feature of the UK HE system is
a separation between research and teaching: as activities with different processes
of funding and assessment of performance. And just as inance and assessment
largely determine the student’s experience and her actions in HE, so do the same
factors shape and drive the perceptions and activities of individual academics and
institutions.
3 The funding and assessment of teaching in higher education
The money that institutions receive for teaching is determined nationally. This
comprises a sum of money paid by government (via the national funding councils)
for each student as well as tuition fees paid by students themselves. At a national
level, the number of HE student places that can be funded is set by government,
and institutions must agree on the number of students that they will teach with the
funding councils. Within institutions, there are annual student number targets set
34
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
per discipline area. In the period from the mid 1990s up to 2007, there was a drive
to increase student numbers in HE, and humanities and arts departments were
able to increase their student numbers signiicantly, with subsequent employment
opportunities available to them in an enlarging service economy3.
The money from the funding councils is allocated according to the costs of
teaching a full-time student following a speciic discipline for their degree. The
disciplines are grouped into funding bands according to the form of teaching
involved. In England and Wales the highest sum is allocated to the band which
groups the medical sciences. This is followed by the sciences and engineering, then
the laboratory/ieldwork-based social sciences (including geography and archaeology) and inally the library-based humanities and arts (including history, english,
classics). In Scotland, however, archaeology is in the lowest band, and students are
funded at the same level as english, history and other humanities.
Additionally, in the UK, students have contributed inancially to their HE for
more than ten years. Between 1998 and 2006, students were required to pay an
annual tuition fee of up to £1250 (means-tested against parental income). In 2006
this was changed into a variable but capped fee, with the exact amount set by individual HEIs for each of their degree programmes4 up to an upper limit of £3,225
per year (2009-10)5. With very rare exception, however, all universities now charge
all students the same, uppermost fee. In practical terms, students take out student loans to pay for their tuition fees, that are offered to students by the Student
Loans Company - a public-sector organisation6. The money to fund these loans is
provided up front by the government; graduates repay these loans at reduced levels
of interest once they are earning more than £15,000 per annum. Any outstanding
loan repayments are (to be) cancelled after 25 years.
For HEIs, teaching income is largely capped at a national level. There is little
opportunity to increase this income and the only ‘penalty’ for HEIs is when they
accept more students than the places they have been funded to provide. The only
other route to increase teaching income is to attract foreign students for whom
student places are not capped. HEIs are, therefore, keen to attract such students7,
and seek to improve their reputation (largely in terms of their research reputation) on the one hand, and, recently, to develop links with foreign universities
that might lead to a steady stream of foreign students coming to the UK ‘mother’
institution later on in their degree.
Between 1991 and 2001, teaching in UK universities was assessed through an
exhaustive performance review organised on a subject by subject basis with every
department visited and assessed by independent, discipline-speciic inspectors. For
archaeology (assessed between 1999 and 2001), the overwhelming majority of
departments were judged to be ‘excellent’ in their teaching. The considerable level
of resource invested in preparation for these national subject performance reviews
led to a modiication of the process so that teaching reviews are now conducted
periodically within universities in a ‘light touch’ manner, though with some external
contribution. In the UK, therefore, funding for teaching is also not directly affected
(either up or down) by the assessment of teaching quality. It is assumed that this will
be achieved in an HE market place through the (non-)application of students to particular HEIs and degree programmes. Currently, however, the number of applicants
for student places is greater than the number of funded places available.
Finally, the UK has also beneited from the creation of a series of subjectfocussed teaching support centres (originally called the Learning and Teaching
The end of a golden age? The impending effects of the economic collapse on archaeology in higher education in the United Kingdom
Support Network) that are part of the Higher Education Academy. Funding comes
from the national higher education funding councils, and, to a small extent, from
institutional subscriptions. The Subject Centres work to enhance teaching at a
disciplinary level by recognising that individual academics more often than not
see themselves as members of a discipline, not as teachers in higher education
per se; academics are more likely to engage with individual discipline specialists
when sharing and developing best teaching practice rather than with education
specialists. The Subject Centres organise conferences and workshops on teaching issues, they produce publications on themes such as the enhancement of
employability skills and approaches to assessment; they also fund pedagogical
research. Archaeology is supported by the Subject Centre for History, Classics
and Archaeology (www.heacademy.ac.uk/hca). The Subject Centres appear to be
unique to the UK.
4 The funding and assessment of research
It is unquestionably research that has had the greatest impact on those universities where archaeology is taught. In contrast to their teaching income, however,
individual HEIs can signiicantly increase their income that derives from research,
through the receipt of individual research grants (from the UK research councils)
awarded to individual academics and research teams, and just as importantly on
the basis of the outcomes of the most recent research assessment. These factors are
ones that university leaders feel that they can directly inluence; they have, therefore,
introduced detailed processes to support (and monitor) research grant bids and
research assessment outputs and submissions at departmental and individual level.
Departments of archaeology (along with Classics and Ancient History) are usually
located in the ‘traditional universities’ (institutions that were recognised by charter
before 1992). These universities now largely deined themselves as research-intensive
institutions; their research ratings are often advertised as an indicator of institutional
quality to potential students, especially those from abroad.
Research grants are highly sought after by HEIs, since they now pay not only
the direct expenses for undertaking research, but also the full costs of staff time
when working on the research projects, and the indirect costs of supporting a project of research within the HEI (these include running costs for rooms and equipment, the costs for the provision of central services to researchers, etc). They are
fully economically costed. Within the humanities and social sciences, the receipt of
a research grant can now bring in large sums of money (£200k - £500k), but since
the research councils for this area have the lowest level of funding, the success rate
for research grant applications is very low. In the humanities and social sciences,
therefore, success in the assessment of research quality through the publication of
high-quality research outputs is all the more important.
Archaeology departments have been remarkably successful in the Research
Assessment Exercises. Until the 2008 review the published research rating given
during the RAE was at a department level as a whole. From RAE 2008, however,
the research assessment rating was extended down to individual outputs and,
therefore, individuals. In the last exercise, RAE 2008, more than £70 million
pounds was raised by departments as income for archaeological research (between
2001 and 2008), and of the publications submitted, more than 50% of these at
every institution were assessed as being either ‘world-leading’, ‘internationally
35
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
excellent’ or ‘internationally-recognised’ in their quality (Fig. 4). Moreover, during
this same period, postgraduate research student numbers have increased enormously (Fig. 5), with 745 students completing their doctorate, and another 240
students completing a research masters (MPhil, MRes) between 2001 and 2008.
Fig. 4. Research quality for
UK departmental outputs
(RAE 2008).
World-leading
Internationally-Excellent
Internationally-Recognised
Nationally Recognised
120
100
80
60
40
20
University College
London
Cambridge
Oxford
Leicester
Durham
Sheffield
York
Glasgow
Cardiff
Southampton
Liverpool
Bradford
Reading
Birmingham
Nottingham
Exeter
Bristol
Queen’s University
Belfast
Manchester
Full-time PG
1000
Part-time PG
800
600
400
200
20
08
-9
20
07
-8
20
06
-7
20
05
-6
20
04
-5
20
03
-4
20
02
-3
20
01
-2
20
00
-1
19
99
-20
00
19
98
-9
0
19
97
-8
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
University of Wales,
Lampeter
1200
19
96
-7
Fig. 5. Number of
postgraduate students in
archaeology.
Bournemouth
UHI Millennium Institute
Winchester
Central Lancashire
0
Nottingham Trent
36
Archaeology departments in the UK, therefore, have blossomed in this research
assessment driven environment, and they have expanded and modelled themselves
over the course of twenty years as units for whom success in the next RAE has
been the dominant driver. Success, at a departmental level, in this environment
requires the production of research outputs that can be recognised as being of
world-leading or international quality, ideally paid for through research grants
received from recognised research councils or funding bodies. These outputs take
the form of peer-reviewed publications that might be articles in high-impact journals, or monographs (not teaching texts); between 1990 and 2008, archaeological
peer-reviewed journals increased in number, and doubled in output to meet this
publication need (Sinclair 2009). For individuals to get employment in academia,
The end of a golden age? The impending effects of the economic collapse on archaeology in higher education in the United Kingdom
they must demonstrate proof of present and future research quality (as measured
in publications and grant income), and competition for such positions is now
extraordinarily high8. In the last audit, RAE 2008, almost all full-time academic
staff (in archaeology) were classiied as research active for RAE assessment
(Fig. 3). Once in post, individual success (if measured by promotion) is usually
perceived as resulting from the quality and quantity of one’s research outputs,
and prior to the last two RAEs, there has been a thriving ‘transfer market’ (and
promotions to assist retention) between institutions for individuals perceived to be
valuable RAE assets.
The drivers related to research rather than teaching, therefore, are by far the
strongest in the vast majority of universities with departments of archaeology.
They directly affect practice at a departmental level, govern success in the acquisition of academic posts, and, signiicantly, they are also perceived to affect directly
the promotion of individual within institutions. Teaching is undertaken, and often
delivered well, but it is research that drives change. As a result, academic archaeology has followed a speciic trajectory in the last ifteen years, that is quite different to that followed by professional, developer-funded archaeology; and this has
led to a wide gulf separating these two different forms of practice. Much, if not
most, of the archaeological ieldwork and publication that results from developer-funded archaeology would not be recognised (within an RAE), as “research
of world or international quality”, the standard to which all RAE publications
aim9; and archaeologists in higher education have become progressively removed
from this developer-funded work, and knowledge of its indings10. Moreover,
archaeological ieldwork projects run by academic archaeologists, and funded as
research projects, are driven by their RAE submittable, potential written outputs
(usually derived from extensive post-excavation analysis and interpretation), with
the result that the ield skills of academic archaeologists are also not the same as
those of employed in developer-funded archaeology. In such different worlds, there
is consequently little opportunity for individuals to move between the academic
and professional employment sectors, especially at a senior level. The result is that
the vast majority of senior staff in either archaeological sector have little practical
knowledge of the driving factors and organisational structures that shape work
outside their own area of academia or professional ield archaeology.
5 The impact of the economic crisis on higher education
In the professional archaeological sector, the impact of the economic crisis
on employment and skills has been both immediate and readily apparent since
the beginning of 2008 (see Aitchison in this volume). These impacts can also be
related directly to the economic crisis itself: the effect of a signiicant reduction
in the level of development-related construction that generates most archaeological activity undertaken by private contractors. In higher education, the effects
of the crisis have been signiicantly less visible up to the middle of 201011. There
is also a much slower pace of change in educational (public sector) institutions
than in the private (professional) sector. This is due to the continuing intake of
students, and the (usually) long-term employment contracts for academic and
non-academic staff12 that makes it dificult to reduce staff numbers13, and the use
of public inance by the previous Labour government, to support the national
economy.
37
38
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Within academic archaeology, however, one clear exception can be seen in the
rapid effects of the crisis on university-based archaeological contracting units. Like
their counterparts in the commercial sector, these companies have had less work
during the crisis; unlike their private competitors, however, universities impose
high overheads on these units which makes them less competitive, whilst the inancial accounting systems in universities make it less easy for the income from one
project to support work related to another. Moreover, as noted above, the publications of these units do not make much impact within the RAE driven HE sector. In
the last two years the units at Shefield, and Manchester have been closed down in
their host institutions14; others are under close scrutiny. The closures of these units
will further widen the gulf of knowledge between institutions and the professional
archaeological sector. It is possible, however, that archaeological contract work
may survive in the universities to the extent that it can take the form of a specialist post-excavation service that may lead to research assessable outputs, or in the
form of ‘consultancy’, especially for foreign governments, where the international
expertise of UK-based academics may help.
The next casualty of the economic crisis in academic archaeology is likely
to be the Subject Centre for History, Classics and Archaeology (along with
the other twenty three Subject Centres). The Higher Education Academy is
funded directly by the funding councils who have already stated that the Higher
Education Academy will see its level of funding reduced by at least 30% in the
next three years. The structure of the HEA must change and it is more than
likely that the Subject Centres will be reduced in number, with perhaps a range
of disciplines brought together within a unit dedicated to the Humanities and
Social Sciences.
Beyond this the picture is not yet clear. Writing in the spring of 2010, it is
evident that higher education sector is about to experience a huge reduction in the
level of public funding that it receives (from August 2010), caused by the need to
reduce the large public deicit developed during the crisis. It has been estimated
that this drop in inancial support from the public purse will be as much as 25%
over the next three years (Universities UK 2010a: 13). This reduction will affect
both the level of direct grant support to institutions to pay for teaching and
research, as well as the money available to the research councils available for
research grants. In addition to a reduction of funding level direct to higher education institutions and researchers, both government and institutions believe that
the current tuition fees system is unsustainable; for government the upfront costs
of providing the money for student loans are too high15, whilst institutions claim
that the current level of tuition fees needs to be raised so that, along with other
sources of income, universities can recover the full costs of tuition (Universities
UK 2010a:21). Moreover, the higher education budget will not be protected from
cuts, unlike that for earlier years education. Higher education is still a relatively
restricted form of education in the UK16, and both government and institutions
have consistently argued that the possession of a degree increases the average
lifetime earnings of graduates17. A university education is, therefore, to an individual’s own beneit, and should be paid for. In November 2009, an independent
review of higher education funding and student inance (the Browne Review) was
launched, to report by September 2010. It is widely assumed that this review will
recommend that tuition fees should be raised from their current level, and possibly
uncapped (allowing universities to charge any level of tuition fee that they feel the
market will allow). It is also assumed that the review will recommend changes to
The end of a golden age? The impending effects of the economic collapse on archaeology in higher education in the United Kingdom
the current student loans system, to reduce the costs of these loans to government.
This might mean that the tuition fee s loans would be paid back with market rates
of interest, or perhaps provided by private banks rather than the governmentbacked, Student Loans Company18.
With these changes in mind it is possible to make a number of predictions
about the actions and expectations of government, institutions and students based
on current practices in UK higher education. It seems likely that:
Government (via the funding councils and the research councils) will;
• reduce the HE budget,
• target some HE funding towards those subject areas that are of national importance for the provision of essential skills19,
• expect universities to ensure that all students graduate with the ‘necessary skills’
able to secure employment in graduate level jobs,
• expect universities to provide a high quality of student experience (measured by
student satisfaction rates in national surveys),
• target research funding for research to universities that are most successful as
research institutions, and to areas / projects that will most clearly beneit the
national economy.
Institutions will;
• look at their current costs and make cuts where necessary / possible,
• maximise their current research and teaching strengths in the STEM subjects and
support their future development,
• emphasise and attempt to enhance the quality of the student experience at their
own institution,
• become more eficient in teaching students, with greater use of e-learning, and
other more structured forms of self-directed learning by students,
• raise extra teaching-related income by reaching out to wider students catchments through the recruitment of foreign students (especially non-EU students)
on campus, by increasing the development of greater distance-learning provision
to recruit students who are based off campus, and by offering CPD provision to
employers,
• generate extra income through research outputs (largely in the form of intellectual property) and paid consultancy,
• recruit new staff / replacement staff more carefully to support their longer term
strategic aims deined by projected teaching need and research income generation.
Students will;
• have to pay more in tuition fees for their higher education,
• decide whether higher education is a worthwhile investment for their future,
based on absolute need (medical training for example), future employment
and predicted salary according to degree programme followed and institution
attended, degree of parental support, institutional support where available,
• expect a clear enhancement of their employment prospects after graduation, and
choose their degree course, and university with this in mind,
• have clear expectations about the quality of their student experience at
university,
• seek to reduce their overall costs (tuition fees, maintenance costs, and lost
income) where possible through paid work or residence at home.
39
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
At a local, institutional level the effects of the economic crisis upon individual
departments of archaeology are much more dificult to predict. Every university is
autonomous, and can adapt in its own way depending on its currently perceived
strengths and future prospects. There are however, a number of nationally identiiable trends in archaeology that can be identiied and these will determine the range
of the longer term effects of the crisis.
6 Possible trends ahead
A serious problem for archaeology is the declining number of applicants for
degree programmes. From the early 1990s until 2000, the number of applicants
for archaeology degree courses in archaeology increased markedly (Fig. 6). This
was almost certainly a result of both a national policy to increase student numbers
in higher education combined with an increased exposure to archaeology itself
caused by television programmes such as Time Team, and Meet the Ancestors.
From 2000 onwards, however, whilst institutions have been able to ill their places
in archaeology (or within the schools of faculties within which archaeology exists),
they have done so from a much smaller number of applicants (Fig. 7).
Fig. 6. The number of
male and female students
studying archaeology
(V4** degree codes).
5000
Female
Male
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
20
07
-8
20
08
-9
20
07
20
08
20
06
-7
20
05
-6
20
04
-5
20
03
-4
20
02
-3
20
01
-2
20
00
-1
19
99
-2
00
0
19
98
-9
1000
900
applications
acceptances
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
19
99
19
98
0
19
97
Fig. 7. Numbers of
applications and
acceptances to archaeology
degrees (V4** degree
codes).
19
97
-8
19
96
-7
0
19
96
40
The end of a golden age? The impending effects of the economic collapse on archaeology in higher education in the United Kingdom
The reasons for this decline are multiple. It seems likely that the (reduced)
television presence of archaeology no longer attracts the extra applicants it once
did. The relative absence of archaeology as a common subject of study pre-higher
education, means that students must be prepared to ‘make a leap of faith’ in
studying a subject they have no direct experience of, and therefore cannot predict
their potential degree level success / future employment potential. Finally, students,
parents, and careers advisors worry about future employability since they do not
clearly understand the knowledge and skills that are taught in archaeology in HE,
and when it is also clear from web sources that getting a job in archaeology is
both competitive, often poorly paid and usually short-term.
At the moment, there is demand for perhaps as many as 250,000 more university places than there is available funding20. Even though the number of university applicants and enrolments in England rose following the rise of tuition fees
in 2006 (Universities UK 2010b), this will surely change if there is a signiicant
increase in tuition fees. A recent survey, commissioned by the Sutton Trust, has
shown that 80% of 13-15 year old children state that they are likely to go to university; but, if tuition fees increase to £5,000 per annum this percentage drops to
67%, at £7,500 per annum it drops to 45%, and at £10,000 the igure is just 18%
(Sutton Trust / IPSOS MORI 2010). Student place capacity may then outnumber
potential student numbers, and the competition for students will become intense.
In addition to falling undergraduate student numbers, we should also expect to
see a signiicant reduction in postgraduate student numbers. In the past decade the
numbers of doctoral level students, the research income per staff member and the
research ratings of archaeology departments, by comparison with other departments in the arts and humanities, sheltered archaeology departments from the
effects of falling student numbers. At the moment archaeology departments are
producing very many more students with doctorates than can ind academic positions. Without the prospect of an academic career, there is much less likelihood
that students will want to continue onto doctoral level study.
With lower student numbers, and with a lower research grant income for
archaeology departments, it will be very dificult for them to maintain their current staff numbers. In the immediate future it is likely that we shall see the posts of
retiring staff left unilled, or ‘transferred’ to other disciplines with buoyant student
numbers; this will leave some specialist areas uncovered, requiring staff to teach
outside their current range. According to the most recent LMI survey approximately 7-8% of academic staff in archaeology were within 5 years of retirement in
2007 (Aitchison & Edwards 2008: Tables 34 & 35). If the reduction continues we
can expect redundancies to occur.
Would a reduction in the number of archaeology graduates be a problem?
Even though the professional-commercial and academic sectors have largely acted
independently of each other in the last twenty years, reduced student numbers and
staff in universities will have repercussions in the professional sector. In the UK, a
career in professional archaeology requires a university degree21, even though in
all previous labour market surveys, employers have commented that archaeology
graduates were inadequately trained for employment in professional archaeology
(usually lacking ield skills experience, specialist skills in areas such as desk-based
assessment, as well as a real understanding of the professional archaeological
sector). Moreover, many archaeologists leave professional ield archaeology after
just a few years to pursue other career paths. This is not a problem at the moment:
there are more archaeology graduates that posts and there is room for labour
41
42
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
movement. It has also been argued that the production of many more archaeology
graduates than the actual number of employment places has had a damaging effect
on the professional sector because of the surfeit of applicants for even the lowest
paid jobs (Aitchison 2004). A reduced archaeological graduate output, resulting in
a closer alignment between the number of archaeology graduates and places in the
labour market for professional employment would appear to be no bad thing.
Unfortunately this assumes that enough archaeology students will still seek a
career in archaeology – which might no longer be the case. In the UK, the perceived reputation of the university at which you study is important: the same
children interviewed for the Sutton Trust’s survey (2010) noted that they would
not necessarily choose the cheapest degree programmes, but evaluate the perceived
income advantage conferred by studying at different universities. At the moment,
the starting wage in archaeology is not as high as that available to new graduates
in many companies22. Yet, archaeology, as noted above, is largely taught in the
traditional universities commonly perceived by students, parents and many graduate recruiters to offer a better standard of education than the new (post-1992)
universities, and therefore a greater graduate potential. These older universities
will almost certainly charge the highest tuition fees. It is very possible that a career
in professional archaeology, following a degree at a traditional university, would
look remarkably unattractive without a signiicant increase in wages to help pay
off the debts incurred. This problem can only be exacerbated if the current loans
repayment system is changed as well. If the overall number of archaeology graduates decreases, private contractors may no longer be able to entice new graduates
into the profession.
Within the traditional, research-intensive universities, a new set of drivers developing on the current language of transferable skills and employability could soon
have greater inluence than those created by the old RAE process (at least within
disciplines in the humanities and social sciences), even if the research drivers will
almost certainly not be forgotten. The large majority of archaeology graduates in
the traditional universities (those without suficient parental inancial support to
pay for the majority of their higher education) will need to seek employment that
can both pay off the costs of their education as well as offer them a reasonable
standard of living. To ind these jobs these graduates will need to sell their transferable employability skills. Institutions will be keen to emphasise transferable
skills within the curriculum in order to meet the demands of government above
and students below and maintain their student income. The research-intensive
institutions that (currently) offer archaeology degrees will also need to show that
their graduates can ind employment in well-paid sectors. With a reduction in the
overall number of graduates in the UK, graduate employers will further target the
graduates from universities with a high quality reputation.
Archaeology graduates with well-taught numeracy and IT skills could become
quite attractive and sought after, and Departments of Archaeology will need to
revise their curricula accordingly to emphasise these skills so as to maintain student numbers.
If the above prediction is correct, departments of archaeology will need to
maintain and ideally increase undergraduate numbers on archaeology programmes
of study, whilst archaeological employers will need to develop new relations with
universities through which to train and develop the next generation of professional archaeologists. A number of possible ways in which this might occur can be
suggested.
The end of a golden age? The impending effects of the economic collapse on archaeology in higher education in the United Kingdom
Departments of Archaeology will need to;
1. properly highlight and develop the large range of transferable skills that they
believe are present in an archaeological education, as set out in the Qualiication
and Assessment Authority’s subject benchmark statement for Archaeology (QAA
2007). In particular the skills for IT, data handling and numerical literacy, and
teamworking, as well as business and customer awareness (which might be taught
through an understanding of professional archaeological practice) are all important transferable skills identiied as essential to graduate employability by the UK’s
Confederation of British Industry (CBI 2009) and which enable archaeology to
stand out from other humanities degrees.
2. to emphasise the scientiic side of their discipline, as a means by which young
people might be attracted into developing careers in science. This would allow a
‘rebranding’ of archaeology as an ‘applied science’.
3. (in the new universities) concentrate on teaching for professional archaeology, allowing the traditional universities to go their own way. This would build
some links between higher education and employment, and might be attractive to
students if the tuition fees in these universities were lower.
Archaeological Employers could;
4. increase signiicantly the wages of professional ield archaeologists to
make such posts attractive in the context of the new cost framework for higher
education.
5. recruit their labour force from other countries where the costs of an archaeological education will be less of an individual inancial burden
6. open up professional archaeological employment to those without a degree
in the subject. The NVQ in Archaeological Practice would then provide the framework for training and continuing professional development for these ‘apprentices’.
This, however, transfers the responsibility for archaeological training to other
providers not yet in existence, or to employers in the form of apprenticeships.
The current system of archaeological training could be
7. transformed to forge a new working relationship in which students would
balance work in contracting irms whilst at the same time studying for a degree in
archaeology. Some of the credit (assessment) for the degree would then be given
to work-based learning. Although there is already an NVQ in Archaeological
Practice, within which credit is already gained for work-based learning, a degree
from a traditional university is likely to be a more attractive qualiication for
such students since it would offer future employability skills beyond one sector of
employment. This would be of interest even to students not planning to continue
into professional archaeology since work experience itself enhances employability.
In sum, whatever happens, there can be little doubt that we are entering a very
signiicant period of change in which the economic crisis and the need to reduce
public spending might dramatically transform the relationship between commercial and academic archaeology for the coming generation.
43
44
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
References
Aitchison, K. 1999. Profiling the Profession:
A Survey of Archaeological Jobs in the UK.
York, London and Reading: Council for British
Archaeology, English Heritage and the Institute
of Field Archaeologists. (Available at: http://www.
archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/
prof/profiling.pdf)
Aitchison, K. 2004. Supply, demand and a failure
of understanding: addressing the culture clash
between archaeologists’ expectations for training
and employment in ‘academia’ versus ‘practice’.
World Archaeology 36(2):203-19.
DfBIS, 2009. Higher Ambitions: the future of
universities in a knowledge economy. London:
Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills. (Available at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/
higherambitions)
DIUS, 2009. Participation rates in higher
education: Academic Years 1999/2000 2007/2008 (Provisional). National Statistics First
Release SFR 02/2009 (31 March 2009). London:
Department for Innovation, Universities and
Skills. (Available at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/
DB/SFR/s000839/index.shtml).
Aitchison, K. & R. Edwards 2003. Archaeology
Labour Market Intelligence: Profiling the
Profession 2002/03. Bradford: Cultural Heritage
National Training Organisation / Institute of
Field Archaeologists (Available at: http://www.
archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/
prof/LMI_Report1.pdf)
QAA 2007. Subject benchmark statement for
Archaeology. Available at: http://www.qaa.
ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/honours/
default.asp
Aitchison, K. & R. Edwards 2008. Archaeology
Labour Market Intelligence: Profiling the
Profession 2007-8. Reading, Institute of Field
Archaeologists (Available at: http://www.
archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/
lmi%200708/Archaeology_LMI_report_colour.
pdf)
RAE 2010b. RAE 2001 Submissions. Available at:
http://www.rae.ac.uk/2001/submissions (consulted
17th May 2010)
CBI, 2009. Future Fit: preparing graduates for
the world of work. Available at: http://www.cbi.
org.uk/pdf/20090326-CBI-FutureFit-Preparinggraduates-for-the-world-of-work.pdf
RAE 2010a. 1996 Research Assessment Exercise.
Available at: http://www.rae.ac.uk/1996/index.
html (consulted 17th May 2010)
RAE 2010c. RAE 2008 Research Assessment
Exercise Submissions. Available at: http://www.
rae.ac.uk/2001/submissions/ (consulted 17th May
2010).
Sinclair, A. 2009. To stones and bones,
add genes and isotopes, life histories and
landscapes: acculumalating issues for the
teaching of Palaeolithic Archaeology. Research
in Archaeological Education 1(2). Available at:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/hca/archaeology/
RAEJournal
Sutton Trust / IPSOS MORI 2010. Young People
Omnibus 2010. (Available at: http://www.
suttontrust.com/reports/Sutton_Trust_2010_
YPO_report_FINAL.pdf)
Universities UK, 2007. The economic benefits
of a degree London: Universities UK / Price
WaterhouseCoopers (Available at:http://www.
universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Pages/
Publication-257.aspx)
Universities UK, 2010a. Submission to the
Independent Review of Higher Education
Funding and Student Finance - call for proposals
May 2010. London: Universities UK (Available
at: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/
Documents/BrowneReviewSecondSubmission.pdf)
Universities UK, 2010b. Variable tuition fees
in England: assessing their impact on students
and higher education institutions. A fourth
report. London: Universities UK. (Available at:
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/
Documents/VariableTuitionFees_FourthReport.
pdf).
Notes
can be found on the BBC website
(available at: http://news.bbc.
co.uk/1/hi/education/3013272.
stm. For official information
use the UK Governments own
DirectGov website (available
at: http://www.direct.gov.
uk/en/EducationAndLearning/
UniversityAndHigherEducation/
StudentFinance/index.htm)
6. Since 1990, students have also
had to pay the costs of their own
maintenance whilst in higher
education. Maintenance loans
are available to students from
the same student loans company
for this purpose, though payable
immediately after graduation and
with interest.
7. This is especially the case for
students coming from beyond the
European Union; the tuition fees for
these students are the highest.
8. In two recently advertised sets of
academic positions, the University
of Liverpool received more than
230 applicants for a one position
(though widely defined in research/
teaching remit), whilst the University
of Bournemouth received more than
140 applications for posts quite
tightly defined in teaching/research
areas. Many of these applicants
have years of research experience
and output after the completion of
their PhDs.
9. Only a very small number of staff
in archaeological field units based
in universities are entered into the
RAE.
10. This has also not been helped by
the fact that much of this developer
funded work has remained
unpublished as grey literature.
11. The one visible change to date
has been the removal of government
tuition fees support for students
studying degrees that are equivalent
of lower in level to a qualification
that they already hold. This has
effected support for students
retraining for a new career, and
two institutions in particular that
have particularly attracted this
type of student because of their
use of distance learning (the Open
University) or ‘after hours’ teaching
(Birkbeck College).
15. In a recent interview published
in the Guardian newspaper, the
minister for Higher Education,
Mr David Willets – the current
Minister of State for Universities
and Science – described the
current funding system for higher
education in the United Kingdom as
“unsustainable”, and “a burden on
the taxpayer that had to be tackled”.
(The Guardian, 9th June, 2010:
available at: http://www.guardian.
co.uk/education/2010/jun/09/davidwilletts-students-tuition-fees).
12. I do not include the numerous
fixed-term teaching-related
appointments often to facilitate
a period or research leave for
academic staff.
16. The most recently published
figures, for the academic year 20078, show an average participation
rate in Higher Education of 43% for
English students aged between 17
and 30: balanced at 38 %for males
and 49% for females (DIUS 2009).
13. Most universities have already
been offering ‘voluntary severance’
schemes to reduce the numbers of
their more highly paid staff, though
few staff from within the academic
community in archaeology seem to
have taken up this option.
14. Part of the old Manchester
University Field Archaeology Unit
is now based at the University of
Salford. See note 2 for more details
on these university-based units.
17. In 2007, a research report
commissioned by Universities UK
and completed by Price Waterhouse
Coopers estimated that a graduate
on average receives a premium
of £160,000 over a lifetime
(Universities UK 2007: 5). This
figure, however, varies significantly
according to the occupational area
that the graduate enters; it varies
from a premium of £340,000 for
graduates in Medicine and Dentistry,
to £51,549 for a graduate in the
Humanities to just £34,949 for a
graduate in the Arts. Significantly,
these figures do not take into
account any of the costs of higher
education, or any ‘lost’ earnings that
might have been accrued whilst a
student.
18. The idea of a graduate tax to
pay for HE is consistently rejected
because of the large immediate-term
costs of moving to such a system,
and the fact that it would introduce
an hypothecated tax.
19. Science, technology, engineering
and mathematics (usually called the
STEM subjects) have already been
identified as nationally important
skills areas deserving of enhanced
support. (DfBIS 2009: 12)
20. Professor David Green, the ViceChancellor of the University, has
given this estimate in an interview
with the BBC on 26th May, 2010.
(Report available at: http://news.
bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/10156398.
stm)
21. The most recent Labour Market
Intelligence Survey indicates that
of 141 individuals returned in their
survey who were both employed
in archaeology and below the
age of 30, all but two individuals
hold a university degree or higher
qualification (Aitchison & Edwards
2008: Table 42).
22. The average starting salary for
a graduate is £25,000 in the UK
(Association of Graduate Recruiters
– Winter Survey 2009. Cited in
Xpert HR online employment
intelligence. At: http://www.
xperthr.co.uk/blogs/employmentintelligence/2010/02/graduatestarting-salaries-to.html. Consulted
on 6th July 2010.), whilst the
average salary for all archaeologists
in the UK is £23,310 (Aitchison &
Edwards 2008: 13)
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
6. Commercial archaeology in Spain: its growth,
development, and the impact of the global
economic crisis
Eva Parga-Dans
The Heritage Laboratory
Spanish National Research Council
eva.parga-dans@iegps.csic.es
1 Introduction
This paper presents an overview of the impact of the global economic crisis on
the Spanish archaeological sector. This study is a part of a broader initiative to
analyse and systematise information on this sector, under a research theme entitled
“The Socioeconomics of Heritage” of the Heritage Laboratory, a department of
the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). In this context, we have been
developing an empirical study in the new market generated in the 1990s connected
with Spanish archaeological heritage management, with particular attention to the
emergence, structure and development of this market sector, examining the relationships between the actors and institutions involved in the generation of knowledge and innovation processes. To promote better knowledge of this sector, the
present study analyses and discusses the current situation of archaeology in Spain
and the effects of the global crisis. While we still lack suficient quantitative data
to fully identify the consequences of the crisis, we have developed a methodology
to identify or measure these effects.
2 Overview of the Spanish archaeological sector
The Spanish archaeological sector is composed of heterogeneous agents with
different interests and objectives that are classiied in three main ields: the legal
(or regulatory) ield, the academic ield and the commercial ield. These ields
involve different types of agents and organisations that are connected with the
processes of archaeological management, as can be seen in Fig. 1.
The legal (or regulatory) field is made up of government institutions that
have responsibilities regarding archaeological heritage at international, national,
regional and local levels. These institutions carry out three basic activities: regulation, heritage management and commissioning of archaeological services.
The academic field includes research bodies, universities and museums; these
institutions carry out activities linked to the conservation, production and transfer
of archaeological knowledge.
As for the commercial ield, business activities are carried out by organisations
offering archaeological services to clients, such as government institutions and the
construction sector
45
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Fig. 1. Main agents and
fields in the Spanish
archaeological sector.
ACADEMIC FIELD
Archaeological heritage
management
Administrative
departments
Demand and supply
Archaeological
services
COMMERCIAL FIELD
University
Museums
Research Institutes
LEGAL FIELD
46
3 General description of Spanish commercial archaeology
3.1 The emergence of a new activity
In the early 1980s a series of major historical events marked a turning point in
the understanding, protection and management of Spanish heritage in general, and
of archaeological heritage more speciically. The irst signiicant event was the publication of the Spanish Historical Heritage Law in 1985 to ensure the protection
and preservation of the country’s heritage. A series of requirements for the protection and management of heritage assets were subsequently developed to compensate for the absence of control mechanisms during the years of urban expansion
in the 1960s. The second major event was related to the transfer of competencies
from the central government to the regional governments between 1979 and 1983.
After the publication of the Spanish Constitution (1978), a model based on the
territorial structuring of seventeen regions was implemented, each with legislative
autonomy, executive powers and administration through elected representatives.
Each of the seventeen Spanish regions then developed their own approach for
managing and regulating the historical and archaeological heritage, and for ensuring the adequate conservation and correct use of these assets.
The implementation of these new requirements meant that the regional authorities had to regulate any activity liable to affect archaeological heritage. This of
course increased the workloads of these bodies, given their numerous other activities in terms of urban planning and public works developments. These regional
administrations also lacked the necessary human and inancial resources to assume
these new responsibilities. Until the publication of the Spanish Historical Heritage
Law (1985), archaeological works were conducted at the expense of the urban
development, without planning or control. Most interventions were carried out
with limited resources, relying on the goodwill of archaeologists linked in some
way with the universities. However, following the implementation of the Law and
the transfer of responsibilities for heritage matters to the regions, the demands led
to the creation of a sector based on archaeological services. The regions began to
outsource archaeological heritage management work to professionals in the ield,
Commercial archaeology in Spain: its growth, development, and the impact of the global economic crisis
while maintaining the role of monitoring and controlling this work. A new labour
market begun to emerge, connected with archaeological heritage management.
Based on the regional guidelines of cultural heritage laws and management, companies were structured and gradually gained experience, diversifying their services
and creating value, building a labour market in which cooperatives, businesses and
self-employed professionals settled into a new sector: commercial archaeology.
3.2 Defining commercial archaeology
It is dificult in Spain to deine the archaeological profession and the learning
process involved in this activity, given the absence of speciic university degrees in
archaeology. Actual archaeological operations are carried out by individuals, who
are referred to in professional terms as ‘archaeologists’. This deinition is considered
to refer to graduates in history who specialised in prehistory and archaeology, or to
individuals who are able to justify their skills in archaeology through professional
experience. Not all graduates in history and prehistory will be archaeologists, but to
count as an archaeologist it is necessary to have completed these studies. This deinition seems then to leave out those who have entered the archaeological profession
through their own learning process. Commercial archaeology is “an activity generated in relation to Archaeological Heritage, when a correct control of this heritage
calls for speciic actions to be carried out that are generally developed as part of a
contract, providing a speciic service and charging for it” (Criado Boada, 1996).
The services offered by archaeological companies, as requested by enterprises,
government agencies and private clients, include the following:
– Documentation services. These activities are related to recording, cataloguing and
producing inventories of cultural heritage and archaeological sites to be protected.
– Intervention services, involving a series of activities carried out on the
archaeological heritage with archaeological methodology. For example, in a building project that may affect archaeological resources, the archaeological company
has to estimate the consequences of these actions, and then take steps to control or
rectify the possible damage, always under the supervision of government agencies
(culture, urban and /or environment departments). Funding for these intervention
activities comes mostly from government agencies and from private companies,
whose development projects threaten to destroy or damage archaeological sites.
– Enhancement services or museum projects. These activities are designed to
render knowledge about the past accessible in different social contexts. Following
intervention work on the threatened archaeological heritage, these valorisation
activities should begin to give meaning to cultural resources, so as to penetrate the
market mechanism and generate social proitability (Criado Boada 1996a, 1996).
– Consultancy services, including advisory activities, training and procedures
related to archaeological assets that require ield expertise.
– Cultural diffusion services, involving activities connected with the knowledge
society and / or resources related to archaeological heritage management.
4 Designing a methodology for assessing the impact of the crisis on
Spanish commercial archaeology
Upon the above background, a methodology was devised for characterising the structure and size of the Spanish archaeological sector, and the impact of the crisis on it.
47
48
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
At the onset, it should be remembered that in Spain there are no oficial sources of
systematised data on the archaeological sector. This makes it dificult to carry out a scientiic study of this topic, as much time and resources are required in order to gather the
primary data. This dearth of information is also related to the lack of empirical studies
on this sector, and to the absence of a binding deinition of the archaeological profession.
The results presented in this paper can therefore only be an estimation.
To collect quantitative and qualitative data on the size, structure and development of the Spanish archaeological sector, I designed a survey-based methodology.
The empirical research phase was carried out in two sequential parts.
The irst part is based on qualitative assessments. Information was collected
from secondary sources and from exploratory interviews.
– Secondary sources, including archival material and publications on archaeological heritage management and on commercial archaeology. In addition to
Spanish sources, comparisons were made with other countries engaged in commercial archaeology (United States and United Kingdom).
– Exploratory interviews were carried out with various actors in the Spanish
archaeological sector, including commercial companies executives, university
professors, researchers from public research bodies (CSIC), heritage managers in
regional governments, and archaeological associations.
The second part is based on quantitative assessments. This included gathering
primary socioeconomic data through:
– The creation of a database of archaeological companies in Spain. A total
of 273 such companies were identiied. Generally speaking, it is estimated that
around 2,358 people were working for archaeology companies in Spain during
2008; this number includes 457 business owners and their 573 full-time contract
employees, and a further 1,328 employees with part-time contracts.
– The drafting of a questionnaire sent to all the 17 regional archaeological heritage departments in Spain, to collect information on the structure and the work of
these departments.
– An initial survey dedicated to archaeological companies in Spain is being carried out. Oficial letters have been sent to the companies included in the database,
to inform them of the project and the questionnaire. These companies were subsequently contacted by phone and informed that they could respond to the questionnaire through a webpage.
In order to estimate the impact of the crisis on archaeological activity, the following dimensions are considered to be important:
– Data on the volume of archaeological activities over the past few years (20062009) will make it possible to analyse the growth of archaeological activity during
this ‘critical’ period.
– Quantitative information on market sales and investments in the last few
years (2006-2009) in the private sector. This survey, undertaken through the questionnaire, was inished in November 2009. Information was obtained for 212 of
the 273 cases registered, representing a high level of response, at around 78%.
– Quantitative data on the evolution of the employment market in archaeology
during this period (2006-2009).
– Qualitative information on the effects of the crisis on commercial archaeology, including opinions, attitudes and behaviours.
As already indicated, the methodology presented here should make it possible,
despite the lack of formal and systematised data on the Spanish context, to estimate the effects of the crisis on the archaeological sector.
Commercial archaeology in Spain: its growth, development, and the impact of the global economic crisis
5 The impact of the crisis - some preliminary results
In presenting these initial trends regarding the effects of the crisis, it is important irst of all to review the structure and size of commercial archaeology.
The development of the Spanish archaeological sector, as we know, took off in
the early 1990s, after the Spanish Heritage Law (1985) had attributed competencies in archaeological management to the 17 regions, each with their own legislation. This ‘boom’ from the 1990s onwards can be seen in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Dates of creation of
archaeological companies
(by region).
Less than twenty years old, Spanish commercial archaeology is still an immature sector. The companies are small, usually with one owner or two partners and
one full-time employee, who contract part-time temporary personnel according to
demand. Until recently the archaeological services offered were quite generic, but
now specialisation has begun and the companies have diversiied their services. It
is noteworthy that the concentration of these 273 registered companies in Spain
differs considerably across the regions, as the following igure shows.
49
50
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Fig. 3. Number of
archaeological companies
by region, across Spain.
The regions of Andalusia, Catalonia and Madrid have considerably more
than 30 archaeological companies each, while Castile-León, the Community
of Valencia, Castile-La Mancha, Galicia and Aragón have between 30 and 20
companies. A last group of regions – Extremadura, Asturias, the Basque Country,
Murcia, Navarra, Cantabria, the Canary Islands, La Rioja and the Balearic Islands
– have less than 10 archaeological companies each.
Fig. 4. Spanish index
of production for the
construction, industrial and
service sectors (1989-2009).
Source: WonkaPistas based on Eurostat
and INE.
However, this steady growth in the Spanish commercial archaeology sector
ground to a halt in 2007, as a result of the global crisis. The rise in mortgage rates
in the United States in 2007 lead to serious adverse consequences for banks and
Commercial archaeology in Spain: its growth, development, and the impact of the global economic crisis
inancial markets around the globe. The crisis worsened dramatically and quickly
in 2008, and the Spanish economy proved to be particularly vulnerable in that its
growth over the last decade was based on a boom in the construction industry.
Fig. 4 shows that the construction sector experienced a high rate of growth
between 1994 and 2007, and in 2006 actually surpassing the levels of both the
industrial and the service sectors. Indeed, the Spanish economic growth of the last
decade owed much to the construction boom. According to the National Statistics
Institute, the relative importance of construction in Spain’s GDP rose from 11.7 %
in 1996 to 17.9 % in 2007. In terms of employment, the sector grew in the same
period from 9.3 % of the country’s total employment to 13 %. However, from
2007 onwards the construction sector began to collapse: given the large number
of people and companies working in this sector, the consequences for the Spanish
economy – and its labour market – were serious.
Fig. 5: Spanish
Unemployment Rate (20052008).
Source: National Statistics Institute.
While June 2007 saw the lowest level of unemployment in the Spanish democracy, the unemployment rate has since then risen sharply, reaching over 11% of the
active population. As an attempt to mitigate the catastrophic effects of the crisis, the
government introduced a funding program called “Plan E” in 2008. This strategy includes different courses of action aimed at developing the economic system
and employment. In the construction sector, the government are investing major
resources in the revitalisation of public works, to alleviate the effects of job losses.
For this reason the crisis in this sector is not as severe as could be expected, although
the prospects are not positive.
It is also important to keep in mind that the crisis and its effects show clear
regional differences. While the construction sector was the overall driving force
behind the Spanish economy until 2007, it was much more signiicant in some
regions than in others: consequently, the effects of crisis were hardest felt in the
regions where the construction sector was more important. This was the case in the
Mediterranean regions (Catalonia, the Community of Valencia, Murcia), as well as
Andalusia, Madrid and Extremadura. The crisis was less felt in the regions of northern Spain – Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria and the Basque Country – which are less
directly dependent on construction, and where the relatively aged population created
less demand for new housing.
51
52
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Quite logically, the activities of the Spanish archaeological sector depend closely
on the constructing sector, and relect similarly the effects of the crisis. The main
activity of commercial archaeology is based on intervention services. When the
development projects of construction companies, of the government or or private
clients impact on the land in ways that could harm cultural heritage elements
that are protected by law, archaeological companies are contracted to assess the
viability of the action. The crisis is having therefore a strong effect on commercial
archaeology, especially in those regions with a large construction sector and which
have previously experienced an expansion in archaeological activities, such as
Catalonia, the Community of Valencia, Andalusia, Madrid and Extremadura. In
regions such as Galicia and the Basque Country, where the archaeological sector
had been less developed, the effects of the crisis are less marked.
The following igure shows the volume of archaeological activity by region,
using data provided by the regional heritage departments of Galicia, the Basque
Country, the Community of Valencia, Andalusia, Madrid, Catalonia and
Extremadura. Some information is still missing, but the situation of the sector is
quite perceptible. Basically, the archaeological market grew steadily from 1990
until 2006-2007, but has since stagnated or declined, due to the effects of the
economic crisis.
Fig. 6. Volume of
archaeological activity.
Source: Own elaboration (data
provided by regional heritage
departments)
– From 2001 to 2006 the volume of archaeological activities grew steadily
in the region of Catalonia, especially after 2003, and by 2006 it had surpassed
2500 actions. We have no quantitative data on the current situation, but the
qualitative information we have obtained indicates a decrease in activity due to
the crisis.
– Also The Community of Valencia experienced a period of growth from 2001
to 2007, rising steeply in 2005, and surpassing 1500 actions in 2007. In 2008 this
trend changed, and archaeological activity began to decrease.
– A large amount of archaeological activity is carried out in Andalusia, more
than 1000 actions per year. We only have data for the years 2007 to 2008, and it
would be interesting to have igures from before this period. This said, the igures
indicate that activity is decreasing.
– In the case of Galicia, archaeological activity has remained stable during the
period studied (2001-2008), with an increasing trend of around 700 actions per
year until the levelling observed in 2008.
– The Madrid region has experienced growth from 2002, reaching a peak of
800 actions in 2006. This has since decreased to 400 in 2009.
Commercial archaeology in Spain: its growth, development, and the impact of the global economic crisis
– In the case of the Basque Country, the available data for the years 2006 to
2008 shows a decline in the volume of archaeological activity. The Basque case is
however speciic, since the data that we analysed comes from the regional departments, whereas a large volume of activity in this region is carried out by the
provincial departments.
– Finally, data on Extremadura from 2005 to 2007 shows that archaeological
activity grew during this period, but we do not have any data for 2008.
Although the dynamics vary from region to region, the trend in archaeological
activities appears to have changed in 2008. After a period of intense growth in the
case of the Community of Valencia, and a period of moderate growth in Galicia,
the volume of archaeological activity in these regions began to decrease in 2008.
The downturn began earlier in the case of Madrid, as in the Basque Country. For
Catalonia and Extremadura we do not have enough data at present to account for
the situation. I am currently gathering information, both qualitative and quantitative, in order to identify and characterise temporal trends in archaeological activities for the whole of Spain.
6 Conclusions
While these results are of course still preliminary, we can see that the global
economic crisis is affecting archaeological activity in Spain. Following years of
steady growth that culminated in 2006 or 2007, a change of tide begun to be felt.
From then on a downturn began, with a reduction of archaeological activities
more pronounced in some cases and in some regions that in others. More information will soon be collected to complete the series. We will also need to seek and
analyse (as yet unavailable) data on the impacts of the economic crisis on the two
other sectors of Spanish archaeology, the academic and the regulatory.
So far as the commercial archaeological sector is concerned, its dependence on
the construction sector was discussed. The downturn in that major sector of the
Spanish economy has led to considerable unemployment, but also to a dwindling
of demand for archaeological intervention services, with a reduction in activities that could pose a threat to cultural heritage and therefore also a reduction in
measures to evaluate and prevent these threats. Measures recently taken by the
government with regards to construction and unemployment have served to alleviate the impact of the crisis. This is also the case with archaeology, where much of
the demand for its services comes from public works. During 2008 the administration still worked with the budgets that had been approved in the middle of 2007,
before the crisis. It can be expected that the budgets for 2009 will show a more
pronounced reduction. In any case, the outlook is not positive, and we can expect
that the evolution of archaeological activity will be worsening in 2009 and 2010.
With regard to the current economic crisis, it seems that the majority of the
companies are feeling its effects through a reduced demand for services. 62.3% of
the companies state that they have detected a reduction in the demand for services
from the public sector, and 77.4% state that they have also noticed this in the
private sector. In general terms, 79.2% believe that the economic crisis is having a negative effect on the development of their companies. We therefore believe
that it is very important to establish strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of
the global crisis in the Spanish archaeological sector, especially the commercial
sector. For example, it could be of considerable interest to redirect archaeological
53
54
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
activity from the almost exclusive focus it currently has on corrective interventions
in the ield towards more widely deined prevention activities, such as assessment,
management, sustainable cultural tourism, territorial planning and so on. Such
a change in trend towards a real approach cultural resources management could
serve to reduce the profound dependence of Spanish archaeology on the construction sector, and give it some new orientations.
References
Aitchison K., 2009, After the ‘gold rush’: global
archaeology in 2009, World Archaeology 41(4);
659–671.
Aitchison K. & Edwards R., 2003, Archaeology
Labour Market Intelligence: Profiling the
Profession (2002/2003), Reading : Institute of Field
Archaeologists.
Aitchison K. & Edwards R., 2008, Archaeology
labour market intelligence: profiling the profession
(2007/08), Reading : Institute of Field Archaeologists.
Criado Boada F., 1996a, El futuro de la Arqueología ¿
la Arqueología del futuro?, Trabajos de Prehistoria
53 (1); 15-35.
Criado Boada F., 1996b, Hacia un modelo integrado
de investigación y gestión del Patrimonio Histórico: la
cadena interpretativa como propuesta, PH Boletín del
Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, 16: 73-78.
Fernández de Lucio I., Castro Martínez E., Conesa
Cegara F., Gutierrez Gracia A, 2000, Las relaciones
universidad-empresa: entre la transferencia de
resultados y el aprendizaje regional, Revista Espacios.
King T. F., 2005, Doing Archaeology. A cultural
resource management perspective, Walnut Creek, Left
Coast Press.
Roberts H., Ahlstrom R., Roth B. (eds) 2004, From
Campus to Corporation: The emergence of Contract
Archaeology in the Southwestern United States, The
SAA Press.
Vence Deza X., González López M., 2008, Regional
Concentration of the Knowledge-based Economy in
the EU: Towards a Renewed Oligocentric Model,
European Planning Studies, 16/4: 557 – 578.
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
7. A crisis with many faces. The impact of the
economic recession on Dutch archaeology
Monique H. van den Dries,
1 Introduction
Karen E. Waugh
& Corien Bakker
Monique H. van den Dries,
Faculty of Archaeology,
Leiden University, Netherlands
m.h.van.den.Dries@arch.leidenuniv.nl
Karen E. Waugh,
Vestigia B.V. Archeologie & Cultuurhistorie,
Amersfoort, Netherlands
k.waugh@vestigia.nl
Corien Bakker,
Dienst Stadsbeheer, The Hague,
Netherlands
c.bakker@dsb.denhaag.nl
In April 2008 the Netherlands oficially declared itself to be in economic recession. It was estimated that the Dutch economy would suffer a decline of at least
4% or even 5% over 2009. The building sector in particular was affected. The
inherent link between the construction industry and the archaeological sector
meant that the sector began to prepare itself for hard times in 2009 and beyond,
particularly where the amount of ieldwork and subsequent employment rates
were concerned. With this in mind, the aim of this paper is to provide a general
analysis of the effects of the economic crisis on the archaeological sector in 2009.
During its preparation members of the commercial employers association VOIA
were questioned as well as municipal archaeologists and developments in the number of ield projects and jobs were monitored. Results show that the so-called crisis
in Dutch archaeology had many faces, the situation being less straightforward
than irst predicted.
2 The economic situation
For 2009 the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) estimated
an economic decline of around 5% and a rise in the unemployment rate of 5%.1
Industry and the building sector were targeted as being particularly affected.2 The
building sector experienced a 40% drop in demand for homes and other property
development. Figures for June 2009 show hardly any jobs advertised within the
large building companies. A research agency study for the building industry estimated a total reduction of 15% in the building market, combined with the loss of
50,000 jobs in the sector over 2009 and 2010: a total of 1 in 10 jobs.3 The report
also predicted no signs of recovery before 2012.4
Taking actions similar to those in other countries, the Dutch government
launched a package of rescue measures totalling 6 billion euro in order to stimulate the economy. These measures were especially aimed at supporting the building
sector, by reviving shelved government-funded projects, by bringing new projects
forward in the planning process, and by protecting jobs within the sector as much
as possible.5 By means of a central government-funded ‘crisis budget’ of 395 million
for 2009 and 2010, municipalities, developers and builders have been encouraged
to continue with scheduled projects.6 In addition, municipal councils have agreed to
lower the price of building plots.
Despite these measures, the effects of the crisis have meant that the national
budget deicit continues to grow rapidly. For 2009 the deicit was estimated at
around 5% of the gross domestic product (GDP), around 33 billion euro, and for
2010 as high as 6.7% of the GDP.7 Additional measures have been introduced to
further reduce this deicit. For instance, national spending in 2010 will have to be
55
56
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
reduced by at least 12 billion euro. To achieve this, the government has launched a
list of (possible) measures, such as raising the pension age from 65 to 67, lowering
the income level for means-assisted mortgage repayments by the state, shortening
the duration of social insurance payments (such as inancial support for the unemployed), and raising the student fees for higher and academic education.8 These
measures, whilst aimed at lowering the budget deicit, are also expected to have a
negative inluence on economic growth, for instance a decline in consumer purchasing power. This would again lead to a negative economic knock-on effect on, leading
to the introduction of additional cost-reducing measures.
Another consequence of the recession from 2010 onwards will be that local and
regional authorities will be facing severe cuts in their budgets. Not only will less
money be provided by the national government, but at the same time their income
from selling of land and legal dues will fall as development projects have, at least
in the short-term, almost come to a halt.
3 The archaeological sector
As a consequence of large-scale changes in legislation and government policies
since 2001, archaeological heritage management in the Netherlands is now largely
paid for by developers and carried out by municipal councils and commercial
companies. In fact, well over 90% of all archaeological work is currently developer-funded (Waugh 2008, 24) and 42% of the archaeological community draws
more than 75% of its turnover from activities which are funded by developers
(Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Developer-funded
income in 2007-2008
(After Waugh 2008, table 7).
The majority of archaeological work, ieldwork in particular, is carried out
by the commercial sector (table 1).9 About 90% of all archaeological ieldwork
is carried out by private companies, self-employed archaeologists or by agency
personnel hired by municipal archaeology departments. The commercial sector
itself is made of over one hundred companies (Fig. 2). These include excavation
companies, archaeological consultancies, specialist services, and stafing agencies. A relative large number of archaeologists work for small companies or are
self-employed.
57
A crisis with many faces. The impact of the economic recession on Dutch archaeology
Table 1. The share of
mitigation projects
carried out by municipal
archaeologists and
companies in in 2008.
Source: Archis.10
Total
Share carried out by municipal
archaeological services* (%)
Share carried out by companies (%)
Desk based assessment
1163
17.2
74.9
Evaluation by coring
2570
1.9
96.5
Field walking survey
35
2.9
82.8
Trial trenches
509
11.2
80.6
Excavation
207
30.3
57.7
Watching brief
247
9.3
85.5
Total
4672
* This does not include projects carried out by regional services.
The introduction of developer-funded archaeology and the subsequent development of a commercial sector led to a rapid growth in work and employment, especially from 2002 onwards. In 2007/2008 a survey conducted by Vestigia, as part
of the European project “Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe”, estimated
a total of nearly 800 practising archaeologists in the Netherlands (Waugh 2009,
28).11 In another recent study, carried out by the national heritage agency, it is
estimated that over 600 jobs (based on full-time employment) are provided by the
commercial sector.12 This probably accounts for over 60% of the total number of
Dutch archaeologists. At the start of 2009, municipal archaeological departments
employed 247 people (Arts & Bakker 2009).
Fig. 2. The number of
companies active in
different areas of Dutch
archaeology.
Source: VOIA.
120
100
80
mid 2008
mid 2009
60
40
20
0
consultancy
evaluations and
excavation
specialists
(research)
technical
support
presentation
Total
Exact turnover igures for the Dutch archaeological market are not available.
We only know that the turnover of the municipal archaeologists amounted 24.3
million euro in 2009 (Arts & Bakker 2009). A survey by the VOiA (Vereniging
Ondernemers in Archeologie)13, the trade association for archaeological companies in the Netherlands, calculated that the commercial sector had an estimated
turnover of 34.4 million euro in 2004.14 For the archaeological sector as a whole
the turnover was estimated to be between 44 and 49 million euro for that year.15
Up until 2008, the number of projects that companies carried out increased with
74% (their share of the total number of projects increased only slightly from 83%
in 2004 to 87% in 2008). Consequently, it can be assumed that the turnover of
the commercial sector has grown, perhaps to around 50 million euro in 2008.16
The total amount of business may have grown to 70-80 million in 2008.
58
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
4 The situation in archaeology anno 2009
4.1 Archaeological companies
The igures above illustrate the close relationship between archaeology and
the development and building sector, and our reliance on developer-funding. It
is therefore arguably to be expected that when the building sector is hit by an
economic recession that serious negative effects will rapidly be felt throughout the
archaeological sector, for instance by a visible reduction in the number of ieldwork projects and secondly (as a direct consequence) a serious downturn in the
employment rate.
Half way through 2009, VOIA members were asked whether, and to what
extent, their own company was feeling the effects of the economic crisis.17 The
majority of members signalled no need for large scale redundancies and certainly
no recent dramatic downturn. A general feeling in the sector was that the beginning of the year had indeed been rather sluggish as far as new, and especially
large-scale, contracts were concerned. There were also indications that (ieldwork)
companies had begun to consolidate towards the end of 2008 and the beginning of
2009. This is also shown by the statistics, to which we will turn below (see Fig. 3).
By the beginning of 2009, however, many companies, especially the larger ones,
already had a full portfolio of work to reasonably see them through the coming
months.
Towards the summer and into the autumn, the general impression was that the
number of projects being tendered was still comparable to the previous couple of
years. There was certainly no feeling of ensuing crisis. And although the majority of
archaeological companies work on low proit margins with limited reserves, none of
the larger organisations were facing bankruptcy or had ceased operating. In fact, to
the contrary, there was a small growth in the number of new companies (see Fig. 2).
In addition, many of the smaller and one-person-companies, had been working so
hard due to high demand over the preceding couple of years that they had been able
to build up inancial reserves and were now relieved to see the situation changing from
“hyper” to “normal”.
Such positive signals were, however, only one part of the picture. There were
clearly some dificulties as well. A few companies, who were already experiencing
dificulties in keeping their employees working, were unable to renew temporary
contracts and had to let go of staff. Some one-person companies were also beginning to seriously consider giving up their self-employed status and returning to
more secure employment. Although supporting igures are lacking, it seems that
specialists in particular, whom are often self-employed, were having a hard time.
Such dificulties cannot be attributed exclusively to an economic crisis. Other
explanations include the implementation by some companies of an internal risk
management policy as a result of greater external competition and a continued
lack of success in tendering procedures. Such arguments can be supported by
the fact that only a few ieldwork companies seemed to experience dificulties at
this time whilst others still had a healthy workload and a full portfolio. Some
companies even considered not tendering for projects coming up in the following months due to the extent of prior obligations. The speciic dificulties experienced by specialists were also not new. Observations in 2008 had already noted
that 56% of all trial trench research projects and 30% of all excavation projects
did not include any specialist analyses (Van den Dries & Zoetbrood 2008, 47).
A crisis with many faces. The impact of the economic recession on Dutch archaeology
The demand for specialist expertise had already reduced by a total of 50% in all
excavation projects (including trial trenching).18 This drop is also relected in the
number of specialist analyses being published. The National Agency for Cultural
Heritage has also signalled that the number of specialist reports being produced
is declining compared to the growth in the number of archaeological ield reports
(Erfgoedbalans 2009, 108).
4.2 Municipal archaeology
As well as the commercial companies, all 44 municipal archaeologists, all of
which are members of the Convent van Gemeentelijk Archeologen19, were asked
to comment on their experiences. Whilst the majority of municipal archaeologists are in government employment and may not immediately loose their own
jobs when development projects are postponed, the local government archaeology
departments often employ staff on temporary contracts, and these would clearly
be put at risk by a fall-off in work.
Towards the summer almost 60% (26) of those approached had replied to the
survey. As with the companies, however, no uniform picture emerged from their
answers. About 42% (11) indicated that they had noticed some effects of the crisis
with development projects being postponed. Two replies reported considerable less
work than previously and that temporary contracts had not been renewed On the
other hand, three municipalities had been taking on more work than previously!
4.3 The national information system Archis
As a third step, input in the database of the national information system Archis
was monitored. All ield activities and inds are required to be registered and
documented in this system. It should therefore, in principle, be possible to use the
system to detect changes in trends.20 For example, for many years we saw a rise
in the number of ield projects (Fig. 4 and 5). Even 2008 still showed a growth of
10.8% in comparison with 2007. In 2009 this trend apparently clearly changed.
When we carried out a irst analysis of entries for the irst quarter of 2009, the
change was not that clear (see Fig. 3), but on repeating the analysis after the irst
half of the year (entries up to the irst of September), the number of archaeological
ield projects had actually declined by 16% in comparison with the same period
in 2008.21 At the conference of the European Association of Archaeologists, in
September 2009 in Riva del Garda, we therefore presented an expected decline for
2009 of at least 8%, taking into account – as has been the case in previous years
– that the market would improve slightly during the autumn.
During the second part of 2009, analysis of the entries in Archis indicated a
small revival, but with another decline towards the end of the year. The total
picture suggests a decrease in projects of 10.8% for 2009. This decrease does not,
however, count for all ieldwork projects. Fig. 4 and table 1 show that the number
of evaluations by corings (bore hole surveys in Fig. 4) have decreased the most. On
the basis of the average number of projects each month in the irst half of the year,
an overall decline of 12.1% was predicted. At the end of the year, however, the
situation was actually worse than predicted, a decline of 15%. In the Netherlands
it is customary procedure to begin new archaeological projects with an evaluation survey using corings. This method is used to localise and map potential sites
predicted on the basis of desk-based research. A decrease in the number of such
59
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
evaluations being carried out may arguably be a irst indication that fewer projects
are actually being started and that the economic crisis is beginning to have a negative effect on archaeological projects.
Fig. 3. Field projects carried
out throughout the year.
500
Source: Archis.
450
400
350
300
2006
250
2007
2008
200
2009
150
100
50
0
Ja
n
Fe
b
M
ar
Ap
r
M
ay
Ju
ne
Ju
ly
Au
g
Se
pt
O
ct
N
ov
D
ec
60
Fig. 4. Development of
various types of field
projects.
4000
Source: Archis.22
3500
3000
2003
2500
2004
2005
2006
2000
2007
2008
1500
1000
500
0
field walking
bore hole
survey
trial trenches
excavation
watching
brief
TOTAL
Interestingly, the situation regarding trial trenching is slightly different. In the
irst part of 2009 (until August) entries in Archis indicated a growth. On this
basis it was estimated that the year might show a total increase in trial trenching
projects of 6.5%. However, in the second part of the year this picture changed
rather rapidly and the growth was replaced by a decline of 2%. The fact that the
number of trial trenches did not at irst decline whilst the number of evaluations
by coring did, may indicate that there were still a considerable number of projects
“in stock” at the beginning of the year. As trial trenches are usually carried out as
the second phase of an evaluation process, the number of projects was probably
directly related to the evaluations already started in 2008 (or earlier). The decline
in trial trenching in the second half of the year was probably a direct result of the
fact that fewer evaluations by coring (i.e. new projects) were conducted in the irst
half of 2009. Support for this interpretation can be found when comparing the
61
A crisis with many faces. The impact of the economic recession on Dutch archaeology
ratios of projects carried out in 2008 and 2009, as they have hardly changed. In
2008 1 of 5 evaluations by coring led to further trial trenching, and in 2009 this
was still 1 of 4.4.
A more serious decline can be seen in the number of excavations. On the
basis of the irst half-year igures, it was predicted that the number of excavations would decline in 2009 by 6.7%. In fact, a decline of 7.2% was recorded.
Interestingly, the ratio has hardly changed. In 2009 1 of every 11.3 evaluations by
coring and 1 of every 2.4 trial trench projects resulted in an excavation, whereas
this was respectively 1:12 and 1:2.4 in 2008. Once again the results seem to indicate a reduction in the total number of new archaeological projects.
The inal process that we looked at, the watching briefs, initially also seemed
to predict a decline. On the basis of the average monthly numbers until August,
it was predicted that there would be a decline of 3.6% in the number of projects.
However, the opposite occurred and the end of 2009 showed an actual growth of
3%. This may seem unusual in times of recession, but the last few years have seen
a relatively large increase in the number of watching briefs (see Fig. 4) although,
in comparison with 2008 (with an increase of 8.7%) the speed of the growth has
started to slacken off. Nevertheless, in comparison to other procedures the number of watching briefs has increased. In 2008 1 in 10 evaluations by coring were
followed by a watching brief whilst in 2009 this increased to 1 in 8.6. This trend
cannot be linked to a general exponential growth in the total number of archaeological projects. Although no concrete evidence is available, it could be argued that
the igures relect an (increasing) choice for alternative, cheaper research methods
instead of (more expensive) excavations.
Table 2. Development of
field projects in 2009.23
Numbers in
2008
Numbers in first
part 2009
(up to and
including August)
Prognosis
for 2009
Numbers over the
whole of 2009
Increase/
decrease 2009
bore hole survey
2571
1506
- 12.1%
2231
- 15%
trial trenches
509
361
+ 6.5%
521
- 2%
excavation
208
129
- 6.7%
201
- 7.2%
watching brief
248
159
- 3.6%
260
+ 3%
3571
2180
- 8.4%
3272
- 10.8%
TOTAL
It must be stressed that the overall downturn of 10.8% is an average for the
whole country and that considerable differences occur if we look at the picture
on a regional level. For example, igures from the southern peripheral province
of Zeeland showed only a minor decrease of 3.1% in the number of ield projects
in the irst half of the year, from 223 projects in 2008 to 216 in 2009. Up in the
north, in the province of Groningen, a rise of 15.7% was recorded (from 338 to
391), whereas the central province of Utrecht showed a sharp decline of 50.1%
(from 879 to 438 projects). The province of Zuid-Holland also showed a reduction of 7.2% (from 869 to 806).
These igures are interesting as they appear to contradict the general economic
situation in each of the provinces. On an economic level, the central province of
Utrecht was affected the least by the recession, whilst the more peripheral provinces
were most affected.24 Within the limited scope of this article there is no opportunity
to analyse this phenomenon in more detail, we can only guess at the reasons why
archaeology appears to have bucked the general trend. This may well be explained
62
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
by the fact that the archaeological sector has experienced a delayed reaction to
the situation in the building sector. The gradual decline in archaeological projects
towards the end of the year may support this assumption. When taking the whole
of 2009 into account (see Fig. 5), the province of Zeeland showed the largest decline
(26.8%). The number of projects in the province of Groningen continued to rise,
although in total slightly less than in the irst part of the year (11%). In the province
of Utrecht 2009 showed a total decline of 13.7% (compared to 50.1% in the irst
half of the year) and in the province of Zuid-Holland, 5.6%.
It is dificult to explain these regional differences, particularly as the igures for
each region are based on different types of ieldwork. In the province of Zeeland,
for instance, only the number of trial trenching projects increased, whereas all other
types of ield projects showed a decline. In fact, this is the only one of the four
provinces that showed a growth in trial trenching projects (80%). In the province
of Groningen growth is due to an increased number of watching briefs and excavations. The provinces of Utrecht and Zuid-Holland both experience a slight decline in
all ield projects except for excavations (a growth of 15% and 9% respectively).
4.4 Duration of projects
Apart from fewer projects, another indication of the effect of an ongoing crisis
may be looked for in the duration of individual projects. An increase in a more rigorous, and academically selective approach to research designs has certainly lead
to a reassessment in strategy and resulted in less extensive, and therefore shorter,
and potentially cheaper, projects. An analysis of the duration of projects does
present a different picture (see Fig. 5) but to be honest, the differences between the
average duration of projects in 2008 and 2009 is so minimal that as a factor on its
own it should not be afforded too much signiicance.
Fig. 5. The growth and
decline in the number
of field projects (in
percentages) in four
provinces in 2009, and the
growth and decline of the
mean duration of these
projects.
15
10
5
0
-5
number of projects
mean duration
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
Utrecht
Z-Holland
Zeeland
Groningen
In the province of Zeeland, where the total number of projects decreased, the
average duration of a project showed a slight increase from 3.5 days in 2008 to
4 days in 2009. In the province of Groningen on the other hand, the opposite
occurs: a rise in the number of ield projects, but on average a shorter duration
from 8.2 days in 2008 to only 6 days in 2009. In the province of Utrecht the
A crisis with many faces. The impact of the economic recession on Dutch archaeology
igures remain fairly constant, 8 days in 2008 and 7.9 days in 2009. The province
of Zuid-Holland showed a small increase from an average of 3.7 days in 2008 and
4.5 days in 2009.
4.5 Alternative explanation
At the same time there might be another factor inluencing the recent observed
regional growth or decline in ieldwork. As a consequence of the implementation
of the new archaeological system and the new spatial planning act in 2007 and
2008, many provincial and local authorities are in the process of adapting their
policies and regulations on archaeological work within the planning process. The
provinces, who were until 2008 mainly responsible for enforcing surveys and
evaluations, are now delegating many of their planning responsibilities to local
councils. In 2009, many local councils had still not started, or were still in the
middle of making regulations for archaeology in the planning process. Stricter
regulations and new direct local council involvement on archaeology has a considerable inluence on the number of archaeological evaluations. For instance, in
situations where regulations on preventive archaeology are missing, the number of
watching briefs is bound to rise. On the other hand, the implementation of local
archaeological characterisation maps is expected to lead to an overall reduction of
the number of small-scale surveys and evaluations. Also, the regional adoption of
standard guidelines for applying coring or trial trenching in evaluations in particular situations might be more responsible for the rise or fall of these methods in
2009 in the above-mentioned provinces than economic factors.
4.6 Vacancies
A inal factor that was investigated in order to get an impression of the true
extent and character of any crisis in Dutch archaeology is the employment rate. A
dramatic fall in employment is certainly the case in the development and building sector and is also very evident within the archaeological sector in many other
European countries (see other contributions in this volume).
We questioned one of the larger archaeological employment agencies in the
Netherlands, Vriens Archeo BV, about its indings over the last year. The agency
had noticed a slight increase in the number of advertised vacancies in the irst
quarter of 2009 (10%) compared to the year before (see Fig. 6). This supports
the view of the companies who claimed still to have had a reasonable amount of
work in the irst months of 2009. The agency noticed a decrease in the number of
advertised vacancies in the second quarter of the year (21%, from 99 to 78). This
decrease was much greater than that experienced in previous years, and also backs
up the picture presented by some companies who had to lay off temporary staff
for the irst time in years.
This does not mean however that the unemployment rate among Dutch
archaeologists rose in this period. In fact the opposite proved to be the case. Since
there were still companies who were structurally understaffed when it came to
qualiied personnel, these employees that were laid off were mostly very quickly
re-employed elsewhere. The increase in the number of vacancies illed by Vriens
Archeo BV a this time supports this analysis. While the number of vacancies
decreased, the so-called success rate for candidates for vacancies increased from
82% in the irst quarter of 2008 to more than 95% in the irst quarter of 2009.25
63
64
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Fig. 6. Number of vacancies
advertised by employment
agency Vriens Archeo BV.
120
100
80
2008
2009
60
40
20
0
JanuaryMarch
April-June
July-August
Sept-Dec
In the second half of 2009 there was a sharp revival of 35% in the number of
vacancies (from 78 to 105), which was followed by a reduction of 16% again in
the last quarter of the year. This coincides with the temporary growth of the number of ield projects right after summer (see Fig. 3). The number of vacancies that
were subsequently illed remained at a high level, 92% in the last quarter of 2009.
This may indicate that there were enough people available to ill the posts, or that
there was a higher percentage of employees changing jobs.
4.7 Students
Another visible effect of the crisis can be considered. All universities and academies have seen an increase in student numbers (Fig. 7), 25% in total. A decline in
job opportunities, especially for young people, tends to lead to an increased uptake
of higher education opportunities, rather than running the risk of unemployment.
Departments of Archaeology have experienced a growth in student numbers. The
Faculty of Archaeology in Leiden, for instance, has 32% more new students in
2009 than in 2008. Across the country as a whole, there have been a total of over
100 irst year archaeology students registering at universities and over 50 in other
higher education institutions.
Fig. 7. Student numbers
Source: Leiden University.
160
140
120
100
80
2008
2009
60
40
20
0
Leiden
Groningen
Amsterdam
(UvA)
Amsterdam (VU)
Total
A crisis with many faces. The impact of the economic recession on Dutch archaeology
An increase in student numbers seems to be one of the few positive effects
of the crisis. This state of affairs may sadly only be temporary. The impending
increases in student fees may well lead to another decrease in student numbers.26
Rising student numbers may also turn out to be disadvantageous in the longer run
for the students concerned. If the number of jobs in archaeology starts to stabilise
again, then the moment will inevitably be reached when demand does not meet
the increased supply of new archaeologists. After many years of full employment
such a turn around in circumstances could well lead to the threat of unemployment again.27
5 Analysis
On the basis of the above igures it could be concluded that there are indications that the economic crisis is having negative inluence on the sector as a whole.
However, we must bear in mind that the total amount of work available over
2009 as a whole still nearly equals that of 2007, when we were very happy with
such statistics. It is, however, interesting to observe how a relatively positive situation can change rather rapidly and that a deep recession such as is being experienced at present has different effects on the various parts of the archaeological
heritage management process as well as on the various groups within the archaeological community. The fact that almost all evaluation work is carried out by
commercial companies, inevitably means that they are hit irst when new projects
are delayed or cancelled.
Despite the fact that the volume of ieldwork has decreased, this situation
has, as yet, had no dramatic consequences. To date there have been no recorded
bankruptcies in the archaeological sector, compared with other sectors that have
recorded a total of 8012 bankruptcies in 2009.28 The Netherlands, in this respect,
seems to be in an exceptional position, especially when compared to the dramatic
situation in other European countries in which archaeological heritage management is primarily a commercial activity (Aitchison 2009). There may be several
reasons for this difference. One reason may be found in the way the Dutch commercial sector operates. Because of the size of the country, most companies can
fairly easily operate across several regions or even across the whole country. In
addition, the majority of companies do not specialise in one type of activity, but
prefer to offer the entire range. Such companies have been able to remain lexible
and can adapt to changing circumstances. In fact, the regional diversity discussed
earlier in this article may eventually turn out to be beneicial for companies that
have learnt to diversify: it may be that fewer evaluations are being carried out
in one region, but a company may well be compensated for this by being able
to undertake other types of projects in another. A diversiication in activity base
seems to be the answer here.
The main reason that the archaeological market remains fairly stable in
the Netherlands, lies in the organisation of the heritage management system.
Archaeological research in the Netherlands is primarily conducted as preventive
archaeology which relies heavily on tenders and contracts from local authorities
(municipalities). These authorities are responsible for decisions on building and
development and therefore also decide on the premises for archaeological research.
Projects are predominantly funded with public money. According to the data in
Archis, only a small part (10-15%) of all ield projects in 2008 were commissioned
65
66
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
by the private sector, the vast majority were commissioned by government or semigovernment organisations. Current government-funded building projects such as
new motorways and road widening schemes, railways, terminals, coastal and river
defences, wind parks and power stations are providing a large number of archaeological projects. A decrease in private sector initiatives is being compensated by an
increase in public sector inanced projects.
The early stage of development of the new archaeology system in the
Netherlands is also an important factor for consideration. Many local governments in particular are only just starting to put the Valletta Convention into practice and are now in the middle of developing their own archaeological policy and
ensuring its implementation within their own organisation. Demand for municipal
and regional characterisation maps and inventories is still high (including so-called
second generation maps based on an evaluation of earlier products), and accounts
for a considerable number of contracts (mostly in the consultancy sector) and a
fairly constant number of vacancies for local archaeological oficers. Such work
also leads to an increase in the number of desk-based studies being carried out (see
Fig. 8). This necessary work on policy-based projects is providing compensation
for the decline in ieldwork projects and will most probably keep the sector as a
whole fairly busy for possibly at least another two years.
Because of the reasons given above, it is not expected that the situation will
deteriorate further in the short term. The archaeological sector may even proit
from the governmental measures undertaken to stimulate the property development. These new policy-development activities may partly compensate the decreasing demand for archaeological research. Furthermore, there are also indications
that since the end of 2009 the economic situation within the country has started to
improve.
Nonetheless a note of caution is important. There are several reasons why
we can expect that the worst is still to come. Firstly it is acknowledged that the
archaeological sector traditionally exhibits a delayed reaction to any changing
circumstances in the building and development sector. It is clear that, in 2009,
many companies are still working on long-term projects and contracts won in
2008 or even earlier. The big question is what will happen once these contracts
come to an end if they cannot be replaced with new ones. The decreased number
of evaluations by coring in 2009 may well lead to a further fall in the number of
trial trenching projects and full-scale excavations in 2010. Whilst at the moment it
may still be possible for one-person companies to have a little bit more spare time,
their inancial situation may quickly change, the longer this calm period lasts and
the longer they have to eat into their savings.
Secondly, the uncertainty of the economic situation as a whole must be considered. Although it seems that the recession may be coming to an end and that
the irst improvements have been signalled, the long-lasting effects of the crisis
are very dificult to predict. The long term prognosis could well suggest a further
ongoing crisis. For the development and building sector, for instance, a further
decline of 4.3% is expected in 2010.29 Long-term government policy will also continue to concentrate on spending cut-backs in an attempt to improve the budget
deicit. If the present phase of government-funded building projects is not replaced
by new private sector developments in the near future, then the archaeological sector will clearly begin to suffer. In addition, the expected cuts in the budgets of local
governments themselves might also lead to stagnation in the further development
67
A crisis with many faces. The impact of the economic recession on Dutch archaeology
and implementation of archaeological policies and even a less strict application of
rules and regulations in projects. In that case the “second dip” can put an extra
strain on the employment of local policy oficers and strengthen the call for fewer
archaeological interventions.
Fig. 8. Desk-based
assessments.
1400
Source: Archis.
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009*
6 Concluding remarks
Although the economic crisis has had a visible negative effect on the archaeological sector in the Netherlands, it has not, as yet, lead to severe situations such
as mass unemployment, as experienced in other European countries. For now we
count our blessings. The sector may even proit from the crisis. It is known that
Dutch archaeology has been growing rapidly for many years and, as a result, there
has been a period of little or even no unemployment for almost any archaeologists
wanting to work in the sector. Ironically this has meant that the infrastructure
has been rather overstrained: too many companies competing heavily for projects,
with unsustainable levels of price cutting as a result and a serious shortage of
well-qualiied personnel. The economic crisis may well help to steady and stabilise
the situation and may eventually allow the stronger companies that do survive to
charge more realistic rates that allow the build up of inancial reserves in order to
survive future market luctuations. Finally, It is worth recalling that a decline in
economic growth and development activities can also signiicantly reduce the pressures on, and threat to, the archaeological heritage in situ. The crisis, therefore,
has many faces.
Notes
1. CPB, June 2009 forecast, see
http://www.cpb.nl/eng/news/2009_
18.html (last accessed 19-01-2010).
2. CPB, Memorandum March 2009,
see http://www.cpb.nl/eng/pub/
cpbreeksen/memorandum/222/
memo222.pdf (last accessed 19-012010).
3. Ibidem.
4. Economisch Instituut
Bouwnijverheid, press release
April 2009, see http://www.eib.nl/
ShowPers.cfm?ID=358 (last accessed
19-01-2010).
5. http://www.regering.nl/
Onderwerpen/Arbeidsmarkt_en_
economie/Kredietcrisis (last accessed
19-01-2010).
6. http://www.regering.nl/Actueel/
Pers_en_nieuwsberichten/2009/
juni/12/Kabinet_stimuleert_
woningbouw (last accessed 19-012010).
7. CPB June 2009 forecast, see
http://www.cpb.nl/eng/news/2009_
18.html (last accessed 19-01-2010).
8. Rapport van de werkgroep
Gerritse, Mogelijkheden voor
ombuigingen, stabilisatie en
intensiveringen (February 2009), see
http://www.minaz.nl/dsc?c=getobj
ect&s=obj&objectid=118822 (last
accessed 19-01-2010).
9. These figures have been taken
from the national archaeological
information system Archis
(www.archis.nl).
10. These figures are all drawn
from the national archaeological
information system Archis
(www.archis.nl). Due to delayed
input within the system and
corrections these numbers may vary
slightly over time.
11. See www.discoveringarchaeologists.eu.
12. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel
Erfgoed, Erfgoedbalans 2009,
Archeologie, monumenten en
cultuurlandschap in Nederland,
p. 105.
68
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
13. www.voia.nl.
14. VOIA, 2006, Actuele
omzetcijfers voor de
archeologiebranche. See http://www.
voia.nl/files/Perspublicatie%20Bran
che%20onderzoek%20DEF.pdf (last
accessed 19-01-2010)
15. Ibid.
16. We have to take into account
that many are small coring projects
(one or two days) and that the
average price per project was much
lower than in former years.
17. This gives a fairly reliable
indication of the situation as at the
time, nearly all companies operating
in Dutch archaeology were members
of this organisation.
18. Specialist work refers here
mainly to archaeo-botanical,
archaeo-zoological and small finds
work. Other specialisations as for
instance physical geography and
pottery don’t show the same drop.
19. See www.gemeente-archeologen.
nl.
20. Care must, however, be taken
in making interpretations and in
forming conclusions. Some changes
in trends may, for instance, be
partly explained by changes in
reporting behaviour. Prior to 2006
not all activities were systematically
reported as this was not yet
obligatory. For subsequent years
the figures should be expected to be
fairly reliable. However, due to the
backlog in data entry in the system
small deviations in results may
occur when figures are reanalysed at
different moments in time.
23. These figures are all drawn
from the archaeological information
system Archis (www.archis.nl).
Due to retrospective input and
corrections the numbers may slightly
change over time.
24. See http://www.parool.
nl/parool/nl/30/ECONOMIE/article/
detail/244105/2009/05/22/Crisistreft-provincies-ongelijk.dhtml
(accessed 19-01-2010).
25. We do not have information on
the type of contracts these people
are employed on. It may be a
temporary situation, if it concerns
mainly short contracts.
21. Field projects include field
walking surveys, evaluation by
coring, excavations, trial trenches
and watching briefs.
22. The data on the early years
(until 2005) may not give a complete
image of the situation as probably
not all projects were registered in
the system then.
26. Already the student fee is over
1600 euro per year (in 2009).
27. We have some information on
the demographic composition (age
pyramid) of our profession, on the
size of the oldest generations of
archaeologists and the pace with
which they need to be replaced
by younger ones (Waugh 2008,
table 32, p. 40). As the largest group
of the employees 58% is between 29
and 49 years of age, and only 18%
between 49 and 60, the natural out
flow of older employees will not be
very high in the next decade.
28. http://nos.nl/artikel/125882recordaantal-faillissementen-in2009.html (last accessed 19-012010).
29. TNO Bouw en Ondergrond,
2009, Bouwprognosis 20092014, TNO-report 034-DTM2009-04560. See http://www.
tno.nl/downloads/rapport_
bouwprognoses_2009_2014.pdf
(accessed 19-01-2010).
References
Acknowledgements
Aitchison, K., 2009, After the ‘gold rush’: global
archaeology in 2009, World Archaeology 41(4),
659-671.
We would like to thank all the individuals from the
following organisations who provided us with data
and experiences: NVvA, VOIA, CGA, Vriens Archeo
BV, Vestigia BV, Leiden University, the Inspectorate
for Cultural Heritage and the National Agency
for Cultural Heritage. We are grateful that our
colleagues Nathan Schlanger and Kenneth Aitchison
organised a session on the impacts of the economic
crisis at the conference of the European Association
of Archaeologists in Riva del Garde and provided
the opportunity for us to present the situation in the
Netherlands.
Arts, N. & C. Bakker, Gemeentelijke archeologie
anno 2009, Archeobrief 2, Jaargang 13, 22-25.
Dries, M.H. van den & P.A.M. Zoetbrood,
2008, Werk in uitvoering (2): van veldwerk tot
standaardrapport, een onderzoek naar de kwaliteit
van rapporten van archeologische proefsleuven en
opgravingen, Erfgoedinspectie, Den Haag.
Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, 2009,
Erfgoedbalans 2009, Archeologie, monumenten en
cultuurlandschap in Nederland, Amersfoort.
Waugh, K.E., 2008, Discovering the Archaeologists
of Europe: The Netherlands, Archaeology Labour
Market Intelligence Survey 2007-8, Vestigia Report
595, Amersfoort.
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
8. One crisis too many? French archaeology
between reform and relaunch
Nathan Schlanger,
1 Introduction
Kai Salas Rossenbach
ACE project – ‘Archaeology in
contemporary Europe’
Institut national de recherches
archéologiques préventives, Paris
nathan.schlanger@inrap.fr
kai.salas-rossenbach@inrap.fr
The notion of crisis is not, of course, alien to French archaeology. Some historical landmarks will sufice to conirm this: the French revolution with its vandalism
and historical monuments, Napoleon III and his national antiquities, the laws of
1913 and of 1941, the infrastructure reconstructions of the post-war years and
their corresponding episodes of heritage destruction, the early days of the Ministry
of Culture, the ratiication of the 1992 Malta Convention, the build-up to the
2001 law, its subsequent modiications, and so on. All in all, French archaeology
displays a somewhat punctuated pattern of progression, where various expectations regarding archaeological research and heritage management emerge, buildup and lead, usually through crisis and controversy, to hard-earned legal, operational and organisational achievements (see various discussions in Poulot 2006,
Demoule & Landes 2009, Les Nouvelles de l’archéologie 2004, and references
within).
Running throughout these episodes is the major question of individual and collective responsibility towards the archaeological heritage. Throughout the irst half
of the previous century, the debate had focused on questions of checks and balances regarding ‘desirable’ archaeological remains, i.e. those which presented some
scientiic (and occasionally inancial) interest to their landowners or excavators.
A series of legal and administrative measures gradually established the scheduling
and protection of historical monuments, made the declaration of fortuitous inds
compulsory, and required both oficial permits and scientiic qualiications prior to
any archaeological intervention. By the last decades of the twentieth century, the
debate has inally broadened to include also ‘unwanted’ or accidental archaeological remains – namely those hitherto buried and unknown deposits exposed (and
threatened by destruction) in the course of infrastructure and building works, and
usually seen as a burden by the landowners or developers concerned. Drawing
strength from precedents in environmental protection and international treaties,
measures of control and mitigation regarding such remains were gradually established through the ‘polluter-pays’ principle. Overall, then, lurching from crisis
to crisis, the general long-term tendency in French archaeology has clearly been
towards the increased capacity of the state to oversee and regulate the scientiic
exploitation, protection and valorisation of the nation’s historical and archaeological heritage.
Entering now the second decade of the present century, this general tendency
seems to be put on hold, or at least to be taking on some different inlections.
Without assuming some inevitable ricorso -like movement, the wave of heritage
protection appears to have reached its crest, and is beginning now to subside
in favour of other political or ideological priorities, concerning for example the
role of the state, decentralisation, land-use, public services, economic and social
policies and so forth. This is why in France, perhaps more than anywhere else
discussed in this volume, the impacts of the current economic crisis can only
69
70
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
be understood in the light of broader ongoing processes and conigurations.
Speciically to archaeology, the heritage law of 2001 and recent modiications in
2003 have had signiicant effects, as we will see, but even more important have
been the overarching public policy reforms initiated following president Nicolas
Sarkozy’s 2007 elections, including an unprecedented restructuring of institutions,
administrations and employment policies. As for the crisis, signiicantly, it is not so
much the economic downturn as such that has so far affected archaeology (though
the decline in construction activities and the rise in unemployment are deinitely
being felt) as much as the various counter-measures enacted by the government
within its ambitious relaunch or recovery plan. So, within the limits of the data
available to us, and without attempting to be exhaustive, we will draw together in
this chapter some strands and links in this composite picture, in between reforms
and relaunch. The four impact areas of the crisis as identiied throughout this volume – research, employment, outreach and legislation – will all be touched on, but
we proceed with a brief introduction to the organisation of archaeology in France,
provide some details on the various reforms already enacted, and inally address
the crisis, the relaunch measures and their implications for archaeological research
and heritage management in France.
2 A brief outline of French archaeology, circa 2001
Although academic research and higher education are clearly among its essential constituents, our entry point to French archaeology here is through heritage
management, and speciically preventive archaeology. This is not only because
preventive archaeology has become the largest and most dynamic sector in terms
of funding, employment and archaeological results produced, but also because the
recent luctuations it has endured shed light on the system as a whole. Moreover,
‘programmed’ archaeology seems to follow a reasonably well-established pattern,
at least so far as ield practice is concerned, involving nominal excavation permits,
scientiic programmes and corresponding budgets. Preventive archaeology, by contrast, has been carried out for several decades with only the limsiest legal, regulatory or inancial basis. Only in 2001, after years of campaigning and successive
recommendations, was this long-awaited grounding achieved. The newly drafted
book V of the Heritage code deined preventive archaeology in these terms:
“Preventive archaeology, which pertains to a mission of public service, is an
integral part of archaeology. It is governed by the principles applicable to all
scientiic research. It undertakes, on land and under waters, within appropriate
delays, to identify, to preserve or to safeguard through scientiic study those elements of the archaeological heritage affected or likely to be affected by public or
private development works. It also aims to interpret and to disseminate the results
obtained.” (Article L. 521.1).
As part of the 2001 law, a pre-existing association for excavations (AFAN) was
transformed into the National institute for preventive archaeological research,
INRAP, an Etablissement public under the joint tutelage of the Ministries of
Culture and Communication and of Higher Education and Research, with some
2000 employees and an annual budget of 150 Million euro for 2009. With its
research and public service objectives legally enshrined, preventive archaeology
sets and pursues clear objectives regarding the production of knowledge about the
past, specialised studies, publications and public outreach. In comparison with
One crisis too many? French archaeology between reform and relaunch
countries where the ‘academic’ and the ‘commercial’ (also called ‘professional’ or
CRM) branches of archaeology have increasingly drifted apart, several traits of
the French system – the territorial anchoring of its research, the encouragement of
interdisciplinary collaborations, the long-established practice of ‘mixed research
units’ (UMR) bringing together researchers and initiatives from the CNRS, universities, museums, ministries, local archaeologists, INRAP etc. – contribute, at least
for now, to maintain these links.
A further speciic feature of the French system concerns a fundamental operational and regulatory distinction between two successive phases of preventive
archaeological activities. The irst, evaluations or diagnostics, serves to identity
and assess previously unrecorded archaeological remains on land slated for
development (usually through mechanical trial trenching). The second phase,
involving full-scale excavations, focuses then on speciic, localised remains which
require further documentation and study. In both cases, operations are undertaken
upon prescriptions and with permits issued by the regional archaeological services
(SRA) of the Ministry of Culture, while research designs, results and publications
are evaluated through regional and national expert bodies. Crucially, these two
phases are also distinguished by their legal and inancial standing. The diagnostic
phase, which is considered to be a public service, draws its funding not from the
developers concerned directly (which could have invited unwelcome pressure and
compromises), but rather through a Preventive Archaeology Tax applicable per
square metre, above a certain threshold and with various exemptions, on all developments across the country, whether subject to archaeological prescriptions or
not. Income from this tax is mutualised and shared more or less equally between
diagnostic expenditure, a special archaeology fund for needy developers, and the
inancing of research and public outreach activities. Excavations, on the other
hand, are each subject to a speciic contract between the archaeological operator
and the developer, including questions of schedules, delays and also costs, which
are calculated in function of the nature and complexity of the archaeological
deposits (as estimated through the diagnostic work), and the equipment, personnel
and competencies required to achieve the set scientiic goals of analysis, interpretation and publication.
3 After 2003: towards commercial competition between licensed
operators
As the law on preventive archaeology came into effect, the systematic application of the Tax and of the ‘polluter-pays’ principle – coupled with some frustrations over unscheduled delays related to overloads and caps on employment – led
several developers and local representatives to lobby for amendments to the law.
Some genuine adjustments were certainly called for, but the solution adopted by
the conservative-led parliament in august 2003 (and 2004) consisted effectively in
‘opening up’ the ield of preventive archaeology to commercial competition, in the
expectation that costs and delays would consequently be reduced.
These changes led to considerable upheaval in French archaeology. The status of archaeological diagnostics as a public prerogative was preserved, with the
addition of locally-based municipality and council archaeological operators which
are now able, alongside INRAP, to undertake them. The excavation phase, on the
other hand, was recast as a commercial undertaking, with developers now directly
71
72
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
commissioning operators to execute the archaeological prescriptions on their
behalf. Public developers have to abide by call-for-tender procedures, but they can
nevertheless decide on the relative weight they wish to accord to such factors as
duration, scientiic quality, or indeed costs. Private developers can dispense altogether with such procedures, contract directly with the operator of their choice,
and only then, almost as a fait accompli, present the proposed excavation design
to the state services for them to examine its scientiic pertinence and operational
feasibility before issuing the permit.
As an ostensible safeguarding move, a speciic licensing or accreditation system
(agrément) was put in force for preventive archaeology, such that only licensed
operators can be commissioned by developers, and only their personnel can receive
from the SRA the nominal permit required for taking responsibility over preventive archaeological operations. To obtain the licence, candidate operators have
to provide information on their functional capabilities, their available expertise,
employment strategies, budgets, infrastructural set up, equipments and so forth.
The Ministry of Culture, relying on expert advice from the National council for
archaeological research, then awards the licence (for a renewable period of ive
years), subject to some territorial and chronological speciications. With regards
to diagnostics, as noted, the only operators eligible are those based within public bodies such as municipalities or local authorities. For excavations, however,
licences are also granted to other operators such as associations and privately
owned companies, who can participate in the excavation market and respond to
calls from their potential clients, the developers. After a slow start, the impact of
these modiications is increasingly perceptible. By mid- 2010, there were approximately 80 operators licensed for preventive archaeology in France, of which 60 are
local public bodies of various sorts, unevenly spread across about a third of the
country’s départements, and 20 are private companies1. Apart from their names,
area of archaeological competencies and contact details, information on the scale
and turnover of these licensed operators is hard to obtain: it is estimated that public operators employ altogether some 350 archaeologists, as do the private ones.
All this relects the sharp rise in their activities these last couple of years. For 2009,
and taking important regional variations into account, only 60% of the c. 350
excavations carried out in France were undertaken by the state operator INRAP
– the remaining 40% being more or less evenly divided between local public
operators and private companies.
4 A market in crisis?
This new phenomenon of commercial competition in French preventive
archaeology raises a number of issues that prove instructive to examine (see also
Demoule, this volume). To begin with, it might be recalled that preventive archaeology as a whole, excavations included, was deined as a mission of public service,
aimed at gaining and disseminating scientiic knowledge about the past. In these
circumstances, it is both unfair and unrealistic to expect developers to evaluate
bids on scientiic (as distinct from commercial) criteria, especially when there are
grounds to suppose that the state services may not always be able to exercise their
monitoring role to the full (see below). In the new conditions created, when any
ield methodology, expertise or even chrono-cultural interpretation may provide its
holder (and deny others) a competitive edge in the market, it can be expected that
One crisis too many? French archaeology between reform and relaunch
the wider aims of inter-institutional scientiic collaborations on shared research
designs may be affected, together with publications and public outreach actions.
The same goes for the segmentation of archaeological activities across a multiplicity of operators, chosen on a case by case basis with little regard for operational
let alone research considerations. To be sure, the rules so far prohibit these operators from having structural, inancial or legal links to the developers for whom
they work, but this could be yet anther ‘impediment’ to competition or acceleration that may soon be waived, now that archaeological operators directly created by building-works companies are in the making. While these and other less
appealing consequences loom large (regarding for example cost-cutting measures,
proit margins and employment conditions among some operators), there are little
indications as yet whether the presumed beneits of the competitive system will be
in evidence, such as reductions in delays or indeed in overall costs.
A series of more speciic questions arise from the coincidence between the
upsurge of commercial preventive archaeology, from about 2008 onwards, and
the global economic crisis – all the more so that this coincidence was readily seized
upon by the authorities to further bolster the ‘market’2. Admittedly, the practical
implications of such encouragement to potential operators are dificult to evaluate. For one, information on changing numbers and success rates of applicants
for licences over time is not readily available. As well, since the scientiic, operational or inancial criteria for awarding the licence do not seem to be explicitly
stated, it is dificult to assess whether they have been recently modiied in any way.
Finally, be it for reasons of conidentiality or of expediency, it appears dificult to
gain some inkling regarding the eventual refusals, suspensions, or withdrawals
of licences. What is certain, however, is that the French preventive archaeology
market, public and private alike, beneits from a comforting safety net: in case
operators cease trading or see their licence withdrawn, it is already set by law
that the archaeological inds and related documentation they hold will be recovered and studied by the state operator – namely by INRAP (Article L. 523-13).
Archaeological heritage management is certainly well served here (compare with
annex II, this volume), but by thus effectively underwriting the operators, the
licence-awarders and the prescribers alike, this bail-out provision sits somewhat
uneasily with the ideals of level commercial competition.
Nevertheless, even though we may expect more recession-induced bankruptcies to be declared, we can also surmise that the preventive archaeology ‘market’
might well grow in the coming years – with the crisis aiding. In effect, the relaunch
plan initiated by the government includes some major infrastructural works that
will require substantial diagnostics and excavation work (see below). Even if few
of the newly licensed public or private operators have the scale and logistics to
partake in such grands travaux, they will be able to better jostle into competitive
position for the more routine operations. As well, in addition to the nearly automatic increase in surfaces and sites to be identiied and prescribed for diagnostics
and excavations, some changes can also be anticipated regrading the prescription
policies themselves. Just as the regional archaeological services have been under
instructions in the past few years to “enhanced selectivity” so as to reduce the
number of diagnostic prescriptions, so they might be encouraged from now on to
increase these numbers, if only in order to keep aloat the newly created ‘market’
of commercial preventive archaeology3.
73
74
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
5 Reforms in motion: public policies, research and higher education
Known by the acronym of RGPP, the general revision of public policies
(Revision générale des politiques publiques) is a key component of the reforms
launched by President Sarkozy since 2007, seeking a leaner and meaner state,
more eficient and modern. This massive exercise, set in successive waves of intermediary steps and targets spread over several years, has already affected virtually all areas of public policy. As far as archaeology is concerned, the effects have
been mainly felt through the Ministries of Culture and of Higher Education and
Research, where they have involved the restructuring of institutions, their administrative functions and their employment policies.
To begin with the matter of employment, a key measure of the RGPP involves
the systematic non-replacement of one out of two retirements among state functionaries and public employees. This reduction of personnel applies to all ministries and state functions (including some 50,000 schoolteacher posts not being
renewed, i.e. lost, between 2007 and 2010)4 and of course also to the Ministry
of Culture, which as we saw holds administrative responsibilities over heritage
management and protection. In a subsequent wave of the reform plan, this measure extends to public bodies and decentralised structures, which, through nonreplacement or other means, will have to ‘gain in productivity’ by shedding 1.5%
of their workforce every year. Incidentally, this trimming down may prove even
more tasking in times of crisis: not only there are fewer private sector employment
alternatives to be found, it is also manifest that the relative resilience of such a
country as France to the more traumatising effects of the recession has to do with
its longstanding tradition of strong public sector spending and employment.
While this employment strategy has at least the merit of being plain, the
restructuring of administrations and functions in the framework of the RGPP
has taken quite a multiplicity of forms. At the headquarters of the Ministry of
Culture, the previous dozen or so distinct directions have been merged into three
major directorates (alongside a reinforced general-secretariat), respectively entitled
Artistic creation, Media and communication and Heritages, the latter including sub-directions dealing with museums, libraries, archives, architecture, and
archaeology. Within this reassembly of functions and services, some casualties are
to be expected in the name of ‘rationalisation’: the Centre national d’archéologie
urbaine (CNAU) is one of the bodies slated to be dissolved. Even more challenging
are the ongoing reshufles and reorganisations at the regional level, including the
functional capacities and hierarchical links between the regional archaeological
services (SRA), the regional directions of cultural affairs (DRAC) and the prefectures. Finally, the sword of the RGPP speciically fell onto preventive archaeology,
when the Council for the modernisation of public policies decreed in June 2008
that “The running (politique) of preventive archaeology shall be rendered more
eficient. Income from the preventive archaeology tax shall be improved. The
development of a competitive offer shall enable the multiplication of intervention
capacities with regards to excavations. The modes of recruitment within the state
operator INRAP shall be modernised”5. As we saw at length above, this aspired
multiplication effectively means the encouragement of new public and private
operators onto the ‘market’.
Turning now to French research and higher education, structural changes in
the framework of the RGPP and through other routes have been particularly
wide-ranging. The 2007 ‘Law on the responsibilities of universities’ (LRU) cast
One crisis too many? French archaeology between reform and relaunch
these institutions into a sudden state of ‘autonomy’, which implies among other
things an increase in performance-related funding and revenue-generating activities, accompanied by an administrative overload and a greater say for external
members, especially business igures, in the university’s scientiic and governing
bodies. Notwithstanding this autonomy, French universities have been instructed
to forge between themselves thematic alliances as well as geographical clusters
(not necessarily with the same partners), opening the way for a distinction to be
made between teaching-focussed institutions and those oriented towards research
and innovation, which would be relocated – crisis permitting, that is – in purposebuild campuses à l’américaine.
For reasons both ideological and parochial (i.e. poor standing in the Shanghai
Index), French public research has been deemed underachieving and out of tune
with the more utilitarian or vocational objectives sometimes described as ‘the
knowledge economy’. In succession were created national agencies for funding
(ANR) and evaluating (AERES) research, the former reinforcing the logic of
short term ‘project’ grants, with a particular emphasis on ‘public-private partnerships’ cemented through unduly generous tax rebates for the latter sector6.
The National centre for scientiic research (CNRS), for its part, has seen some
of its main missions and means, indeed its ‘autonomy’, considerably curtailed:
this includes its capacity to set long-term projects for its c. 250 archaeologists, or indeed to initiate and federate mixed research units (UMR) with other
institutions. These changing circumstances are relected in the CNRS prospective
document for 2009-2013, whose readers have been invited to consider the social
sciences and humanities also as a “strategic asset” for companies, so as to better
understand human challenges and social changes, and thus inform their managerial decisions.7
Lastly, the RGPP policy of closing down every other retired post will be
encroaching into an already tense employment environment, where career dificulties are felt from the very entry level. Amazingly, France is among the few countries where PhD holders are actually less likely than Masters to ind a job: three
years after graduation, 11% of humanities and social sciences PhD holders are still
unemployed, and of those employed about a third are on short-term contracts.
The employment level of French PhDs is three times worse than the OECD average, and moreover this deiciency cannot be explained by the numbers of doctorate holders involved, which per age-cohorts is proportionately lower than in most
comparable countries.8 Not unexpectedly, to refocus on archaeology, the overall
trend in disaffection and decline in numbers of university students is not abating,
although a larger proportion are now applying for professional master courses in
preventive archaeology, in the (not unreasonable) expectation that jobs are still to
be found in that area.
The effects of these ongoing developments on the production and transmission
of knowledge about the past still need to be evaluated, but they are likely to have
both medium and long-term repercussions. Already under-represented in comparison with European neighbours, archaeological positions in research institutions
and universities will be further reduced by the non-replacement of half the posts
which would have been available with the imminent retirement of the late 1960s
and 1970s cohort. Research funding for programmed archaeological excavations
in France and abroad appears more dificult to obtain, and likewise quite a few
archaeological journals and publication outlets have had their allocations cast in
doubt. It was not surprising in any case to see researchers and university teach-
75
76
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
ers from across the social sciences and humanities, archaeology included, at the
forefront of the exceptional (but ultimately only partially successful) country-wide
wave of protests, petitions and demonstrations during 2008 and 2009.
6 The relaunch plans: increased investments, lightened procedures
As we have gathered, then, France was well in the throes of substantial upheavals when the global economic crisis struck in 2008. Thus, in addition to its
structural capacities in terms of public sector and economic policies, the country
may have actually also beneitted from the fact that it was already on its toes, as
it were, in comparison with more complacent neighbours caught off-guard. In
any case, the government deployed early on a fairly comprehensive relaunch plan,
with a speciically created Ministry in charge of its application. Alongside various
measures for reducing costs and deicits, the relaunch plan also includes, in the
venerable state macroeconomic tradition, a stimulus package for the acceleration
of major infrastructure programmes. A global budget of some 10 billion Euros
(originating from the state, major public developers, local authorities and private
partnerships) has been dedicated to a range of works for the coming four years,
including the construction of four TGV lines and several highways and navigable
canals.
So far as preventive archaeology is concerned, these infrastructure programmes
are by and large expected to compensate for the slow-down in the construction
sector. Substantial tracts of land will be subject to earthworks, and will consequently generate prescriptions and require diagnostics and excavations in the
framework of preventive archaeology – with further consequences for archaeological research, employment, outreach and so forth. These increased investments
are not of course without their counterpart. For our current concerns, an important thread running through these crisis-busting relaunch measures is a leitmotif
directly inspired from the previously engaged costs and employment-reducing
reforms – it is the need to simplify, to rationalise, to lighten administrative procedures (alléger les procédures administratives), indeed to counter an ingrained
penchant for bureaucratic slow-motion with some operational lexibility and
economic enterprise.
Both facets of the relaunch strategy – increased investments and lightened
procedures – are manifest in the 17 February 2009 ‘law on the acceleration of
public and private programmes of construction and investments’. Articles 8 and
9 bear speciically on preventive archaeology, and entail the direct modiication
of the Heritage code. In examining here these changes, the spirit in which they
were advocated at the Parliament’s commission on economic affairs may be worth
recalling: quite bluntly the aim is “to limit the henceforth excessive impact of
preventive archaeology” (limiter l’impact, désormais excessif, de l’archéologie
préventive sur le développement économique et l’implantation des entreprises).9
Beginning with inancial issues (perhaps ultimately of the greater signiicance),
the budgetary measures approved include a one-off 10 million Euros to accelerate diagnostic operations by INRAP, another such sum for the needy developers’
fund, and an increase in the Preventive Archaeology Tax, up from 0.3 to 0.5%
of the construction value in the case of urban-areas projects, and from 0.40 to
0.50 per square metre in the case of rural land development. In the same vein, to
increase INRAP’s reactive capability and to reduce its delays (and at the same time
One crisis too many? French archaeology between reform and relaunch
to transcend the government’s own self imposed cap on public employments), was
created a short-term ‘activity’ employment contract, whose duration is not set by a
ixed time period, but rather in relation to the undertaking of a given activity, such
as a lengthy excavation campaign along a TGV line.
As for the procedural measures designed to ‘limit the impact’ of preventive
archaeology, they prove rather more ambivalent in their intended and unintended
consequences. They include:
(a) For prescriptions, the time available to the prefecture (through the regional
archaeological services of the Ministry of Culture) for deciding to prescribe (or
not) an archaeological diagnostic was reduced from four to three weeks upon the
reception of the planning dossier (modiication to article L.522-2).
(b) For diagnostics, the speciication of a maximum delay for the beginning of
diagnostic operations: “If, for reasons due to the [archaeological] operator, and
notwithstanding the speciic contractual dispositions between the developer and
the operator, the works necessary for undertaking the [prescribed] diagnostic have
not begun within a delay of four months following the conclusion of the contract,
the prescription is considered void” (addition to article L. 523-7).
(c) For excavations, the speciication of a maximum delay for the beginning
of excavations works (as above, with six months instead of four) but also for
their completion: “If, for reasons due to the operator, the ieldwork necessary
for archaeological operations have not been completed within a delay of twelve
months following the date of attribution of the permit – a delay renewable once
for a period of eighteen months upon decision of the administrative authority
following the advice of the interregional commission for archaeological research
– the state withdraws the permit” (addition to article L. 523-9).
The legislator’s intentions here are clearly to accelerate construction by reducing ancillary delays, including the unscheduled waiting time occasionally caused
by archaeological operations10. In practice, the effectiveness of these measures is
variable, as are their side-effects. Least constraining for overloaded archaeologists
are actually the delays for strating diagnostics or excavations. It sufices that these
time frames, or indeed that of signing the contact itself, be calculated with enough
margins. Failing that, it will be enough for the operator to begin some ‘necessary
works’ – such as checking out for utilities, or setting up health and safety provisions. More constraining are the twelve months limits for completing excavations,
with the clock set ticking upon the granting of the excavation permit, rather than
with the beginning of the operation itself. Even if this twelve months period applies
only to ieldwork as such and not to the post-excavation analysis and study, it can
be expected that quite a few cases (complex, stratiied sites, unexpected discoveries etc.) will require extensions – unless, that is, compromises or concessions over
research methods and results will be made by some operators, and tacitly condoned
by the monitoring authorities, so as to round-off the ieldwork campaign within the
prescribed delay period. In fact, the controlling and regulating bodies may well be
among those who suffer the most. With these measures, the regional archaeological services have probably even less opportunities and resources for on-site inspections, or for studying in any depth the intervention proposals or results submitted
by licensed operators. They have in any case substantially less time (21 rather than
30 days) to appraise the submitted construction dossiers in their regions and reach
informed decisions on prescribing archaeological diagnostics – not to forget that,
with the above noted RGPP policies regarding employment and restructuring, there
will be increasingly fewer of them around to carry out these tasks.
77
78
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
7 Conclusions: lightened procedures – lessened protection?
Although this is probably premature, and some of the more pessimistic scenarios intimated here may prove unwarranted, we cannot end without mentioning two further potential collateral casualties of these acceleration measures.
One is the developers themselves, in their capacity as law abiding citizens. As we
saw, in order to counterbalance its own arbitrariness and lack of reaction, the
state systematically includes clauses which render void its decisions under certain conditions, such as when delays in beginning or ending operations are not
met. In such cases, the law stipulates that the prescriptions fall and we pass to
the regime of ‘fortuitous inds’ as deined in the Heritage code – inds which it is
the penal responsibility of the inder and landowner to immediately declare. So
far as Palaeolithic hunting camps or even Neolithic postholes are concerned, it is
probable that the developers will genuinely not see these remains at all as they are
swept away. Vestiges like Iron-Age villas or medieval burial grounds which are less
easy to miss when the bulldozers go by (although this is know to have happened)
will leave the developer in a quandary: are the added delays due to the recording
and preservation of these remains compensated, or not, by the fact that it is now
the state, and not them, who has to foot the bill? Whatever the case, the measures
in question appear to bring the developer-citizen one step closer to potentially
infringing the law on fortuitous inds – all the more so that the authorities have
known all along, since they themselves have prescribed their study, that there are
in the area concerned archaeological remains at risk!
Indeed, at the end of the day, it is probably the archaeological heritage itself
which may yet prove to be the ultimate victim of the relaunch plan. Construction
and infrastructure programmes as such are not directly at stakes: they are salutary
and welcome in many respects beyond archaeology (especially in times of crisis),
and any potential harm they cause to in situ archaeological remains can be effectively mitigated – this is after all the whole raison d’être of preventive archaeology.
But for that to happen, it is necessary that the protection measures in place – as
enshrined in the Heritage code and beyond that in the Malta Convention and the
ICOMOS Charter – be adequate, and be maintained. Knowing French administration and technocracy, there is no doubt scope for streamlining quite a few procedures, and making them swifter and more eficient – more eficient, that is, with
regards to their stated objective, which is to protect and enhance the heritage, and
not necessarily to enable, even in times of crisis, yet more tarmac and concrete be
speedily poured and spread over vaster tracts of landscape.
By way of conclusions, it may be instructive to examine several crisis-related
legislative parallels, also set in between reform and relaunch. The irst case
concerns the management of designated areas of protected architectural, urban
and landscape heritage (ZPPAUP). An amendment was proposed as part of the 3
August 2008 ‘law on Environment (Grenelle II)’ whereby the advice of the state
architect regarding any building and demolition plans in these zones would no
longer be binding, so that it would be up to the architect to appeal and try to overturn locally approved decisions on, say, implanting a supermarket or a sky-scraper
in the protected zone. Following pressure from urbanists and cultural protection
bodies, only intermediary changes have been made (so far) to the Heritage code
(Article L-642-3). Another measure, article 52 of the 2010 inance law, would
have allowed the devolution of ownership of elements of the nation’s monumental and historical heritage, with hardly any checks and controls, to the local
79
One crisis too many? French archaeology between reform and relaunch
Notes
1. Information on the licence,
the application dossier, and the
operators currently licensed is
available at http://www.culture.gouv.
fr/culture/dp/archeo/operateurs_
presentation.html. See also Giraud
2010.
2. For example, a Senate debate on
the finance law for 2009 considered
it important to encourage the
“development of a competitive
offer” in preventive archaeology,
while the necessity to «re-launch
the incitation to the creation of
archaeological services by councils
and by private operators» was
stressed by the then Minister of
Culture, Christine Albanel. See
http://www.senat.fr/rap/a08-100-31/
a08-100-313.html.
3. See the note of the then Minister
of Culture, Jean-Jacques Aillagon,
on the regulation of prescription
decisions, 3rd January 2003.
According to Ministry of Culture
data made available, diagnostic
prescriptions have dropped from
14% of the examined dossiers in
2002 to 7% in 2009. Prescriptions
for excavations have apparently
remained stable at 1,5% of the
examined dossiers.
authorities who desire them. Once these municipalities and councils would have
cherry-picked the most valuable historical monuments – i.e. palaces, châteaux and
suchlike touristic hotspots – and assuming they invest in their maintenance and do
not sell them off in due course, the remaining elements of the nation’s historical
heritage would be left to crumble, without any inancial scaffolding. This article
was rejected in extremis by the Constitutional Council, but a new version is apparently being drafted.11 The third and possibly most relevant measure – discussed
in parliament at the same time and with the same objectives as those destined for
archaeology – concerns the simpliication (again!) of procedures regarding listed
polluting industrial installations. To the various veriications and authorisations
provided by the environmental protection agency concerned, it was proposed to
add the possibility for industrialists to simply ‘register’ their installation, thus
undertaking toxic or polluting activities without prior impact studies or public
enquires. With environmental concerns cast aside, this proposition has the double
advantage of speeding up procedures in times of crisis, while also expediently
trimming down the public services concerned.12
Touching thus on our common historical, cultural and environmental heritage,
these latest measures – crisis-induced, or at least crisis-enabled – seem to relect
an attempted reshufle or realignment, between local and central prerogatives,
between individual and collective responsibility. For archaeology, for its study and
its management, the implications of all the developments and patterns touched
upon within this chapter may really be too early to tell. There are however good
grounds to suspect that conjecturally motivated ‘lightened procedures’ can easily
end-up, and be maintained in the long-term, as ‘lessened protection’. Likewise,
the recent creation of a commercial archaeology market, with excavations being
dubbed ‘l’activité concurentielle’ by the ministry in charge, may well prove to
have less appealing outcomes than intended; with regards to costs and delays, and
indeed in terms of scientiic results, professional employment and public outreach.
Given the eventful enough history of French archaeology, we can only hope – and
stand irm to ensure – that our current predicament will not prove to be the one
crisis too many.
4. See http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/
article/2009/11/24/l-educationnationale-sans-reve-ni-moteur-parluc-cedelle_1271268_3232.html.
5. http://www.rgpp.modernisation.
gouv.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/
Culture.pdf. See also a second stage
report, May 2009, at http://www.
rgpp.modernisation.gouv.fr/uploads/
media/RE2_RGPP_130509.pdf.
6. Inefficient and inequitable
aspects of the ‘research tax credit’
system – creating too few research
employments while generating
high fiscal rebates for finance
sector holdings rather than
R&D and manufacturing firms
– have been pinned-down in recent
parliamentary reports, see http://
media.enseignementsup-recherche.
gouv.fr/file/2010/21/6/3e-rapportcir-parlement_142216.pdf, and
http://www.senat.fr/rap/r09-493/
r09-493_mono.html.
7. See http://www.cnrs.fr/fr/une/
docs/Contrat-CNRS-Etat-20092013.pdf, and http://www.anvie.fr.
Anvie is the National association for
the interdisciplinary enhancement
of social sciences and humanities
research among the business sector.
10. It may be recalled here that
in any case, as indicated in the
Heritage code, contracts between
operators and developers already
stipulate penalty payments in case
of delays in accessing or liberating
the grounds.
8. See the recent synthesis produced
by the governmental Centre
d’analyses stratégiques, at http://
www.strategie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/
Notedeveille189_Emploi_des_
docteurs.pdf
11. Cf http://www.conseilconstitutionnel.fr/conseilconstitutionnel/francais/
les-decisions/acces-par-date/
decisions-depuis-1959/2009/2009599-dc/decision-n-2009-599-dc-du29-decembre-2009.46804.html.
9. Stated in Amendement N° 4 and
N°5, «Accélération des programmes
de construction et d’investissement
publics et privés» (n° 1360), (L.
de La Raudière, rapporteure),
Assemblée nationale, 23 December
2008. See also rapport on same
subject, (n° 1365), 22 December
2008: “The obligations linked to
preventive archaeology constitute
nowadays an impediment to the
installation of businesses in France”.
In http://www.senat.fr/dossierlegislatif/pjl08-157.html, and
http://www.assemblee-nationale.
fr/13/rapports/r1365.asp.
12. See “Rapport sur le projet
de loi…..”, Assemblée nationale,
22 décembre 2008 (note 9 above),
and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Installation_class%C3%A9e_pour_
la_protection_de_l’environnement
References
Demoule J-P. & Landes C., 2009 (eds), La fabrique de
l’archéologie en France, Paris, La découverte.
Poulot D., 2006, Une histoire du patrimoine en
Occident, Du monument aux valeurs, Paris, PUF.
Giraud J-P. 2010, Organisation et structure
de l’archéologie française, Archäologisches
Nachrichtenblatt 15/2;150-161.
Les nouvelles de l’archéologie 2004, Archéologie
d’une crise, n°98 (and cf. http://www.revues.mshparis.fr/modele2/nospebook2.asp?id_nospe=105&id_
perio=38).
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
9. The crisis and changes in cultural heritage
legislation in Hungary: cul-de-sac or solution?
Eszter Bánffy,
1 Introduction
Pál Raczky
Ester Bánffy
Institute of Archaeology
Hungarian Academy of Science,
Budapest
banffy@archeo.mta.hu
Pál Raczky
Institute of Archaeological Sc., ELTE,
Budapest
raczky.pal@btk.elte.hu
The case presented here is an interpretation of the Hungarian authorities’
reaction to the global economic crisis. In 2009, a planned modiication of the
Hungarian cultural heritage law was supposed to come into force. This modiication can be understood as an effort to encourage those investing in development
projects, so that they would have to face less dificulties with the archaeological
sites that might be lying under their property, less problems with the National
Ofice of Heritage Protection (KÖH) and less trouble from such ‘nuisances’ as
archaeologists.
However, this planned legislative change touches upon the protection of archaeological sites as a whole, and would as a consequence severely weaken existing
provisions for preventive and rescue archaeological work. In the following pages,
we provide a brief account of the stages of this ‘battle’, the ensuing threat placed
on archaeological heritage, and the inappropriate nature of the help designed for
developers. Finally, we outline a possible solution, which has been proposed to the
Ministry of Culture.
2 Redefining an archaeological site
The current legal deinition of an ‘archaeological site’ in Hungary (Law of
Heritage Protection, 2001/LXIV. 7§, 17) has already been the cause of some
legal and inancial dificulties insofar as it restricts a ‘site’ to an area with accurate geographic boundaries which is also listed in the KÖH national database. In
this respect, places and complexes of archaeological importance which are as yet
Fig. 1. The areas
involved and investigated
within the programme
‘The Archaeological
Topography of Hungary’.
81
82
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
unknown and/or not yet listed on the KÖH database are not treated as sites and
therefore fall outside the current legislation and its protective measures.
More recently, in what is seen as reaction to the economic crisis, a new modiication of the law has been proposed (edict A308/2008, 23. December 2008).
This proposal further aggravates this situation by legally requiring that a ‘site’, in
addition to being listed in the national KÖH database, should also be located and
coordinated with land certiicates, and included in a publicly available, certiied
database at municipal level. This regulation seems to be designed to help developers and investors, who would have online access to an authorised database,
to evaluate whether or not there are archaeological protection measures to be
expected on the land they plan to develop. However, such database requirements
are currently met for only a few thousand cases out of the ca. 40.000 sites registered in the volumes of the Hungarian Archaeological Topography! (Fig. 1).
Moreover, this number of known sites is only a smaller portion of the estimated
total of all sites in Hungary, which may number as many as 200.000 (calculated
on an average presence of 1.5 or 2 sites per km2 across the 93.000 km2 of the
country). All these sites – the ca 40.000 known and the ca. 200.000 estimated
– would be left out of the picture.
In the new legislation to be introduced, there will be a budget exclusively available for preventive archaeological purposes, as a part of the development costs.
The existing legal requirement is to spend a minimum of 0.9% of a development’s
budget on preventive archaeology. This requirement was hitherto applied to the
ca. 40.000 KÖH listed sites – if the new legislation is to come into force, it will
apply only to the few thousand registered on municipal databases.
As for the rest, the sites and landscapes as yet unknown, their chances of protection chances are minimal: no state funding will be made available for excavating the vast majority of these archaeological assets, since they fall outside the new
legal deinition of being a ‘site’. The responsibility for such cases will fall to the
local museums, but only in the context of rescue – and not preventive – excavations. This distinction is unfortunately relevant, since for rescue excavations there
is no secure and recognised budget at all. While the controlling authority KÖH
may well force building works to be stopped due to archaeological discoveries,
there is no budget for funding their excavation. If institutions like local museums or the KÖH itself do not make available funding to dedicate to potentially
large-scale excavations, ield work will simply not be carried out. Consequently,
the proposed modiication of the law implies that we would allow an unknown
amount of information about our past to be destroyed, without any beneits to
either heritage managers or developers.
It should be noted that the legal change discussed here also seems to infringe
two European conventions that have been duly signed and brought into force
in Hungary: the European Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological
Heritage (Malta, 1992) and the European Landscape Convention (Florence,
2000). Such a precedent of endangering cultural heritage protection in a European
Union country could certainly also weaken European legislations on cultural heritage in general.
As already indicated, this new regulation was apparently intended to favour
developers and developments in Hungary in times of economic crisis. In practice,
however, it is likely to have unwelcome effects also in that respect. Whenever
archaeological remains come to light in the course of construction works, the
archaeological authorities can stop the building activity in order to protect these
The crisis and changes in cultural heritage legislation in Hungary: cul-de-sac or solution?
sites – even if they would not count as ‘sites’ in legal terms – for periods of time
which could extend to several months. Such added uncertainties and delays clearly
make it dificult for developers to plan ahead. At another level, a locally available
database open to the public will not be consulted only by developers – looters
would also quite easily ind there the exact locations of the sites they wish to rob.
Fig. 2. The state of
preventive archaeology,
according to the proposed
legislation 2009.
On the whole, then, this proposed legal redeinition of the ‘site’ would represent
the worst possible outcome not only for archaeology and heritage protection, but
also for the developers themselves. This is why we consider this planned modiication to be more of a cul-de-sac in the global crisis than a possible solution.
3 Some possible solutions
This leads to the question: is there a solution to be found? We believe there is a
way to proceed, which would be beneicial for both developers and for archaeological heritage protection, and which would be equally appropriate in the short
term while the crisis is ongoing, and also for the longer term.
1. To begin with, reliance should be placed on the newly founded Field Service
for Cultural Heritage (KÖSZ), a national institution responsible for the coordination of all preventive archaeological work in the country. The crucial element here
is a diagnostic phase: a uniied and obligatory phase of evaluation and survey,
including trial trenching, which would precede all major building and infrastruc-
83
84
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
ture works. This diagnostic phase would be followed, when considered necessary,
by the excavation and documentation of sites using identical or coordinated country-wide protocols for archaeological, geological and specialist (zooarchaeological,
anthropological, biochemical etc) interventions. Preliminary studies and results
would have to be approved by two reviewers from independent scientiic institutions, such as the Academy of Sciences.
2. Next, some legitimate questions arise regarding the 0.9% of development
budgets which is to be spent on archaeological activities when a site is endangered
or destroyed by construction. This percentage is in many cases not fair to developers, and cannot always be justiied. In some instances the cost of archaeology
can be much higher, up to 4 or 5% of the total development costs, and it cannot
in all honesty be expected of the ‘unlucky’ investors who happen to have a site
on their land to pay this. Here again archaeologists and heritage managers need
to realise that undertaking preliminary diagnosis and trial trenching in order to
detect unknown sites is essential, also in order to help developers and authorities
in their planning decisions, and to avoid opening up huge surfaces with uncertain
outcomes. This could in any case help reduce the real costs of any excavations that
might be needed.
Fig. 3. A proposition by
the authors for possible
changes in Hungarian
preventive archaeology.
The State
Pay a fixed rate of tax
Investors - developers
KÖSZ
Field
service
for
cultural
heritage
Sites
Both known and unknown archaeological
occurrences, together with cultural heritage complexes
Overall
archaeological
management of
cultural
heritage
3. Following this line, we also argue that inancial means for preventive archaeology should not derive exclusively from those developers who happen to have hit
a site on their land. Rather than this highly inappropriate and unjust method, we
propose that all developers, prior to each major construction project, should pay
the state a calibrated amount, similar to a tax (Fig. 3). This amount, to be calculated by the Ministry of Economics using a range of indicators, could replace the
currently required 0.9%, but could well be less than that. This suggested method
is fair and transparent; developers are free after paying and also free of having to
bargain with KÖSZ regarding what should be excavated, to what extent and for
how long.
The suggested tax-like fee, compulsory for each developer, goes into a budget
whose size determines the scale of preventive archaeological operations that can be
undertaken in a given year. Much as we all yearn to excavate every bit of threatened heritage, choices and priorities will have to be made. For example, regions
like the Carpathian Basin have been a crossroads for people and cultures for many
The crisis and changes in cultural heritage legislation in Hungary: cul-de-sac or solution?
millennia, and this region is likely to be very rich in sites and landscapes of historic
importance. Therefore, we shall have to start learning about extracting the maximum information from a limited scale of preventive excavations, and also about
being selective. This selection does not refer to archaeological features or periods
as such: it is rather about deciding which parts of the site need to be fully excavated, and which parts can be simply quickly recorded and documented, following
adequate methodology and protocols. Deliberate planning and sampling strategies should be developed, together with ethical codes and professional standards,
across all ields of heritage research and protection.
4. Finally, another problem to tackle is the fact that the budgets of preventive
archaeology are currently limited to the phases of excavation and inds-storage
only. No funding or instructions are available concerning the ways and means by
which these inds should be subsequently processed and integrated with the potentially huge amount of information generated, so as to turn the whole effort into a
scientiically valuable and publicly demonstrable contribution to cultural heritage.
While it might be problematic to raise such an issue in the middle of an economic
crisis, we should remember that the state has to take responsibility in this matter,
by ensuring a budgetary line for the conservation of the inds, for their scientiic
study and publication, and for their popularisation in magazines and museum
exhibitions. A positive example is the Archaeological Park at the M3 motorway,
which, with the inancial help and participation of motorway funders, serves the
general public by displaying some of the major results of these motorway excavations (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4. The M3
Archaeopark, Polgár, North
Eastern Hungary.
4 Conclusions
As we have attempted to demonstrate in this paper, the global economic crisis
has had negative consequences for Hungarian archaeology, and some measures
will have to be taken urgently to save the country’s cultural heritage. These
85
86
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
measures need not however be necessarily restricted to decisions coming from the
economic planning and legislative side. KÖSZ too, as the country’s ield service for
cultural heritage, has to constantly improve its activities by developing a more uniied and comprehensive set of protocols for diagnostics and excavations, and also
by setting professional standards of storage and documentation for all archaeological inds. We need to keep this objective irmly in mind and without any compromises: our aim is to ensure that all archaeological features, distributions of inds
or protected areas, should not be destroyed forever or become mere scatterings of
objects or items of information, but rather be studied and understood together so
as to become a genuine component of our cultural heritage – that of Hungary, of
course, but equally importantly that of Europe as a whole. This objective gives us
archaeologists ample scope and incentive for thinking and for acting – before it is
too late.
Postscript
In June-July 2010, the new Hungarian government passed a law which
removed all rights to undertake excavations from the KÖSZ, the Field Service
for Cultural Heritage, and transferred them back to county museums (i. e. 19
museums across the country and the Budapest Historical Museum), with whom
they had rested prior to the establishment of KÖSZ in 2007. The intention is to
enable the museums in question to achieve a more favourable inancial position.
In the light of these developments, the proposals formulated here may cease to be
relevant, though the authors still consider them to represent the best way forward
for Hungarian archaeology, which could be revived in the future.
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
10. Archaeology in crisis: the case of Poland
Arkadiusz Marciniak,
1 Introduction
Michał Pawleta
Institute of Prehistory
Adam Mickiewicz University
Ul. Św. Marcin 78
61-809 Poznań, Poland
arekmar@amu.edu.pl,
mpawleta@poczta.onet.pl
The paper discusses the effects of the current global economic situation on
Polish archaeology. In particular, it reviews the scope of rescue and preventive works over recent years and its relationship with the development of the
construction industry, as well as the job market situation in different sectors of
archaeology. It will further scrutinize the impact of the economic crisis and its
consequences upon the pre-existing structural ineficiency of legal and practical
solutions in various areas of Polish archaeology.
The analysis presented here is based upon publicly available data on the budgets
of major infrastructure initiatives as well as government expenditure for culture,
heritage protection, and higher education. This analysis is signiicantly enriched
by the results of a systematic survey of a representative group of twenty active
professional archaeologists conducted at the beginning of 2010 (Gańska-Kiarszys,
Kiarszys 2010). Unfortunately, not all archaeological institutions make their inancial data publicly available, which has precluded a more systematic evaluation of
the impact of the crisis upon their activities. Nevertheless, this analysis made it
possible to identify and scrutinize some general trends. Accordingly, this chapter
systematically discusses their character in the major sectors of Polish archaeology,
in terms of preventive and rescue works, watching briefs, academic activities, and
the situation of archaeological museums. These are discussed within the context of
a constantly changing heritage protection doctrine with regards to the context of
practice and its legal frameworks. An initial, brief overview of Polish archaeology
and its archaeological heritage sector sets the scene.
2 Archaeology and archaeological heritage in contemporary Poland
Democratic Poland inherited from its communist predecessor a well-developed
state-funded system, with the discipline divided into four archaeological sectors
with clearly deined roles and duties. These were (1) the Institute of History of
Material Culture of the Polish Academy of Sciences deined as the most signiicant
archaeological institution responsible for pursuing research and setting academic
standards, (2) university departments responsible for education, (3) museums in
charge of protecting archaeological collections and popularising archaeology, and
(4) Centres for Monument Protection responsible for the protection of archaeological monuments and movable objects and undertaking rescue excavations.
Due to dynamic developments over the last two decades, which mainly involved
the emergence of large scale development-led archaeological projects, this system
is no longer in place. Centres for Monument Protection have been dissolved, and
their staff were among the irst to join the private archaeological sector in the
country. The Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Polish Academy
of Sciences was transformed into the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, and
its signiicance declined due to increasingly insuficient funding.
87
88
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
The last ifteen years have seen the implementation of huge infrastructure
projects that demanded large scale preventive excavations in association with
pan-European and national investments, in particular pipelines from Russia to
Western Europe, and then a network of highways and expressways. Consequently,
Polish archaeology has been confronted with a huge number of excavations to be
conducted at a fast pace on a scale never experienced before. This has signiicantly
shaped its character and created many unforeseen consequences. One of them has
been the commercialisation of the archaeological profession. The emergence of
private archaeological irms has led to the rapid emergence of a quite new professional group on the market, characterized by a high eficiency in conducting long
excavation campaigns on a large scale. Taking into account the previously dominant Polish model of small, almost ‘family’ excavations, this can undoubtedly be
regarded as an almost ‘revolutionary’ development.
The preventive excavations related to the construction of the gas pipeline from
Siberia to Western Europe in the early 1990s were the irst major undertaking
in the post-1989 period. The Polish highway program, initiated in June 1995,
aimed at laying out 2300 km of highways together with numerous expressways.
Archaeological preventive excavations ahead of these developments are in a strip
of 80 to 100 m wide and have been carried out without interruption since 1997.
Solutions and regulations implemented in the framework of the pipeline archaeological projects created a precedent for the formulation of a new doctrine for the
conservation and protection of archaeological heritage in the country. After some
modiications, they were later implemented during the highway project.
A legislative framework for the large scale preventive projects was provided by
the Spatial Management and Building and Construction Act as well as the Law for
Highway Constructions in Poland, both passed in 1994. The development funder
was obliged to cover the costs of preventive excavations, documentation, and
analyses of the results. The Valletta Convention for the protection of the archaeological heritage was ratiied by Poland in 1996, and considerably broadened and
strengthened the goals of archaeology to include, alongside research and valorisation, the integrated management, protection and promotion of the common
archaeological heritage.
These regulations were later combined into a new legislative initiative known
as the Protection of Monuments and the Guardianship of Monuments Act which
was passed in 2003. The Act makes it clear that all archaeological sites regardless their quality or signiicance are protected by law. The provisions of the Act
stipulate that, so far as ield methods and standards of documentation are concerned, all rescue work should be conducted in the same manner as any other
research projects, and funders are obliged to cover all the costs. Furthermore, it
is required that the excavated materials be professionally analysed and preferably
published. When it proves necessary, the objects have to be properly conserved.
Here again the funder is oficially obliged to cover the costs of all these works (see
also Gąssowski 2007, 164).
These legislative regulations were also accompanied by institutional transformations. In 1995, the Minister for Culture and Arts created the Archaeological
Rescue Research Centre, which was set to control the merit of preventive archaeological works within the highways construction project. In particular, this Rescue
Centre was obliged to co-operate with the General Directorate of National Roads
and Motorways in the management of the entire project, in setting up standards
of excavations, in the selection of contractors, and in controlling the quality of
89
Archaeology in crisis: the case of Poland
works. At the same time, the role of the provincial curators of the archaeological heritage diminished, leaving them in charge of formal administrative procedures. In 2002, this Rescue Centre was replaced by the Archaeological Heritage
Protection Centre. Its original duties were extended to a range of issues of conservation and management including the control over all archaeological regional conservators. The Centre was also charged of controlling good practice and quality of
preventive excavations along with the publication of their results.
Both Centres have played a vital role in Polish archaeology over the last decade.
Being well acquainted with the most pertinent issues of protection and management of archaeological heritage, they became partners for development funders
and potential contractors of large scale works. At the same time, both Centres
were custodians of principles of best practice and established a scientiic system
of protection and conservation of archaeological heritage. Preventive excavations
were recognized as a scientiic endeavour per se. Contractors are selected on the
basis of their previous experience in conducting similar works, scientiic qualiication, professional personnel, adequate storage facilities, etc. Consequently, large
scale preventive excavations were mainly undertaken by national scientiic institutions such as universities, museums or the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology
of the Polish Academy of Science. This system also made possible the participation
of smaller commercial and private archaeological irms, employed as subcontractors and supervised by the main contractor. More importantly, it ensured a high
quality of archaeological works, enabled effective control over them, and effectively prevented reductions in quality standards (Gąssowski 2007, 166). However,
it also turned out to be relatively expensive, leading to a divergence of interests
and became potentially corruptible.
In recent years, yet another organisational change has taken place. The
Archaeological Heritage Protection Centre lost its independence in 2007 and was
incorporated into the National Heritage Board of Poland. In this new structural
framework, archaeological heritage issues are not any longer dealt with by an autonomous body with its own budget. Its role was clearly diminished by being enmeshed
with administration and management of other types of heritage in the country.
The National Heritage Board of Poland then decided to withdraw from the
coordination and control of large-scale preventive works. This left a vacuum with
no independent quality control by any external professional body over the works
carried out. Controlling and reviewing responsibilities of these works are now
conducted exclusively by developer-appointed committees made up of administrative
staff employed by the developer, including archaeologists. This obviously rules out
objectivity and neutrality of opinions as well as critical reviews of the quality of the
work done. The most important change involved a different system of selecting the
contractor for archaeological works. With the advent of free market regulations the
contractor is now being chosen on a commercial basis through a system of tendering in which the decisive factor is exclusively the proposed price. This has triggered
competition in the market for archaeological services between private irms and
consortia and state institutions that resulted in a drastic decrease in both the scope
of archaeological works and their quality. As a result, proposals made by private
irms are commonly chosen due to their lower costs and possibility to complete allocated tasks in increasingly shorter time slots. Academic institutions are being slowly
removed from this market due to the more expensive costs required to complete
excavations in academically acceptable standards as well as a number of administrative obstacles for state institutions that considerably slow down any project.
90
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
3 Polish archaeology in global economic crisis
3.1 Poland and the global crisis. An overview
The economic situation in Poland in recent years has been considerably different than that in many other countries, where the effects of the global economic
crisis have been much serious. Although symptoms of an economic slowdown
have recently been recorded, local economists claim that as yet there are no signs
of recession. In 2008 a 5% GDP was recorded, and 1.7% in 2009. In the current
year, 2010, it is expected to amount to 3%. However, during the same period
a rate of unemployment increased from 9.5% at the end of 2008 to 12.8% in
January 2010 (http://www.gus.pl).
In general, archaeological activities are believed to be directly dependent on the
economic situation of the country. As the number of developments declines, the
scope and scale of practicing archaeology in the country, including the rescue and
contract archaeology sectors, will be inevitably affected. This is in accord with
a more general trend in different countries across Europe, where the crisis has
mainly affected commercial and development-led archaeological works (Aitchison
2009, 661). In Poland, however, the economic slowdown does not appear to
have a direct impact upon a condition of Polish archaeology. The situation is not
straightforward insofar as different archaeological sectors, including commercial,
academic, museum or heritage protection, work within a diversiied legal, organisational and inancial system. In fact, it is the ineficiency and incompatibility of
this system, rather than any kind of global economic turbulences that is responsible for the undisputable crisis in contemporary Polish archaeology.
Nowadays most archaeological work in Poland is conducted in relation
to the construction of motorways and expressways as well as other building
developments that are considered as a priority ahead of the European Football
Championship, which will be jointly hosted by Poland and Ukraine in 2012.
Paradoxically, the climax of the preparation of the Championship coincided with
the peak of the global crisis. As the Championship is portrayed as an event of
almost ‘civilisational’ signiicance, its successful preparation is inevitably highly
politicised. Hence, a number of infrastructure projects have been planned and
are being implemented, in particular road and train networks, airports, railways
stations and stadiums. The state expenditure for road construction has increased
considerably, and this automatically enlarged the budgets for preventive archaeological projects. Whereas in 2007 a sum of PLN 7 billion was spent on the
construction of roads and highways in Poland, this amounted to PLN 9 billion in
2008 and PLN 18 billion in 2009. For the year 2010, the allocated expenditure
will amount to PLN 27 billion. During the past two years the General Directorate
for National Roads and Motorways has signed contracts for the construction of
1225 km of roads, including 601 km of highways and 624 km of expressways as
well as numerous inter-urban, ring roads and for rebuilding of major communication arteries (http://www.gddkia.gov.pl; see also Gańska-Kiarszys, Kiarszys 2010).
3.2 Preventive & rescue archaeological work
The scale and scope of preventive and rescue archeology is largely dependent
upon the overall economic situation in the country, in particular the housing con-
91
Archaeology in crisis: the case of Poland
struction sector, the real estate market and the state-funded infrastructure. Hence,
problems with credit availability and a decrease in a number of infrastructure
projects may have a direct impact upon the demand for archaeological work. This
in turn results in increasing competition in the market for archaeological services
and eventually in reduced income for archaeological irms.
As mentioned above, the current situation in Polish preventive and rescue
archaeology is considerably different than that in most other European countries. Despite an overall economic crisis, large-scale infrastructure investments
have not been cut down thanks to the intensive preparations for the European
Championship. On the contrary, these need to be completed at a much faster
pace than in ordinary conditions. This time pressure has had direct consequences
upon preventive excavations as the allocated time for completion has also been
radically shortened when compared with the situation only a couple of years ago.
Furthermore, the general conditions for undertaking preventive archaeology were
additionally shaped by new legal solutions. In September 2008, in order to speed
up the construction of highways in Poland, the General Directorate for National
Roads and Motorways passed a law requiring that decisions on the placement of
any highway or expressway have to be linked to the permission for their construction. In practice, this means that all the stages of archaeological works (e.g. survey,
evaluation, legal and administrative procedures, as well as excavations) inevitably
have to coincide with the construction works.
Examples of extremely short delays to the overall construction projects in order
to allow preventive archaeological work are numerous. In one of the 2009 tenders
for archaeological work for an area of 25 hectares, in relation to the construction of the S5 expressway near Gniezno in the Wielkopolska province, the Poznań
branch of the General Directorate required excavations of the entire area be completed in a period of three months only. Likewise, the Kraków branch of the same
Directorate wanted to have an area of 46 hectares excavated prior to the construction of a local road in the Małopolska region, linking the Radzikowski Junction
with the Modlinica Junction, excavated within seven months. Needless to say, it is
virtually impossible to conduct viable and up-to-standard excavations of this scale
in such a short period of time.
To comply with increasingly tight time requirements and smaller tenders offered by
the contractor, archaeological irms have reduced the amount of scientiic analysis they
undertake and lowered the standards of scientiic documentation in order to accelerate the archaeological works and maintain the same level of income. The reduction of
the basic rate set for excavating a given area of archaeological deposits may cause a
situation in which the systematic study of stratigraphically complex sites simply proves
to be unproitable. There are examples of archaeological irms suffering signiicant
high inancial losses because they attempted to excavate complex sites to appropriate quality standards. Another unacceptable practice involves the deliberate falsifying
of archaeological documentation, reporting a false number of features in order to
increase income (according to the inancial regulations). Unfortunately, neither the
National Heritage Board of Poland nor provincial heritage ofices have the necessary
tools or resources to stop this unethical and illegal practice. The current situation has
also led to a growing amount of unpublished archaeological data obtained during
commercial excavations (see also Kobyliński 2008, 229-230).
Thus, what is alarming and what we consider to be the main effect of the
economic crisis upon preventive archaeology in Poland has been a deterioration in
the quality of archaeological work. Nearly all archaeological companies (mainly
92
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
private but also some universities) have been able to maintain the same level of
income as in the past, yet they are unable to comply to required standards of
research and quality of ieldwork. This does not relate merely to excavation procedures, but also to post-excavation analysis and the publication of inal results.
This overall deteriorating situation of preventive archaeology in Poland over
the last couple of years was further worsened by the mass return of Polish contract archaeologists who had been working in Western Europe. In the years 2004
– 2008, a large number of archaeologists emigrated to Ireland and the United
Kingdom, particularly to work on the numerous motorway excavations following
the implementation of the road program and coordinated by the National Road
Agency in Ireland (Aitchison 2009, 662). They accounted for approximately 5070 per cent of any archaeological teams assembled by private Irish irms (GańskaKiarszys, Kiarszys 2010). This emigration in the middle of the irst decade of the
twenty-irst century led to staff shortages at Polish archaeological irms which
led to an increase of between 40% and 70% in the wages of technicians and ield
directors alike. A majority of the archaeologists that had emigrated returned to
Poland in the irst half of 2008, in the period when the economic crisis has been
felt most severely. This coincided with the above discussed legal and organisational changes in Polish archaeology, and both factors led to in a considerable
decrease in salaries, in places up to 50%, and in forcing staff to accept unpaid
overtime (Gańska-Kiarszys, Kiarszys 2010).
The employment system in most of private or semi-private archaeological irms
is determined by the policy of outsourcing. This means most companies prefer
to offer temporary employment for undertaking a precisely allocated task in a
well deined period of time. This policy is set to considerably reduce employment costs, as the irm does not have to cover work insurance and other eligible
expenses. Thus, as far as the structure of employment in private archaeological
irms is concerned, it is directly related to the demand for archaeological services,
itself dependent upon success in tendering of archaeological works. For example,
a big private archaeological company AKME from Wrocław recently reduced the
number of archaeologists it employed due to a shortage of ield contracts. Yet,
in 2009 it had to hire several archaeologists to undertake preventive excavations
prior to construction of the S8 expressway. During the same time the PKZ-Poznań
irm – a consortium partner of AKME in this very project – had to employ three
full time archaeologists along with several temporary specialists to be able to complete its share of the project in the allocated time. A similar situation occurred in
the Archaeological and Historical Museum in Głogów, which had to temporarily
employ archaeologists to works in preventive excavations prior to the construction of another section of S8 expressway (Gańska-Kiarszys, Kiarszys 2010).
3.3 Watching briefs
The demand for archaeological services is also directly related to the number of
small scale private and public infrastructure projects being undertaken. The largest market for this kind of works exists in metropolitan centres such as Warsaw,
Kraków, Wrocław, and Poznań. The year 2009 marked the largest economic
slowdown in the country, but it did not immediately led to a dramatic collapse in
housing construction. In the period between January and December 2009 more
than 160,000 lats were built, which was 3.1% less than in the preceding year but
19.7% more than in 2007 (http://www.gus.com). However, yet, some projects and
93
Archaeology in crisis: the case of Poland
construction works have been delayed or suspended as happened with the construction of a huge multiplex in Gorzów Wielkopolski (Lubusz Land province).
Due to the developer’s bankruptcy, this construction was postponed in 2008 along
with the accompanying rescue archaeological work at the site which were to be
undertaken by Gorzów Museum archaeologists.
There are more than a thousand private archaeological irms in Poland and
their numbers are constantly growing. In the majority of cases, these are singleindividual entities, run by people with permanent jobs elsewhere. Watching briefs
and small scale excavations serve to supplement their incomes. For this group, a
drop in the number of available contracts does not lead to their bankruptcy or
result in closing down the business. However, for a few dozen irms archaeological
work is the main if not the only source of income. They usually employ between
two and three individuals, which are supported by additional temporary employees during seasonal archaeological works. Only a few well-established irms offer
permanent jobs to archaeologists.
Archaeological watching briefs are set to monitor the excavation of foundation
trenches and other intrusive works and are aimed at identifying and recording
archaeological inds and features. These watching briefs are much less restrictive than preventive excavations prior to highway and expressway constructions.
Hence, the watching brief market is more dynamic and lexible; selection of the
contractor depends mainly upon the planned length of the works as well as price
and the overall reputation of the irm. Rates for the same kind of work offered
in different parts of the country may vary by as much as 80%. Provincial heritage ofices are in charge of controlling the quality of this work: the frequency of
inspections is not ixed, and depends on the policies of particular provincial ofices
and their available personnel. For example, archaeologists carrying out watching briefs in the Mazowsze province are very often monitored during their work.
Quite the opposite situation exists in the Wielkopolska province. The results of
ield survey conducted in 2009 by archaeologists from the Institute of Prehistory
at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań revealed that watching briefs in this
province were not commonly undertaken in areas required systematic conservation
protection. In some instances detached houses were built on archaeological sites or
archaeological sites were destroyed by gravel-pits without a watching brief taking
place (Gańska-Kiarszys, Kiarszys 2010).
3.4 Academic / university archaeology
The economic recession over the last few years has turned out to have had little
impact upon the funding levels of higher education in Poland. In this respect, the
overall situation of academic archaeology has not changed. There were neither job
losses nor wage reductions. A similar level of state support has also been maintained regarding scholarships for students. In fact, the state expenditure on higher
education in 2009 increased by about 12% in comparison to the previous year
(http://www.gus.pl).
Generally, state funding for academic archaeology in Poland has always been
conspicuously low. This has meant that further reductions of these small sums
has had limited effect as academic archaeology was constantly seeking support
from other sources. For example, the 2009 budget of the Institute of Prehistory at
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań was identical to that of the preceding year.
Considering inlation, this meant that the 2009 budget, both for education and
94
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
research, was in fact slightly smaller than in 2008. The preliminary and unoficial
estimate for the year 2010 reports a slight increase, taking inlation into consideration. However, these funds will still be largely insuficient to cover all didactic
and research expenses in relation to the range of activities pursued by its staff. It is
worth mentioning that the departmental budget depends upon scientiic achievements of a given institution. Consequently, archaeological institutes ranked low
receive a smaller subsidy than those of higher academic standard.
However, signs of the inancial crisis are visible in the reduction of the travel
funds available to university staff for attending international conferences and meetings. Additionally, in case of some archaeological conferences organized in Poland
over the last two years, speakers have had to cover participation costs themselves
or seek inancial support from their home institutions rather than, as used to be the
case in the past, being supported by the organisers. This occurred at the conference
XVI Śląskie Spotkania Archeologiczne (16th Silesian Archaeological Meeting) organised in 2009 by the Institute of Archaeology at the University of Wrocław.
Some kind of remedy for this crisis, at least at university level, has been through
the increasing participation of Polish archaeologists in EU sponsored programs
and grants. This new situation will hopefully contribute to the budgets of Polish
archaeological institutions in the coming years. However, a major share of additional funds for academic archaeology comes from rescue and preventive projects, as
discussed above. The poor funding of Polish science in general and the new pressure
from the private sector have paved the way for academic institutions to engage in
competition for rescue archaeology contracts. For some of the institutions, such as
the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, these
contracts have become sources of substantial inancial support for other research
projects. Consequently, the early stage of the highway preventive archaeology was
characterised by the emergence of numerous consortia in which academic institutes
placed a vital role. Small, privately owned archaeological irms were only allowed to
participate in these projects as sub-contractors. Moreover, the signiicant role played
by academic institutes in preventive archaeology has far reaching consequences as it
secures both high scientiic standards in ieldwork and academic interest in broadening the knowledge of the past of the studied region (see more in Marciniak 2006).
From a short-sighted, strictly economic point of view, the involvement of
academic archaeologists in contract archaeology may be seen as favourable for
the development of archaeological activities. In fact, this may prove to be quite
dangerous for the future of the discipline, insofar as it will separate academic
archaeologists from teaching and research, and also channels the ways in which
archaeological evidence is created and transmitted to future generations.
3.5 Archaeological museums
According to the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage statistics, subsidies
for museums increased in 2009 by more than 10%, when compared with the previous year. Similarly, the budget of provincial centres for conservation and documentation of historical monuments has increased by more than 11%, although
inancial resources for the protection of monuments reduced by 18%. Overall, the
total expenditure on culture and national heritage protection in 2009 was 11.8%
higher than in the previous year. Statistics provided by the Ministry also show
a steady increase in a number of museum visitors, in particular to regional and
historical ones (http://www.gus.pl; http://www.mkidn.gov.pl).
95
Archaeology in crisis: the case of Poland
Nevertheless, as revealed by a recent inspection by the Supreme Chamber
of Control, museums in Poland are not in a good shape. The most commonly
encountered problems concern poor security and storage of museum collections,
failures in conservation and protection of collections and incompatibilities in
safety legislation. The current state of Polish museums, in particular the unsatisfactory protection of their collections, is the result of years of neglect and organisational ineficiency. Archaeological museums are no longer government-inanced
bodies but work within the structures of regional government, towns and cities
and their poor state has nothing to do with the current global economic crisis.
Besides their statutory activities, most archaeological museums also participate in commercial archaeological projects that can partly improve their inancial
situation. Since they usually have professional staff, inancial resources and in
particular are in possession of storage facilities, they are able to create consortia
with private or semi-private archaeological companies and other archaeological
institutions. This solution was for many years implemented by the Archaeological
Museum in Kraków, participating in the consortium Krakowski Zespół do Bada
Autostrad with the Institute of Archaeology at the Jagiellonian University and
the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Science in
Kraków. The income generated from those activities was invested in a new publication series, in upgrading scientiic equipment and in a signiicant renovation
of the museum buildings. This successful co-operation generated a considerable
increase of the museum budget, and yet, paradoxically perhaps, it also resulted a
cut to the basic state subsidy of PLN 650,000. Thus, at present, when income is
not longer being generated from preventive excavations, the Museum cannot rely
on the oficial subsidies to cover its deicit, and is consequently in poor economic
shape (cf. http://www.ma.krakow.pl/muzeum/sf). A similar initiative has also been
taken by the Archaeological and Historical Museum in Głogów (http://www.
glogow.pl/mah/). Besides undertaking archaeological watching briefs, this museum
also participated in preventive excavations prior to the construction of the S3 and
S8 expressways in a consortium with two private companies – AKME and PKZPoznań. The income generated was invested by the museum in the construction of
a storehouse (Gańska-Kiarszys, Kiarszys 2010).
4 Final remarks
Monitoring the impact of the global economic crisis on the condition of Polish
archaeology is made dificult by the lack of systematic quantitative data, as well as
the complicated structural and organisational landscape of institutions responsible
for heritage protection. It is clear, however, that the impact of the global economic
crisis on archaeology in Poland has not been as signiicant as in other European
countries and worldwide. Its effects upon the commercial sector have been considerably mitigated by the large number of ongoing highway and expressway projects
for the forthcoming Euro 2012, as well as the relatively good state of the housing
construction sector and the real estate market. Moreover, EU grants and subsidies
have increasingly become an alternative source of inancing for archaeological
projects and research.
Clear symptoms of the crisis can be seen only in preventive and rescue archaeology, as variously undertaken across Poland by a range of private archaeological
irms and commercial units. The ways that the sector is structured, the lack of
96
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
quality control, the dominance of private companies, the poor ethical standards
in evidence, the time constraints imposed by the developers, and the increasingly
low budgets available for archaeological work make it impossible to maintain
high academic standards on large-scale excavations with preventive archaeological
methodologies. This refers in particular to the excavation of certain categories of
sites, such as inhumation cemeteries and complex settlement structures.
In comparison with the situation at the end of the 1990s and the early years
of this decade, today’s budgetary constraints on rescue archaeology impose the
need for a fast excavation process which clearly favours small private companies
and may lead to their absolute domination over the rescue archaeology sector in
the near future. Academic archaeology would have no choice but to accept that a
major part of ield archaeological activities will soon ind itself beyond their reach.
And it is exactly this sector of activities that produces a vast body of archaeological material, which needs to be systematically studied, published and properly
stored in the years to come.
In these times of global economic crisis, Polish archaeology sees considerable
inancial beneits from preventive excavations and from the increasing support of
EU institutions, and yet it remains mired in a permanent structural crisis. This is
caused by a number of intertwined factors such as (1) the malfunctioning system
of archaeological heritage management and protection; (2) the lack of a professional institution in charge of setting up, controlling and enforcing standards of
preventive archaeological research in the country; (3) the ineficient public procurement law and free-market regulations, which lead to the lowering of the standards and quality of archaeological works; and (4) the imprecise laws relating to
the protection of cultural heritage. Perhaps the most alarming effects of the crisis
in Polish archaeology relates to the dramatic decrease in the quality of preventive
and rescue works due to adoption of the most liberal solutions in which only profits come to the fore. This is further worsened by a structural ineficiency of various
bodies in charge of setting standards and coordinating control over preventive and
rescue archaeological work.
References cited
Aitchison K. 2009. After the ‘gold rush’: global
archaeology in 2009, World Archaeology 41(4),
pp. 659–671.
Gańska-Kiarszys A., Kiarszys G. 2010. Wpływ
kryzysu gospodarczego na sytuację w polskiej
archeologii (unpublished manuscript).
Gąssowski J. 2007. Rescue archaeology in
Poland. Past and present, In European Preventive
Archaeology. Papers of the EPAC Meeting, Vilnius
2004, ed. K. Bozóki-Ernyey, pp. 161-66. Budapest:
National Office of Cultural Heritage, Hungary
– Council of Europe.
Kobyliński Z. 2008. Protection, maintenance and
enhancement of cultural landscapes in changing
social, political and economical reality in Poland, In
Landscapes under Pressure. Theory and Practice of
Cultural Heritage Research and Preservation, ed. L.
R. Lozny, pp. 213-242. Springer Science + Business
Media, LLC.
Marciniak, Arkadiusz. 2006. Central European
archaeology at the crossroads. In A Future for
Archaeology. The Past in the Present, eds. R. Layton,
S. Shennan & P. Stone, pp. 157-171. London: UCL
Press.
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
11. The impact of the economic crisis on rescue
archaeology in Russia
Asya Engovatova
Department of rescue Archaeology
Institute of Archaeology of the Russian
Academy of Science, Moscow
engov@mail.ru
Fig. 1. The beginnings of
rescue archaeology works
in Russia. The MoskvaVolga canal in the 1930.
1 A brief historical overview of rescue archaeology in Russia
The history of rescue or preventive archaeology in Russia goes back to the end
of the nineteenth century. In tsarist times, construction works were occasionally
accompanied by archaeological surveillance, but there was no system for protecting the archaeological heritage as such. The system of rescue archaeological works
began to develop in the Soviet Union in the late 1920, with the implementation of
large-scale industrial projects. In October 1932 the ‘Special committee for surveillance at new construction sites’ was created within the framework of the State
Academy for Material Culture (GAIMK). This was the starting point for rescue
archaeology as a system for protecting archaeological sites.
In 1932 the State Commission of the Council of People’s Commissars sent a
letter to all “construction, research and planning organisations and to the department of water resources”, stressing the importance of rescue archaeological works
and their funding from construction budgets. In the period from 1932 to 1935,
some 10 to 15 archaeological expeditions operated within the framework of the
Committee, and the territory of their work included, besides central Russia, the
Caucasus, Middle Asia and Siberia. Among the major infrastructure projects of
that time which were preceded by archaeological rescue investigations were the
Moskva-Volga and the Volga-Don canals (Fig.1), the Moscow metro and the
railways in the South Urals. The results of some of these rescue projects have been
published.
97
98
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
In 1937 the State Academy for the History of Material Culture was incorporated within the system of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In the years between
the 1940 and the 1960 most archaeological rescue works was conducted by the
Academy of Science on large-scale construction sites for hydroelectric power stations (e.g. Kuibyshev, Stalingrad, Tsimlyanskaya, Krasnoyarsk), during infrastructure development and other construction programmes.
The 1970’s saw a rapid increase in the amount of rescue work carried out, and
specialists from Moscow and Leningrad scientiic institutions, as well as employees
of regional research centres, university institutes, museum and heritage protection bodies were called to take part in the rescue archaeological works at the new
construction sites.
According to statistical data, rescue archaeology works conducted by the
Academy of Sciences between the 1960’s and the irst half of the 1980’s represented about one half of the total amount of excavations. The rest was carried out
by university institutes and museums.
2 The licensing system for archaeological works
It is worth noting that pre-revolutionary Russia already had institutions designated by the state for regulating ield work and ensuring that it was conducted
in accordance with existing norms. To undertake archaeological work, it was
necessary to have received a special excavation licence. This tradition was maintained after the 1917 revolution and has continued to the present. From 1937,
the Academy of Sciences became the body responsible for regulating archaeological works. 1946 saw the creation of the Field Investigations Committee, headed
by academician A.V. Artsikhovsky: the Committee’s main task was to regulate
ield archaeological activities throughout the Russian territory, irst and foremost
through the delivery of licences for survey and excavations.
Nowadays, the body responsible for these regulations is the Scientiic and
expert committee of the Department of ield investigations within the Institute of
Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Science (IA-RAS). This expert committee
is composed of archaeologists representing the major archaeological organisations
in the country (the Academy of Sciences, the museums and the universities). The
licences it provides relate to, and give the right to conduct, a range of archaeological operations. There are four distinct types of these licences, called forms: Form
N°1 – for research excavations; Form N°2 – for archaeological survey work; Form
N°3 – for surface survey only (issued for preliminary ieldwork); and Form N°4
– for rescue excavations at endangered sites. Among other things, this centralised
licensing system makes it possible to obtain information on both the quality and
the quantity of the ield investigations carried out across Russia. This information
is analysed here, and makes it possible to appreciate the situation of rescue archaeology in the current period of economic crisis.
3 Economic changes in the early 1990
The situation of rescue archaeology changed in line with much broader developments which occurred at the beginnings of the 1990. The amount of construction works, and consequently of rescue archaeology work, decreased sharply due
The impact of the economic crisis on rescue archaeology in Russia
to the economic and political crisis in the country (Fig. 2). The situation improved
to a certain extent by the end of the 1990’s, when economic growth and new
building projects led to an increase in the amount of rescue archaeology work.
In the period from 1990 to 2000, the main areas of rescue archaeology in Russia
have been the following:
– Excavations and survey in historical towns and settlements (following active
construction works);
– Works at major infrastructure and industrial sites (roads, gas and oil pipelines,
gas depots and chemical weapons storage facilities);
– Surveying works prior to the sale and private ownership of land.
With improvements in the methods of survey and excavation used, archaeological planning has been carried out more eficiently, bearing on all aspects of
construction projects related to archaeological heritage protection.
Fig. 2. Trends in issuing
archaeological licenses,
1994-2009.
Fig. 3. Proportion of
rescue archaeology projects
carried out by private
organisations, 1992-2008.
The economic changes in the late 1990 saw the growth of the private sector in
may areas, including archaeology. This meant that between 1992 and 2006 the
percentage of private irms involved in ieldwork grew from 0.8% to 4.4% when
compared with the years from 1985-1991 (Fig. 3). However, subsequent economic
crises and the need to economise on public funds, have stimulated in part the
99
100
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
further growth of private irms in archaeology. A major factor, also visible across
other sectors, has been the various tax deductions and exemptions which are
accorded to small, privately owned businesses – and not to public bodies.
4 The economic crisis of 1998
In August 1998 Russia experienced a deep economic crisis. It should be noted,
however, that the impact of the crisis on the number of excavation licenses issued
that year was virtually nil, since by August practically all the ield projects had
been completed. The number of rescue excavations was slightly reduced in 1999,
with the impact actually being felt two years later, in 2001, following a recession
in the construction industry (Fig. 2).
As the country overcame the economic crisis of 1998, a boom in the construction industry brought about an increase in the number of rescue excavations.
Trends in issuing excavation licenses provide a clear illustration of these ongoing
changes (Fig.2).
From the year 2000 onwards, the number of licenses granted for rescue excavations sharply increased. This increase is particularly spectacular for the years
2006-2008, which show that around three quarters of all archaeological works
throughout the country were rescue excavations.
However, the level of economic development is not the only factor that inluences the regional intensity of rescue excavations across Russia. Among the
regions with the highest amount of rescue excavations are: Moscow, Tver, Rostov,
Nizhny Novgorod, Irkutsk, Krasnodar krai, and the Yamalo-Nenets autonomous
district (Fig. 4).
In 2007, applications for archaeological licenses under Form N°2 (survey work
in areas scheduled for construction) and Form N°4 (rescue excavations) were
respectively 80 and 48 in the Tver region, 79 and 54 in the Rostov region, 60 and
35 in the Khanty-Mansijsk autonomous district, 27 and 30 in the Moscow region,
and 55 and 39 in the Krasnodar krai.
Fig. 4. Map of the
constituent entities (regions)
of the Russian Federation
with the largest number
of licenses for rescue
archaeology projects, 2007.
The impact of the economic crisis on rescue archaeology in Russia
How can we interpret this list of regions with the highest number of licenses
for rescue archaeology projects? There are in fact two factors that inluence the
quantity of rescue investigations carried out in a given region. One is the eficiency
and professionalism of the archaeological protection authorities, and the other is
the general level of economic development in the region. Experience shows us that
it is the former factor, the activity of the heritage protection authorities, that is the
decisive one. For example, the number of rescue projects in Tver region, which
is not even included among the top 20 areas in terms of economic development,
exceeds the number of rescue excavations undertaken in St. Petersburg and Kaluga
region, where the pace of development is much quicker.
5 The current economic crisis: 2008 -2009
Changes in the numbers of archaeological licenses issued for rescue works
clearly show that the number of investigations has decreased in the wake of the
economic crisis.
In 2007, the licenses issued under Form N°4 (for rescue excavations at sites
threatened by construction work or sites in extreme state of disrepair) numbered
611. By 2009, the number was 372, a decrease of 40%. Regarding licenses under
Form N°2 (for surveys and small-scale excavations, up to 20 square metres, for
exploratory purposes), the drop was less marked and amounted to 7% (from 585
in 2007 to 546 in 2008). The proportions of different types of rescue works also
changed. In 2007, there were 10% (62) less survey projects (Form N°2) than excavation works (Form N°4), whereas in 2009 the number of survey projects (546
cases) was a good 32% higher than the number of rescue excavations (372 cases).
From this, the inluence of the current economic crisis on Russian rescue archaeology can be identiied in several areas.
First of all, there has been a decrease in the total amount of construction,
especially noticeable in the building sector in the centre of historic towns. Since
2008, less rescue work was carried out in such major historical towns as Moscow,
Kazan, Vladimir, Novgorod or Smolensk. The decrease was particularly noticeable in the construction projects undertaken by private companies. Less marked
was the decline in the work connected with urban infrastructure funded by federal
or regional budgets, such as the building and maintenance of communications
networks and of roads. In these types of construction sites, rescue excavations in
historical towns still continue.
Recently, a certain increase in the number of urban rescue excavations can be
related to the reconstruction of churches and monasteries. Through a Ministry of
Culture program involving private investors, the state has been actively supporting
the repair of these religious ediices, and the work is preceded by rescue excavations. Examples of this expanding type of work can be noted with the excavations
at the Convent of the Immaculate Conception (Zachatyevsky) in Moscow and at
the monastery of New Jerusalem in the Moscow region.
The economic crisis has had a more limited effect on construction projects
involving roads, gas pipelines and electric power lines. This is because most infrastructure construction projects in Russia are inanced from of the state budget, or
by organisations that are connected to state funding. As in the crisis of 1998-2000,
the state is actively investing in new roads, oil pipelines, etc., and these projects
provide for site protection, including archaeological survey and rescue excavation.
101
102
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
That is why the total number of rescue projects in 2008-2009 remained practically at the pre-crisis level (Fig. 2). However, unlike the relative stability of rescue
work on gas and oil pipeline projects, the economic crisis has had a heavier impact
on road building. Since this sector requires considerable investment, the number
of road construction projects has decreased markedly, and with it the amount of
rescue excavation. These are effectively limited to projects which had secured their
funding prior to the crisis (such as the Moscow-St. Petersburg highway).
6 Conclusions – some effects of the crisis
In addition to the above areas, the impact of the crisis can also be felt at the
legislative level. Indeed there have been lobbying attempts in the State Duma
(parliament) to amend the Law on Cultural Heritage Sites (Federal Law N° 73), so
as to discontinue the existing requirement for archaeological evaluations on land
scheduled for construction. For the time being, however, these attempts have not
been successful.
As already mentioned one of the measures taken by the state in order to overcome the crisis is the provision of considerable tax exemptions for private businesses. These exemptions apply also to small private archaeological companies,
which have consequently increased in numbers. The procedure for opening such a
company and obtaining a license is actually a simple one, since the company only
needs to sign a contract with a professional archaeologist. This factor is connected
quite clearly with the crisis, since lower contract prices make it possible to save
money on taxes. By contrast, large-scale organisations dealing with archaeology,
such as museums, higher education institutions and the Academy of Sciences, do
not beneit from such tax exemptions.
As a move to improve the situation regarding these taxation disparities for state
institutions, in May 2010 archaeologists in the Academy of Sciences submitted
a suggestion to the State Duma to lower VAT rates for rescue excavations. This
proposition is currently under consideration.
Another effect of the crisis concerns the level of post-excavation processing and
studies of archaeological inds, which have also decreased. During the last year,
the results of far fewer rescue archaeological excavations have been published
than previously.
Finally, it is noteworthy that, even during the current crisis, large-scale state
construction sites continue to receive funding: this is the case with the site of the
Sochi Winter Olympic games in 2014, with some major hydropower structures
(Boguchanskaya hydroelectric power plant), and with gas infrastructure sites.
These major state-funded projects have to some extent reduced the negative
impact of the crisis on rescue archaeology. Nonetheless, as was the case during
the crisis of 1998, this impact is still very noticeable, and it is expected that rescue
archaeology will continue to feel the consequences of economic problems for at
least two or three more years before it recovers.
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
12. The effect of the global recession on cultural
resources management in the United States
Jeffrey H. Altschul
Statistical Research, Inc. (Tucson,
Arizona USA), SRI Foundation (Rio
Rancho, New Mexico USA), and Nexus
Heritage (Fordingbridge, United Kingdom)
jhaltschul@sricrm.com
1 Introduction
Ask anyone in the United States and they will tell you that 2009 was a tough
year. The effects of the global recession cut a broad swathe across all regions and
industries. The heritage industry, or as it is known in the States, cultural resource
management (CRM), suffered along with others. How badly CRM was affected
by the recession will not be known for some time. Yet, while there is no doubt that
the industry suffered in 2009 and will continue to do so at least through 2010, the
effects of the recession have not been equally distributed. Some consultants have
weathered the economic storm better than others. Why this disparity occurred and
what it tells us about the near future of CRM is the subject of this paper.
2 Before the fall
There are few measures of the economic effect of the recession on CRM in the
United States. The two major reports on federal agency spending on CRM–the
Secretary of Interior’s (SOI’s) report on the Federal Archeology Program (http://
www.nps.gov/archeology/src/index.htm) and the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s)
annual report on environmental programs (https://www.denix.osd.mil/portal/page/
portal/ARC/ARCFY2008/05_FY08DEPARC_App_C_Conservation_Budget_inal.
pdf)–only have data on CRM spending through iscal year (FY) 2008 (October 1,
2007–September 30, 2008). These reports only capture a portion of federal spending on CRM, although the congressional allocations to the agencies in the reports
appear to parallel general trends in federal CRM allocations (Frank McManamon,
personal communication 2010). Table 1 presents the total estimated funds appropriated by Congress to an agency reporting in the SOI report (Question I01 from
the 2008 National Park Service Archaeology Program questionnaire to agencies) as
well as data from Appendix C of DoD’s annual environmental report on nonrecurring CRM expenses by the military services and other DoD agencies. Data from the
Federal Archaeology Program indicate that after relative stability in federal spending
on CRM during the middle of the decade (2003–2005), there has been a doubling
of federal CRM spending over the four years from 2005 to 2008. In contrast, the
DoD report shows that although nonrecurring costs, or one-time allocations, such
as archaeological or architectural inventories for particular undertakings, were
relatively stable between 2004 and 2006, they were quite volatile over the next two
years. In 2007, DoD funding for CRM increased by 17%, whereas in 2008, there
was a 31% decrease, returning CRM funding to the 2003 level.
Together, the two federal reports indicate an increase of about 33 percent in
federal funding for CRM between 2003 and 2008. At the start of the recession,
therefore, federal spending on CRM was as strong as it had ever been. Using a
variety of sources, Altschul and Patterson (2010:297) estimate total public sec-
103
104
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
tor spending on CRM and academic archaeological research for 2008 to have
been between about $450 and $500 million. Private sector spending in 2008 was
equally strong, leading Altschul and Patterson to estimate total expenditures on
CRM and academic archaeological research in the United States to be between
about $700 million and $1 billion.
Table 1. Reported Federal
CRM Funding, 2003–2008.
Year
Federal
Archaeology
Program (FAP)
($ in millions)
Defense
Environmental
Programs
(nonrecurring costs)
($ in millions)
2003
47.5
40.2
87.7
2004
44.5
50.4
94.9
2005
42.1
53.3
95.4
2006
76.5
48.7
125.2
2007
66.5
58.1
124.6
2008
90.2
40.2
130.4
Combined FAP and DoD
($ in millions)
3 What happened?
At the outset of 2009, the effects of the recession were beginning to be felt.
Consulting irms that relied heavily on real estate development–particularly in
areas that had been witnessing large increases in residential construction fueled
in part by subprime mortgages, such as California, Arizona, and Florida–suffered
irst, several going out of business or being purchased by larger competitors. These
strains, however, tended to be regional, and it was not clear whether the recession
would overtake the entire industry. The passage of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in February 2009 led some to speculate on the listserv
of the American Cultural Resources Association (ACRA) that the recession might
actually be good for business. ARRA included funds earmarked speciically for
CRM and archaeology, spread among agencies as diverse as the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, Forest Service, and National
Science Foundation.
By the third quarter of 2009, it was clear that CRM would not be spared the
full brunt of the recession. Private spending on CRM had slowed in all sectors but
energy (more on energy below). Defense spending remained relatively strong, but
the other pillar of public CRM spending, transportation, was surprisingly weak.
Altschul and Patterson (2010:294) estimated that CRM spending on transportation-related projects in 2008 averaged between $4 and $5 million per state,
for a national estimate of between $200 and $250 million. There was nothing
in the 2009 federal budget to suggest that this level of spending would slow. In
fact, ARRA increased funding for “shovel ready” projects, some of which would
include a CRM component.
What many had not anticipated was the effect that declining state revenues
would have on transportation projects. Generally, transportation improvements
are funded through a cost-sharing arrangement between the federal government
and state governments in which the former pays for 80% of project costs and
105
The effect of the global recession on cultural resources management in the United States
the latter for 20%. Unable to fund their match, some states chose not to move
forward on planned projects. Another factor, unrelated to the recession, was that
the Surface Highway Transportation Act had expired in 2008. As debate over a
new bill continued through 2009 and into 2010, federal funding for transportation-related improvements was accomplished through Congressional continuing
resolution. While federal funding has remained relatively strong, many states
have been wary of initiating major, multiyear transportation projects without the
assurance that the federal portion of the funding for such projects is secure. The
consequence is that many of the large, complicated projects that have substantial
CRM components are stalled.
It may have been possible for the CRM industry to better endure the inancial
turmoil of 2009 if the promised stimulus spending had materialised. Although
some contracts funded by ARRA were awarded, many of these got off to slow
starts, and presumably, there are still many more contracts to come. By some estimates, as of the end of the irst quarter of 2010, 70 percent of ARRA funds have
still not been spent.
A devastated real estate market, weak transportation spending, and a slow start
on ARRA work combined to make 2009 a very dificult year for CRM. ACRA
surveys of member and nonmember companies in March 2009 (http://acra-crm.
org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=126) and September 2009 (http://
acra-crm.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=127) document high levels
of anxiety and inancial trouble among CRM consultants (Table 2).
But it is not only consultants that have suffered. As tax revenues declined, many
states required state employees in CRM and archaeology at universities, museums, parks, agencies, the State Historic Preservation Ofice, and so forth to take
furloughs; nonessential positions were eliminated. The effects trickled down to
tribes, counties, and municipalities. Few jurisdictions have not felt the effects of
the recession in some form.
Table 2. ACRA’s Effects
of the Economy Surveys,
March 2009–March 2010.
Date
Number of
respondents
Economic Assessment of Corporate
Performance in Past Six Months1 (%)
Sign
Dec
Slight
Dec
Same
Slight
Improv
Sign
Improv
Helped
by ARRA2
(%)
Future Expectation of Corporate
Performance (%)
Improv
Decline
Same
Don’t
Know
March 2009
183
36.7
32.2
14.7
10.2
6.2
60.8
23.5
38.0
25.7
12.8
September
2009
110
35.1
11.3
22.2
19.4
12.0
48.1
25.9
30.6
34.3
9.2
March 2010
89
29.2
14.6
28.1
20.2
7.9
50.5
31.5
28.1
31.5
9.0
Key: Sign Dec = Significant Decline; Slight Dec = Slight Decline; Same = Same; Slight Improv = Slight Improvement; Sign Improv = Significant Improvement;
Improv = Improvement.
1. Surveys of ACRA member companies and nonmember companies were combined for March and September 2009 (these were combined in the March
2010 survey). The percentages were recalculated to eliminate responses of “don’t know.”
2. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was passed in February 2009. The March 2009 question asked whether firms expected to receive
ARRA contracts directly or indirectly, whereas the September 2009 and March 2009 asked if respondents had received such contracts.
4 Through a glass, darkly
To some in the CRM industry, it seemed that the end of 2009 brought a bottom
to the recession. The March 2010 ACRA survey (http://acra-crm.org/associations/9221/
iles/ACRA%20Effects%20of%20the%20Economy%20Results%2C%2005-05-10.pdf)
106
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
indicates that consultants are suffering less and anticipating increasing workloads in 2010. For the most part, government layoffs and furloughs have abated.
Although few are hiring, hopeful signs have emerged. First, ARRA funds have
started to low, even if there are fewer contracts with CRM elements than anticipated. Second, private sector funding of CRM has begun to increase, particularly
in the energy sector. Large numbers of CRM projects are being performed in
support of “old” (oil, gas, uranium, and other sources pumped or mined from the
ground) and “new” (solar, wind, and other passive systems) energy projects. Many
of these projects are on public lands in the western United States, but other areas,
such as Louisiana and Texas, are witnessing an increase in pipeline installation
and other energy-related activities as well. Third, state departments of transportation have begun to initiate projects. Some of these projects are funded with ARRA
support, but others are large projects that have been in the planning stages for
some time.
Although workloads have increased, employment still lags. Instead of hiring,
consultants and state agencies are asking existing staff to work harder and longer.
Concerns linger that the increase in CRM activity will not last into 2011. ARRA
will expire in February 2011, although unspent funds will probably continue to
support work throughout at least FY 2011. With elections looming, the likelihood that a transportation bill will be enacted is questionable, and without it the
security of transportation-related CRM activities is in doubt. Yet there is only
so much work consultants and state, tribal, and municipal agencies can do with
their existing staff. In the short term, many will hire additional staff. Whether
these individuals are short-term employees or permanent staff is a question no one
seems to be able to answer.
Acknowledgments
References Cited
I would like to thank Terry Klein, Owen Lindauer,
Frank McManamon, Terry Majewski, and Lucy
Wayne for their assistance in supplying data and
information on CRM in the United States. I also
would like to thank Kenny Aitchison and Nathan
Schlanger for inviting me to participate in the session
“Archaeology and the Global Crisis–Multiple
Impacts, Possible Solutions,” at the Fifteenth
Annual Meeting of the European Association
of Archaeologists in Riva del Garda, Italy. The
manuscript benefited greatly from the editing skills of
John Cafiero. I am solely responsible for any errors of
fact, logic, or omission.
Altschul, Jeffrey H., and Thomas C. Patterson, 2010,
Trends in Employment and Training in American
Archaeology. In Voices in American Archaeology,
edited by Wendy Ashmore, Dorothy T. Lippert,
and Barbara J. Mills, pp. 291–316. SAA Press,
Washington, D.C.
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Edited by Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison, 2010, ACE / Culture Lab Editions.
13. Postscript: on dead canaries, guinea-pigs
and other Trojan horses
Nathan Schlanger
ACE project – ‘Archaeology in
contemporary Europe’
Institut national de recherches
archéologiques préventives, Paris
nathan.schlanger@inrap.fr
Archaeologists, it was recalled at the onset of this volume, are professionally
quite familiar with the numerous crises and disasters to have struck humanity
in the course of its history. Let us then imagine that the current economic crisis
is akin to some medieval plague or such pandemic, and wonder what, mutatis
mutandis, would be the patterns and processes that aflicts the archaeological
profession and its practitioners, and with them archaeological research and heritage management more generally? Does the outbreak strike indiscriminately, left
and right, or are there factors that encourage or hinder its spread? Are all victims
similarly affected, or do some prove more vulnerable or resilient than others?
What of incubation periods, delayed reactions, recurrent fevers? And once the
malady over, are the prospects of full recovery everywhere equal in their scale and
timing? Will the convalescents face sequels, parasites, secondary infections, or will
they be tempered and strengthened by the ordeal? Last but not least, will they be
able to ind their place and lourish, to regain – and indeed to renew or actually to
reinvent – their patrimonial and scientiic vocation as well as their wider relevance
to society at large?
There is of course no question of proposing upon this medical metaphor anything like a complete or formal diagnosis. The scenarios or conjectures tentatively
advanced here – of which some will no doubt (it is hoped) prove overly pessimistic
– can likewise hardly count as a reliable prognosis, and even less as possible remedies. For one, the crisis as a syndrome and a collective representation is still very
much with us, with changing intensities, multiple scales, mixed signals, double
dips and side effects that are all superimposed and at times enmeshed within other
ongoing social, economic and political processes. Next, we are all well aware
that the initial conditions for archaeological research and heritage management
vary considerably from country to country, let alone between continents, in the
light of different traditions of governance, ideological predispositions, economic
patterns, planning procedures, legislative frameworks, monitoring practices,
academic norms, professional standards, social expectations and the like (see some
recent overviews in Bozoki-Ernyey 2007, D’Andrea & Guermandi 2008, Demoule
2007, Kristiansen 2009, Ould Mohamed Naffé et al. 2008, Willems & Van den
Dries 2007). Lastly, at quite a different level, the information available to us on
the effects of the crisis is at best incomplete. The contributors have not all been
equally attentive to the identiied impact-areas, and the data accessible to them
have been variable. In comparison with the information available for the United
Kingdom (on employment and higher education), for Russia, Ireland or Spain (on
archaeological permits and structures) and especially for the Netherlands (on just
about everything), it is clear that in other countries ministries, state agencies or
independent bodies have much to catch up in terms of gathering and making available relevant information. Upon all this, this postscript can really do little more
than draw on the contributions assembled here to propose some comparisons and
provoke some relections on the multiple impacts of the crisis on archaeology.
107
108
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
1 Employment in crisis: canaries and guinea-pigs
The area where the pattern appears most contrasted is undoubtedly that of
employment in what we have called Malta archaeology. The westernmost fringes
of Europe, speciically the United Kingdom and to a different degree Ireland,
have been the hardest hit. The reduction of developers’ demand for archaeological work in the United Kingdom has not only lead several commercial units to
the brink of bankruptcy – hence the pertinent advice reproduced here in annex II
– but also left several hundred archaeologists out of job, from early on and across
the board (Aitchison, Sinclair, Thomas, this volume). Indeed so distinctive has
been this syndrome that archaeologists there have unwittingly gained another,
unwelcome claim to fame. Alongside the ‘Lipstick index’, whereby the increased
purchase of cheap ‘feel-good’ cosmetics compensates for now unaffordable shoes
or clothes, economists have introduced the ‘Archaeology index’ for spotting a
recession. Geoffrey Dicks, analyst at the Royal Bank of Scotland (an institution,
incidentally, whose own contribution to the inancial crisis is notorious) explained
to the Mail on Sunday (18.05.2008, see http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/investingand-markets/article.html?in_article_id=441790&in_page_id=3): “One unusual
indicator of an economic slowdown is the employment, or otherwise, of archaeologists. When new ground is broken for a building development, the archaeologists are usually allowed in irst, to rescue any important fragments. With
little new ground being broken, demand for archaeologists is falling”. Falling
so fast and hard that a BBC item entitled ‘recession leaves history in the dark’
(20.02.2009, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/7899938.
stm) had no qualms to dub archaeology “a ‘canary’ trade, one which – like the
canaries warning of dangerous gas in mining history – dies at the irst sign of
trouble in the air”.
This noxious state of affairs is to a certain extent reproduced in Ireland, where,
admittedly in conjunction with other factors1, the number of archaeologists
employed in the commercial sector has fallen by an astounding 80% since 2007
(Eogan, this volume). The trend is also perceptible in the United States, where by
2009 job positions deemed non-essential have been by and large eliminated from
cultural resource management consultants, and also from state agencies, including
universities, museums and parks (Altschul, this volume). Such painful contractions appear however relatively localised, and relate to the distinctive organisation,
scale and employment practices of the archaeological business in the countries
concerned. Although reliable data are not yet available, also Spain can expect a
rise in archaeological redundancies and bankruptcies given the near-collapse of the
particularly overheated construction sector (Parga-Dans, this volume). There are
nevertheless indications that the regional governments, with their public-works
developments and their budgetary time-scales, will provide a suficient buffer
for commercial archaeological companies. Otherwise complex is the situation in
Poland, where the effects of the global crisis have actually been quite mild, and
further mitigated by the inlux of EU funding for major infrastructure programmes
(Marciniak & Pawleta, this volume). Nevertheless, structural laws in the current
archaeological management system encourage the proliferation of small commercial irms which cannot ensure stable and rewarding employment for many Polish
archaeologists, including those returning back home from dwindling opportunities
…. in Ireland and the United Kingdom. In the Netherlands, on the other hand,
while a couple of companies have ceased trading, it seems for various structural
Postscript: on dead canaries, guinea-pigs and other Trojan horses
reasons that archaeology is set to remain a growing sector with viable employment prospects (van den Dries, Waugh & Bakker, this volume). Employment also
appears to be less of an issue in many other countries, notably those with longterm or speciically launched infrastructural investments, such as, in this volume,
Russia or France.
In France too, as it happens, archaeologists and their employment have been
spotlighted by the crisis – not however as canaries, harbinger to the recession,
but rather as guinea-pigs, testing out a brand new form of employment contract.
To the existing two types of public sector contracts (permanent and short-term)
has been added an ‘activity’ contract, whose duration – an innovation for the
public sector – follows that of the operation or project to which the employee
is assigned, and can therefore be extended (up to ive years) but also terminated
(within a fortnight or so) in function of this unfolding project (see Schlanger
& Salas Rossenbach, this volume). This experimental contract was introduced
within the relaunch ‘acceleration’ laws, on the premise that the projected infrastructure developments will generate further archaeological work, and that this
more lexible, off-ceiling mode of employment will enhance the reactivity and
reduce the delays of the main public operator, INRAP. Whatever the case, this
new ‘activity’ contract is set to be generalised after its archaeological trial-testing
across the French public sector, which is currently being reformed and modernised as we know.
2 Economies of / in knowledge?
Job losses due to the global economic crisis (or rather to the different propensities of the systems aflicted) are of course hard to bear at an individual level. Of
greater concern to us however are the overwhelmingly negative repercussions of
these losses on the profession as a whole, including the practice, standards and
aims of archaeological research and heritage management.
To begin with, those made redundant include a number of fairly specialised
archaeologists – be they experts in phytolith analysis, in aerial photography
interpretation, or in late samian terra sigillata – whose full employment (as well
as the full deployment and productivity of their knowledge) depends on a certain scale and turnover of data-generating archaeological activities. If dispensed
with, their hard-earned expertise will prove dificult if not impossible to recover:
it will in any case barely be compensated by the admittedly cheaper expedient
of dispatching plastic bags or soil samples to some ‘cottage-industry’ experts,
often isolated, far from relevant reference collections and without much time and
incentive for research and publications. At the other end of the scale, there may
well be a similar price to pay for the cohorts of ield-workers and technicians shed
by archaeological operators. Unless adequate measures are taken, there is a risk
that with them will also go a range of practical know-how and tacit knowledge
– be it in terms of operational nous for on-site interventions, or with regards to
desk-based and post-excavation skills such as small inds handling and inventories. Standardised context-sheets and computerised recording systems are well and
good, but we all know how indispensible it is to maintain some concerted personal
implication all along the archaeological process, from the initial evaluation and
research design, through data-recovery, analysis and interpretation, to publication,
conservation and public outreach.
109
110
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Together with that, also those who remain in employment will not be left
unscathed by the multiple impacts of the crisis. Again, increased workloads or
worsened employment conditions are not the prime issue here, as much as the
likely changes, however insidious or imperceptible at irst, in the very conception of archaeology as a profession and as a vocation. In France, for example, the
newly introduced ‘activity’ contract risks contributing to the further fragmentation of the archaeological process. Apart from mandatory site reports, beneiciaries of such contracts will have little opportunities for research or training, let
alone publications, exhibitions and the like. Similarly, the restriction of these new
contracts to the excavations phase will correspondingly channel other contractholders towards diagnostic operations. The scientiic and logistical costs resulting
from this segmentation will satisfy no one, except perhaps those bent on conining
the public operator to the less rewarding role of diagnosticians so as to fully ‘free’
excavations for the commercial market. Still, whether these particular risks materialise or not, the situation is probably worst under systems where the conception
of Malta archaeology as a public service is de facto overrun by the self-regulating
competitive model (see Demoule this volume). Since this competition is quintessentially played out in the inancial ields of costs and proits, it is quite clear that
– unless steps are proactively taken to counter this – any crisis- induced reductions
in time and resources will only mean further concessions on the quality of the
work undertaken, its contribution to knowledge and its beneit to society.
A marked decline in the quality of Malta archaeology is already perceptible
in Poland (Marciniak & Pawleta, this volume): due to tighter delays and smaller
tenders, less analyses are being commissioned, archaeological documentation is
produced to lower standards and occasionally also iddled with, while post- excavation studies and publications are left to dwindle. Admittedly, the situation there
is exacerbated by the current failure of controlling provisions, but similar concerns
over quality maintenance are expressed in other countries, be it in Russia, with
the rise of tax-aided private operators and the reduction in the numbers of reports
produced (Engovatova, this volume), in France, where ‘accelerated’ delays for
completing excavations may well incite some operators to last-ditch compromises
(Schlanger & Salas Rossenbach, this volume), and also in Hungary, where the
devolution of preventive excavations from the abruptly dissolved state operator
to the regional museums will also impact on the quality of the work produced
(Bánffy & Raczky, this volume). It might be worth recalling at this juncture that
high quality work, that is work that represents real value for money in the full
sense of the term and for all concerned, is not only in the professional interest of
all practicing archaeologists, but also part of their deontological commitments.
The European Association of Archaeologists’ ‘Principles of conduct for archaeologists involved in contract archaeological work’, for example, speciically call
on archaeologists to ensure that they understand their roles and responsibilities,
that they only undertake work for which they and their organisations are suitably
equipped, staffed or experienced, that they adhere to relevant laws and ethical
standards regarding competition between archaeological organisations, and indeed
that they resist the tendency of the contract system towards fragmentation and act
to maintain the academic coherence of archaeology (see inter alia articles 3, 5, 8,
11 of the EAA Principles of conduct, http://www.e-a-a.org/eaacodes.htm).
This last point leads us to a further impact area of the crisis – relating to
archaeology in research institutions and universities. As in previous cases, the issue
here is not simply that academic and Malta archaeologies are increasingly drift-
Postscript: on dead canaries, guinea-pigs and other Trojan horses
ing apart, or that masses of ieldwork data become so rapidly worthless for lack
of proper analysis and publications. To be sure, these longstanding problems are
exacerbated by the current recession, as when cash-strapped operators are increasingly tempted to skip or trim down costly publications which their clients neither
read nor value, or when employees in heritage management institutions are permitted to pursue their teaching and research activities only at their own expense
and time. The novelty this time is that the troubles span established divides, so
that also the once ‘poor but care-free’ academics now end up poorer and downright miserable too. In its current version, the ‘knowledge economy’ is wont to be
economical with its vocation, placing practical relevance and marketable success
on par with the advancement of learning for the common good, and it is also
summoned to economise on its essential undertakings of knowledge production
and skill transmission. The practical renditions of these trends in archaeology
are bound to be variable, and often delayed or diffused (see Schlanger 2010). In
several countries the university and research sectors seem as yet unaffected by the
recession, and in some instances student numbers are stable or growing – even if
the rise is predicted to be temporary, pending increased tuition fees and decreasing employment prospects. In the United States, alongside an injection in research
funding, several departments and museums have already reduced staff, mirroring
the worrying decline in public education. Across the Atlantic, the imminent cuts in
the United Kingdom promise to be of unprecedented severity for higher education
and research (Sinclair, this volume). Quite revealing in this respect is the quandary
facing university based archaeological units. While some continue to successfully combine proit- and knowledge-making, others falter between Scylla and
Charybdis: with the crisis, their standards of research and publication proves to
be a inancial handicap in the ruthless commercial market, but still fail to become
a scientiic asset for the ever more stringent criteria of university recognition and
research assessment outputs. Meanwhile in the universities themselves, social and
political pressures are mounting to teach useful things, including vocational or at
least transferable skills. Logistical and managerial proiciencies in Malta archaeology are particularly in demand, even though, ironically enough, few university
lecturers have actually any irst hand experience of them – just as, for the matter,
most directors of commercial units have only a faint recollection of what academic
research is really all about.
3 The state gives and taketh – investments, legislations and a Faustian
bargain
Much has been said on the state and its roles in the context of this global crisis,
on John Maynard Keynes and his legacy, on the need to see a visible hand extended
to intervene, to spend, to stimulate and kick start the economy back on track. There
are of course also voices raising legitimate concerns over excessive spending and
borrowing, giving precedence to austerity measures, cuts and deicit reductions – a
depressive urge recently likened to some ritual sacriice to pacify the gods of mammon (see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/opinion/20krugman.html). Be it as
it may, so far as archaeology is concerned all indications (notably those gathered
in this volume) concur that the discipline, its practitioners and its goals fare rather
better when states invest in infrastructures and developments. Some of these investments have long been programmed and budgeted for, such as those related to the
111
112
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
2012 European football championship in Poland and Ukraine, or the 2014 winter
Olympics in Russia. In other cases, in France, the Netherlands or Spain, infrastructure programmes have been speciically advanced and upgraded to help relaunch the
economy, leading also to greater demands for archaeological evaluations and excavations, and ultimately to more knowledge and public beneits. Contrariwise, delays
in the implementation of the Transportation bill in the United States, or the recent
cuts in the Department of Transport budget in the United Kingdom, already have
or are likely to have direct negative impacts on archaeology. This role of the state is
of course nothing new: with their massive scale and long-term planning, centralised
public works initiatives have been for over a century the motor of archaeological
heritage management worldwide, including the irst and second Aswan dams, the
New Economic Plan in the Soviet Union, the Dutch Polders, the Tennessee Valley
Authority and the Mississippi Missouri River basin programme, to name but a few
early landmarks (see Engovatova this volume, Brew 1961, Schlanger 2008, Demoule
2007 and references within).
What is however probably new and highly symptomatic of our current crisis is
the fact that these encouragements and investment in infrastructure developments
are accompanied by various legal modiications, regulations and organisational
changes which, de facto, amount to a regression in the capacity of the state to
exercise its regulatory functions. Either piecemeal or by design, the state’s obligations to ensure adequate measures for monitoring and protecting the archaeological heritage under threat appear to be diluting or melting down in the blaze of the
crisis – as a reminder, confer again the preamble, articles 2, 3, 5 etc, of the Malta
1992 European Convention for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage (http://
www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Archeologie/default_en.asp). And while
we are at it, see also the Florence 2000 European Landscape Convention (http://
www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/landscape/default_en.asp) and the
Faroe 2005 Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society
(http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/199.htm).
Several such cases of such legal and institutional tinkerings have been reported
by the contributors to this volume. In Hungary, a proposed change in the legal
deinition of an archaeological site (which would effectively apply to and protect
only a fraction of known archaeological occurrences) was meant to favour developers and investors in times of crisis. In the meantime, the outright dissolution
of the Field service for cultural heritage by the newly elected right-wing government seems to put this initiative on hold. In Russia, various tax rebates have
been proposed in time of crisis: these beneit private archaeological companies to
the detriment of public operators such as universities and museums. Moreover,
attempts are being made at the State parliament to curtail the law on cultural
heritage sites, so as dispense altogether with the obligation to undertake archaeological evaluations on land scheduled for development. In Poland, a law passed in
September 2008 (just before the crisis, then) requires that decisions on the location
of highways be already linked to permission for their construction – a speeding up
measure that reduces dramatically the time available for undertaking archaeological surveys and preventive excavations of any quality, in between the initial planning and beginning of construction itself.
Granted that each has their speciic antecedents and dynamics, such instances
of disengagement may be related to straightforward inancial considerations over
short term money making or saving, but also to some ideological repositioning
regarding the role and responsibilities of the state. In the United Kingdom today, it
Postscript: on dead canaries, guinea-pigs and other Trojan horses
is rather the former motivation that dominates. The conservative-led government
in place since May 2010 has already turned to cut funding for English Heritage,
the national agency for the historic environment, and also initiated a review of
its role and remit which could lead to its merger with other commissions and
conservation bodies. Also at local government level funding is expected to be
slashed, directly threatening posts of archaeological advisors and curators, and
with them the provision of proper archaeological protection and management.
In France, on the other hand, rather more than mere economies are at stakes: it
almost seems as if a Faustian bargain is being pressed, whereby more resources
and opportunities are made available provided that delays are shortened, operations accelerated, procedures lightened, controls lessened, compromises accepted,
and more broadly that some curbs are put on the ‘henceforth excessive inluence’
of preventive archaeology – or for the matter that of state architects regarding
classiied urban zones, or of environmental protection agencies regarding polluting installations. Some of the modiications recently enacted in France in these
domains have really to do with the streamlining reforms of public policies being
undertaken by the government in place. Both the crisis and the relaunch plan are
sometimes expediently used as a smokescreen, a red herring, a Trojan horse to
legislate measures that have not suficiently beneited from political scrutiny and
public debate, let alone from proper well informed analysis with regards to their
eficiency and effects. In their neophytic neoliberal zeal to belittle rules and reduce
state employment, some parliamentarians and administrators seem to behave as if
heritage, history and culture had nothing to do with the identity and consolidation
of the French nation-state, or, to give what might be a more clinching argument,
as if heritage, history and culture were not the prime reason why over 50 million
tourists chose to pass by every year, even in times of crisis.
4 Some concluding thoughts
To ind in it a silver lining, the crisis has enabled us to hone somewhat our critical numerical skills, with all these whopping sums and igures so casually bandied
about. Let us then recall that in countries such as France or the United Kingdom
the yearly cost of reconciling the needs of scientiic research, heritage and development – the cost of making Malta archaeology – is somewhere around 160 or 180
million Euros. This, we now know, is really but a mere leck of dust in view of the
budgets made available for stimulated infrastructure packages, or indeed when
compared with the revenues already accumulated by some of our freshly bailed-out
or nationalised banks. In the same vein, this sum probably amounts to a couple of
boardrooms’ worth of fat-cat salaries, inclusive of welcome shares and golden handshakes, or a couple of star-studded football teams with the reserves included, to say
nothing of a couple of bomb-laden Rafale combat jets – or indeed, to everyone their
lame ducks, Euroighters. More seriously, to venture a genuine solution for the years
to come, the cost of archaeological research and heritage management in developed
countries may well approximate something like 3 Pounds or 4 Euros per citizen per
annum – the price of a tip that seems rather well worth paying for the nation state
to take in hand its archaeological responsibilities for the common good.
This is of course a matter of choices, commitments and priorities, which call
for social and political goodwill well beyond the conines of the discipline. The
underlying standpoint behind this proposal is admittedly at odds with the trend,
113
114
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
initiated in Anglo-Saxon countries and until recently widely emulated, to have the
cost of Malta archaeology spared from the public purse and shifted instead onto
the unlucky developers, compelled to seek the provision of commercial archaeological services to satisfy planning permissions. This version of the ‘polluter-payer’
principle and its archaeological application could do with some reassessment in
times of crisis. With regards to social and economic realities, it seems even more
counterproductive now than ever to hamper or prohibit development plans only
because their genuinely cash-strapped developers cannot afford the extra costs on
behalf of the community as a whole. As for archaeological research and heritage
management, the ambivalence and vulnerability of this model, despite its genuine
qualities, becomes more apparent with regards to employment luctuations, skills
generation and maintenance, scientiic outputs and public beneits. Among other
things, it will be worth ensuring that the various voluntary codes and quality
standards formulated under the market approach are not only adhered to by the
practitioners concerned, but also that they gain suficient weight and recognition
out there, in the cutthroat world of commercial competition. Similarly for the state
model (Demoule this volume, Kristiansen 2009) it will be necessary to reconsider
the conditions that need to prevail for the state to adequately guarantee the scientiic quality and public beneits of archaeology. The challenge is not simply to have
the state follow Keynesian policies in times of crisis, so as to give a helping hand,
directly or indirectly, to archaeology – it is also to ensure that the state retains its
responsibilities and its role also in times of calm and prosperity.
A medieval plague, then, a litmus test, a prism, a Trojan horse as well, the
global economic crisis as encountered all though the pages of this volume
may yet prove to be also a source of introspection and even optimism. In the
Netherlands, for example, the devolution of the implementation of the Malta
Convention to local and municipal levels seems to be taken seriously and
undertaken eficiently – setting a model for other countries where ‘decentralisation’ usually means the dumping of increased responsibilities on cash strapped
and distracted local levels. Likewise in Ireland, prospects seem fairly bright
for further collaborations between the academic and the commercial sectors in
accessing and exploiting the archaeological data and heritage potential accumulated during the Celtic Tiger years. Paradoxically, and yet perfectly in tune with
their own aims and principles, some contributors ind consolation in the fact
that the crisis has slowed down building works and contributed to the long-term
in situ preservation of archaeological remains – others, with equal pertinence
and sincerity, draw comfort from the fact that the crisis has necessitated stimulus
packages which provide more opportunities for research and heritage enhancement. Whatever the case, since archaeology has been a canary trade, marking the
onset of gloom, can we not expect and will it to be also a swallow heralding the
springtime of recovery? After all, beyond economics, we have accumulated here
and elsewhere enough indications to argue that archaeology is also a reliable
indicator of cultural and social well being, relected in the ways communities and
stakeholders consider that the heritage of the past is a relevant asset, a source of
knowledge and an opportunity for the future.
115
Postscript: on dead canaries, guinea-pigs and other Trojan horses
Notes
References
1. The exceptional job
losses in Ireland need to
be understood (as Eogan
this volume explains)
in the light of the major
developments of the past
15 years, when the ‘Celtic
Tiger’ economy undertook
a long overdue upgrade
of its communication and
industrial infrastructures.
Regardless of the crisis,
the archaeology sector in
Ireland was bound to regain
more normal dimensions.
Brew J. O., 1961, Emergency Archaeology: Salvage
in Advance of Technological Progress, Proceedings of
the American Philosophical Society, 105/1: 1-10.
Bozoki-Ernyey K. (ed), 2007, European preventive
archaeology : papers of the EPAC Meeting, Vilnius
2004, Budapest, National Office of cultural heritage,
Hungary - Council of Europe.
D’Andrea A. & M-P. Guermandi (eds), 2008,
Strumenti per l’archeologie preventiva, Esperienze,
Normative, Tecnologie, EPOCH/Archaeolingua.
Demoule J-P. (ed) 2007, L’archéologie préventive dans
le monde, Apports de l’archéologie préventive à la
connaissance du passé, Paris, La Découverte.
Kristiansen K. 2009, Contract archaeology in Europe:
an experiment in diversity, World Archaeology, 41/4,
641-648.
Schlanger N. 2008, D’Assouan à Nouakchott, en
passent par Malte. Eléments pour une histoire de
l’archéologie préventive en Afrique, in B. Ould
Mohamed Naffé, R. Lanfranchi, Nathan Schlanger
(eds), L’archéologie préventive en Afrique: enjeux et
perspectives, Paris, Editions Sépia, pp. 31-38.
Schlanger N. 2010, Manual and intellectual labour
in archaeology: past and present in human resource
management, in S. Koerner & I. Russell (eds),
Unquiet Pasts. Risk Society, Lived Cultural Heritage,
Re-designing Reflexivity, Ashgate, London,
pp. 161 – 171.
Ould Mohamed Naffé, R. Lanfranchi & N. Schlanger
(eds) 2008, L’archéologie préventive en Afrique:
enjeux et perspectives, Paris, Editions Sépia.
Willems W. & Van den Dries (eds), 2007, Quality
Management in Archaeology, Oxford, Oxbow Books.
United Kingdom Archaeology in Economic Crisis
ANNEX I
117
118
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Job losses in UK archaeology – April 2010*
Report for the Institute for Archaeologists and
the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers
Kenneth Aitchison
IfA Head of Projects and Professional Development
19 July 2010
Executive Summary
The job-market in commercial archaeology remains volatile. There was a small increase in the number of individuals in work in the three months ending 31st March 2010, but this followed a decline in the previous quarter.
It is estimated that there was a total of 6233 individuals in UK archaeological employment on 1st April
2010. In August 2007, the total was 6865, and so archaeology as a whole is now 9% smaller than it was at
that time. 3404 of the individuals in work on 1st April 2010 were working in commercial archaeology, a drop
of 15.7% from the August 2007 peak of 4036.
Business conidence fell in April 2010, with companies feeling less conident in their capabilities to retain staff in
the forthcoming quarter than they were three months before and markedly less positive about the outlook for the
next year.
Companies continue to lose ieldworker skills.
Introduction
In January 2009, the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA), together with FAME (the Federation of
Archaeological Managers and Employers) responded to learning that the economic downturn was having serious effects on commercial archaeological practice by conducting a rapid survey of archaeological employers in
order to gather statistical data on job losses and business conidence which could be used to support businesses and individual archaeologists.
This survey is the ifth repetition of the January 2009 exercise which has been repeated on a quarterly basis since
that date. The reports on those earlier surveys are available on the IfA website at through the Recession – managing
and planning page.
The organisations that were approached represent the majority of employers working in commercial, clientfunded archaeology.
Methodology
Archaeological employers that are either Registered Organisations with the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA)
or members of the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers (FAME) were sent a short questionnaire by email on 18 May 2010, asking for responses by 28 May 2010. The questionnaire replicated the three
previous questionnaires. It asked about past and present stafing levels, business conidence in the future and
which skills were being most heavily lost. The full questionnaire is presented at the end of this report.
It may be signiicant that some of the respondents’ views on business conidence and future expectations were
coloured by the results of the general election on May 6 and the establishment of the new government on May 12.
* Originally published by the Institute for Archaeologists, at: http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/JobLossesApril2010.pdf
119
Job losses in UK archaeology – April 2010
As occurred in previous exercises, there was not a precise coincidence between the organisations that have
answered each iteration of the questionnaire. This has allowed for overlap and cross-checking, but has also
introduced slight, manageable inconsistencies. All igures presented here are comparable with those set out in
the earlier reports.
Sample
Questionnaires were sent to 64 IfA Registered Organisations and to the 59 members of FAME. As there is a
degree of overlap (with some organisations being both IfA Registered and FAME members), 98 questionnaires
were sent in total. As two of these organisations do not employ archaeologists in the UK (and did not reply to
the consultation), and two questionnaires went to subsidiary ofices of larger organisations, in total 94 organisations were contacted.
Responses
42 completed questionnaires were returned.
One of the returned questionnaires came from an organisation that identiied itself as not undertaking
commercial archaeological practice, and so that return is excluded from the analysis of job losses, but their
responses regarding business conidence are included.
Results: Reported Job Losses
The respondent organisations employed the equivalent of 1,978.6 people at the time of the Archaeology
Labour Market Intelligence Proiling the Profession 2007-081 (LMI) survey in August 2007.
On 1 April 2010, these organisations employed 1,701.02 FTE staff, 14.0% less than they did in August
2007 but an increase of 0.1% since January 2010.
Change from 1 January 2010 to 1 April 2010
More organisations gained staff in this quarter than lost personnel.
Extrapolating from this sample, this represents a net gain of 88 jobs across the entire archaeological profession, equating to an increase over the quarter of 2.7% of commercial archaeological posts or 1.4% of all
archaeological posts.
Review: change from 13 August 2007 to 1 April 2010
Using data from the six surveys undertaken, further details become apparent.
There was a modest decline in the number of people employed between August 2007 and October 2008,
but then very signiicant numbers of jobs were lost in the inal quarter of 2008 and the irst quarter of 2009.
Over the two quarters after April 2009, the number of people in archaeological employment stabilised, but the
numbers fell again in the inal quarter of 2009. With numbers rising again (very modestly) in the irst quarter
of 2010, there were still approximately 650 less people in archaeological work than at the August 2007 peak.
While the number of people in archaeological work has luctuated over the year since April 2009, this has not
involved as marked changes as were experienced in late 2008 and the irst quarter of 2009.
13 Aug 07
01 Oct 08
01 Jan 09
01 Apr 09
01 Jul 09
01 Oct 09
01 Jan 10
01 Apr 10
Commercial
Archaeology
4036
3906
3559
3323
3472
3526
3316
3404
Entire
Profession
6865
6735
6388
6152
6301
6355
6145
6233
1. Aitchison, K. & Edwards, R. 2008. Archaeology Labour Market Intelligence: Profiling the Profession 2007.08. Reading: Institute for Archaeologists.
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/lmi%200708/Archaeology_LMI_report_colour.pdf
120
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Employment in UK
archaeology, August 2007
– April 2010.
Results: Anticipation of Further Losses
The questionnaire asked respondents whether they felt that they would be able to maintain their present numbers of staff over the three months to the end of June 2010 (nb from this point onwards, the responses from the
“non-commercial” body that provided information are also incorporated in the data tables and analysis).
The majority of respondents that expressed a deinite view (26 of 39) felt that they would be able to maintain their present stafing levels.
Do you anticipate being able to maintain your present stafing levels over the next three month period (to
30 June 2010)?
Responses
Number
employed on
01/04/2010
Lost staff
in previous
quarter
No change
in previous
quarter
Expanded
in previous
quarter
Yes (will maintain present levels)
26
913
2
13
11
No (will not maintain present levels)
6
592
3
3
0
Don’t know
10
302
2
5
3
Total
42
1807
7
21
14
Over time, companies have generally been conident in their abilities to retain staff, but less conident than
they in the irst half of 2009. Companies are now less conident for the quarter to the end of June 2010 than
they were three months before.
Will maintain present levels
over next quarter
Not maintain present levels over
next quarter
April 2010
62%
14%
January 2010
74%
9%
October 2009
63%
21%
July 2009
77%
14%
April 2009
77%
16%
January 2009
61%
31%
121
Job losses in UK archaeology – April 2010
Anticipation of future staffing
levels, January 2009 – April
2010.
Results: Business Confidence
Business conidence has slipped markedly. As of 1st April 2010, as many companies expect the situation to
deteriorate as expect that it will not, and several respondents expressed concern about the tendering practices
of their competitors.
One respondent commented: “After a shaky start in January and February, due at least in part to the poor
weather, business seems to be picking up for us. This year to date we have received and responded to more
tender invitations than we have had to this date in the last ten years, and our success rate in tendering has not
diminished. Our major problem has been in getting this work started, completed and invoiced.
From contacts with other contractors I get the impression that others in our area are experiencing a similar
increase in work levels. One thing that does concern me is that I know there are organisations, some ROs,
who are still behaving as if they are in the depths of recession, putting in unrealistically low tenders for work.
There is also the issue of organisations, also including ROs, using casual, self-employed staff to minimise their
overheads and enable them to charge silly prices. Neither of these phenomena makes it any easier for those of
us who are trying to improve wages, conditions, training and standards generally, let alone survive in the present climate. I realise there has been some (belated) deliberation of self-employed ‘staff’ at IfA: perhaps FAME
should be addressing the tendering issue.”
Another respondent commented “I think that the incredibly competitive prices that currently dominate the
market demonstrate that many organisations are under considerable inancial stress and are looking to win
work at any margin. This will not be sustainable in the long term as the balance sheets of the organisations
are eroded and will ultimately fail. For the archaeological market I think the recession is just about to start in
earnest and over the next few years we will see a radical restructuring of the UK archaeological market”.
Do you believe that the market conditions will deteriorate further in the next twelve months (from January
2010)?
Responses
Number of staff employed on
01/04/2010
12
645
12
538
Don’t know or no answer
18
624
Total
42
1807
Yes (market conditions will deteriorate in
the next 12 months)
No (market conditions will not
deteriorate)
122
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Over time, business conidence had been steadily improving until April 2010, but now this is the irst
quarter when there has been an increase in the proportion of businesses expecting things to get worse (and a
concomitant reduction in those expecting things will not deteriorate further).
Expect conditions to worsen
Do not expect conditions to worsen
Don’t know or no answer
April 2010
29%
29%
43%
January 2010
19%
47%
34%
October 2009
31%
33%
36%
July 2009
42%
42%
16%
April 2009
54%
26%
20%
January 2009
89%
3%
8%
Market expectations,
January 2009 – April 2010.
The majority of respondents expect some archaeological businesses to fail in the next 12 months. In the
previous quarter (January 2010), less than 50% of respondents thought this.
One respondent commented: “Only the robust, properly run and lucky organisations can survive, everyone
else will end up in a mess to be re-invented as sole traders or small 2-3 person outit prone to taking on work
that they do not have the capacity to do with all the issues for employment conditions and standards”.
Do you expect any archaeological practices to cease trading in the next 12 months?
Responses
Number of staff employed on 01/04/2010
Yes (expect practices to cease trading
in 12 months from April 2009)
22
1258
No (do not expect any practices to cease
trading in 12 months from April 2009)
8
241
Don’t know or no answer
12
309
Total
42
1708
123
Job losses in UK archaeology – April 2010
Over time, expectations that some businesses will fail have remained at high levels.
Expect practices to cease trading
Do not expect practices to cease trading
April 2010
53%
19%
January 2010
47%
19%
October 2009
71%
8%
July 2009
70%
11%
April 2009
75%
5%
January 2009
84%
2%
Expectations of business
failures, January 2009
– April 2010.
Results: Skills Losses
Respondents were also asked to identify which speciic skills areas are being particularly affected. The
questionnaire asked them to indicate up to three areas from the shortlist of skill areas used in Aitchison &
Edwards 2008 where they felt that their organisation had lost skills during the present crisis. They were asked
to mark these 1, 2 and 3 in order of severity (1 being the area where skills have been most severely affected).
The table below grades the responses according irstly to the total number of times a skill area was identiied as being lost, and secondarily by the signiicance that respondents attached to that loss.
Total
1 (most
severely
affected)
2
(severely
affected)
3
(affected)
Contributing to intrusive investigations (evaluation, excavation) as team members
or diggers
14
7
4
3
Conducting (leading or directing) intrusive investigations (evaluation, excavation)
11
4
5
2
Contributing to non-intrusive investigations (geophysical survey) as team
members
5
0
3
2
Providing information and advice on the conservation and management of the
historic environment
4
2
1
1
Conducting (leading or directing) survey and interpretation of historic buildings
3
2
0
1
Artefact research
3
1
1
1
Contributing to other non-intrusive investigations as team members
3
1
0
2
Conducting (leading or directing) other non-intrusive investigations
2
0
0
2
124
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Conducting (leading or directing) non-intrusive investigations (geophysical survey)
1
1
0
0
Conservation of artefacts or ecofacts
1
0
1
0
Contributing to survey and interpretation of historic buildings as team members
1
0
1
0
Other archaeological skills (please specify) – administration
1
0
1
0
Creating, managing and maintaining Historic Environment Records
1
0
0
1
Other archaeological skills (please specify) – post-ex
1
0
0
1
Desk-based historic environment research including desk-based assessment
0
0
0
0
Ecofact research
0
0
0
0
Historic environment characterisation
0
0
0
0
Skills continue to be lost across almost all professional activities, but as in previous quarters it is the skills
that are needed to conduct and contribute to intrusive, excavation projects which are being most notably lost
– which repeats the pattern reported in the four previous surveys (January 2010 and April, July and October
2009).
Notably, no organisation reported losing the skills involved in conducting desk-based historic environment
research including desk-based assessment, as had been reported fairly regularly in previous surveys.
Future Surveys
IfA will continue to repeat this survey on a quarterly basis, reporting the results on its website and tracking
changes in the situation, until further notice.
125
Job losses in UK archaeology – April 2010
Questionnaire
Job losses in archaeology - April 2010
Dear Colleague,
As we enter a new inancial year, and now with a new UK Government, IfA continues to collect information on the current state of archaeological employment.
At the end of 2009, it appeared that the “bounce” that the sector experienced last summer was a temporary
phenomenon, and that the numbers in employment as of 1st January 2010 had dropped back to the level of
one year before. However, business conidence was improving.
All of the previous reports are available through the IfA website, speciically at January 09, April 09,
July 09, October 09 and January 10.
I would like to ask you once again if you would please give up some of your time to answer the same set of
questions below.
We now seek information as it applied to your organisation on 1 April 2010. Please help us to produce as
full a picture as possible; as before, your responses are fully conidential and will not be seen by any individual
other than myself.
This email has been sent to all IfA Registered Organisations and FAME member organisations.
How many members of staff (FTE) did your organisation have on 1 April 2010?
How many members of staff (FTE) did your organisation have on 1 October 2009?
How many members of archaeological staff (FTE) did your organisation have on 13 August 2007
(the census date for Profiling the Profession: Archaeology Labour Market Intelligence 2007-08)?
Do you anticipate being able to maintain your present staffing levels over the next three month period
(to 30 June 2010)?
Do you believe that the market conditions will deteriorate further over the next 12 months?
Do you expect any archaeological practices to cease trading over the next 12 months?
As well as tracking the key data regarding job losses, in order to help us track which speciic skills areas
are being particularly affected, and so to help plan for the recovery, please now also indicate up to three areas
from the following list where you feel your organisation has lost skills during the present crisis. Please mark
these 1, 2 and 3 in order of severity (1 being the area where skills have been most severely affected). Please try
to limit your responses to the three areas that you feel have been most seriously affected).
Conducting (leading or directing) intrusive investigations (evaluation, excavation)
Contributing to intrusive investigations (evaluation, excavation) as team members or diggers
Conducting (leading or directing) survey and interpretation of historic buildings
126
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Contributing to survey and interpretation of historic buildings as team members
Conducting (leading or directing) non-intrusive investigations (geophysical survey)
Contributing to non-intrusive investigations (geophysical survey) as team members
Conducting (leading or directing) other non-intrusive investigations
Contributing to other non-intrusive investigations as team members
Desk-based historic environment research including desk-based assessment
Creating, managing and maintaining Historic Environment Records
Historic environment characterisation
Providing information and advice on the conservation and management of the historic environment
Conservation of artefacts or ecofacts
Artefact research
Ecofact research
Other archaeological skills (please specify)
Please send your responses to me, Kenneth Aitchison, by Friday 28 May 2010.
Your answers will be treated in the strictest conidentiality; while aggregated and extrapolated igures will
be provided to FAME and published on the recession - managing and planning page of the IfA website and
elsewhere, I personally will be the only individual who ever sees your separate responses.
The information gathered will continue to be used to see how IfA members, Registered Organisations and
the profession as a whole can be supported through this period. We expect to continue to repeat this questionnaire on a quarterly basis until further notice.
Kenneth Aitchison: IfA Head of Projects and Professional Development
United Kingdom Archaeology in Economic Crisis
ANNEX II
127
128
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Note for administrators and liquidators
of archaeological organisations*
Roger M Thomas
Head of Urban Archaeology
English Heritage
Swindon
United Kingdom
rogerm.thomas@english-heritage.org.uk
Summary
In the event that an archaeological organisation goes into administration or becomes insolvent, some very
particular considerations will arise for the administrator or liquidator. These relate to the nature of work
undertaken, the nature (and ownership) of the products of this work, and the legal liabilities which relate to
it (arising from the legal requirements of planning permissions). This note seeks to explain, for administrators
and liquidators who may have to deal with such an organisation, some of the issues.
Background
Since about 1990 a substantial commercial archaeological sector has developed in the United Kingdom.
This has happened primarily as a result of a new government policy for archaeology, under which developers,
rather than the state, has to pay for archaeological work made necessary by new development schemes. This
sector employs around 6000 people and is worth an estimated £150m per annum. The organisations which
make up this sector are very diverse in size and character. They include sole traders, partnerships, limited companies operating on a fully commercial basis and charitable trusts. Staff numbers and annual turnover range
from one to several hundred, and a few thousand pounds to over £10m respectively.
Much of the work of these organisations consists of carrying out archaeological excavations and other forms of
archaeological site investigations in advance of new development. The work is carried out for property developers, landowners, government bodies, construction companies and so on. Individual contracts typically range in size
from a few hundred pounds to hundreds of thousands, with durations ranging from a few days to over a year.
Much of this work is secured by conditions placed on the planning permissions for the developments in
question, or through ‘planning obligations’ (e.g. Section 106 agreements in England and Wales, Section 75 or
Section 246 agreements in Scotland, agreements within the meaning of Article 40 of the Planning (Northern
Ireland) Order 1991 in Northern Ireland) linked to planning permissions. These conditions are normally
imposed by local authorities, and legally enforceable under the town and country planning legislation. This
work is almost always required to result on the production of a report, and there may be a requirement for
this report to be published.
Thus, the mechanism under which archaeological organisations operate is as follows. A local planning
authority places a condition on a planning permission, or enters into an agreement (e.g. s106) related to the
development. The person or company which implements the permission then enters into a commercial contract with an archaeological organisation to carry out the works speciied by the condition.
The local authority will conirm the discharge of the condition once the speciied works have been completed to the satisfaction of the local authority.
* Originally published by the Institute for Archaeologists, at: http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/administratorsliquidators.pdf
Note for administrators and liquidators of archaeological organisations
This work is directly related to the construction industry. The recent downturn in construction is placing
archaeological organisations under considerable dificulties at present, and it is not impossible that one or
more of them will cease trading, including potentially through insolvency.
In the event of administration or insolvency of an archaeological organisation
Because of the nature of the work undertaken by archaeological organisations, the ‘products’ which arise
from it and the liabilities which attach this work, some rather particular considerations arise in the event of an
archaeological organisation going into administration of becoming insolvent.
In addition to such things as equipment, and business and employment records, the following classes of
material are likely to be held at the premises of archaeological organisations:
(1) the original site records (notes, drawings, photographs) made during the course of archaeological investigations on site.
(2) artefacts and samples recovered during archaeological investigations on site.
(3) records and reports produced, after the on-site work has been completed, from the analysis of the site
records, artefacts and samples. These may include drafts or inal versions of the report on the site investigation
which is required to be produced.
Classes (1) and (3) may be exist as hard copy records, as digital information, or a combination of the two.
Classes (1) and (2) will very often derive from archaeological sites which have since been destroyed by
development, making them – literally – irreplaceable.
In principle, an archaeological organisation will only hold material from site investigations for as long as is
necessary to complete the analysis and report analysis on the investigation. After the completion of the report,
the material should be transferred elsewhere (e.g. to a museum) for long-term storage. In practice, however,
for a variety of reasons, this does not always happen (or happen as quickly as it should).
A number of special considerations apply when planning how to deal with this aspect of the overall body of
‘chattels’ held by an archaeological organisation.
Some of these may be briely outlined.
(A) The artefacts and samples are unlikely to be the property of the archaeological organisation. In England
and Wales the general rule is that archaeological artefacts belong to the owner of the land on which they were
found. In Scotland, the Crown has rights over all archaeological objects (including those discovered in development-led archaeological excavations) and may lay claim to such objects. In Northern Ireland archaeological
objects must be reported and deposited within 14 days to the relevant authority. It must be accompanied by
information on (i) the circumstances of the inding, (ii) the nature of the object found, (iii) the name (if known)
of the owner or occupier of the land on which the object was found. The relevant authority includes one of the
following: the Department of the Environment, the Director of the Ulster Museum or a police station. Thus, it
is not permissible to dispose of or disperse such material. (Most such material is of little or no inancial value,
although there may be exceptions to this. In any event, it will generally be someone else’s property).
(B) The intellectual property and copyright in the records and reports may not belong to the archaeological organisation. The work will have been commissioned and paid for by a range of different clients, and the
position over intellectual property and copyright for any individual piece of work will depend on the contract
under which the work was done (and on the general law). The records and reports cannot automatically be
regarded as the property (or as an asset of) the organisation.
(C) As stated above, many of the contracts undertaken will have been aimed at enabling a legally enforceable planning condition or obligation to be discharged. The condition or obligation may well require the
production of a report. That report can only be produced by reference to the material contained in Classes
(1) and (2) above. Thus, if that material is not safeguarded (if it is disposed or of dispersed, for example) this
could produce a situation in which it was impossible to complete the work necessary to discharge the planning
condition or obligation. This in turn could lead to problems for the developer in disposing of the property
which had been built, leading potentially to issues of legal liability for the archaeological organisation.
In Northern Ireland archaeological excavation is a licensed activity regulated by the Department of the
Environment. There are conditions within the licence on preparation of a report.
129
130
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
(D) Material of Class 3, while in theory replaceable (sometimes, at least), may represent the investment of
large sums of money in terms of the labour which has gone into producing it. It represents work done towards
complying with the planning condition or obligation placed on the developer.
(E) As stated above, material in Classes 1 and 3 above may be held in digital form. There may or may not
be paper copies of it also, but the trend is for large amounts of such material to be held in digital form only.
The material may be held on a range of pieces of hardware, potentially as part of a complex networked system. Some of the material may be held in non-standard formats or programs. For all of these reasons, disposal
of the computer hardware owned by an archaeological organisation should not be contemplated until all
the material in Classes 1 and 3 has been safeguarded in such a way that it remains fully usable (including by
people other than those who originated it). This may require specialist IT input.
(F) Materials (of all Classes) produced from a site investigation should all be clearly labelled so that it is
clear which investigation it relates to. Nonetheless, the material from a single investigation is unlikely all to be
held in a single place while the work of analysing and reporting on it is taking place. Different categories of
records and materials will be passed to different specialist staff to work on. Some of the material may be sent
to specialists who are external to the organisation, so may not even be on the premises.
(G) Archaeologists are generally careful to keep the material from site investigations in good order (properly labelled and indexed, and appropriately stored). It is however possible that, if an organisation has been
struggling in business terms, these aspects of its work will have been neglected. It is therefore possible that
work will be needed to catalogue and put in order the body of material of Classes (1) to (3). It is essential that
all the material relating to each individual investigation is located and accounted for, for the reasons stated
above (items (A) to (D)).
Immediate advice and contact points
In the event that an administrator or liquidator has to deal with an archaeological organisation, they will be
well-advised to seek specialist advice from local and national government bodies concerned with archaeology
and from the professional and trade bodies for archaeology. Contact details are given below.
The key piece of immediate advice is: in the event of having to deal with such an organisation, do not start
to clear up (or clear out) offices, or to dispose of materials or computers, until you have gained a clear view of
what is involved. By its nature much of this material is irreplaceable. Some of the potential consequences of its
loss or premature (or disorderly) dispersal are outlined above.
• Association of Local Government Archaeological Oficers (ALGAO) UK
http://www.algao.org.uk/
• English Heritage
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/
• Cadw
http://www.cadw.wales.gov.uk/
• Historic Scotland
http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/
• Northern Ireland Environment Agency
www.ni-environment.gov.uk
• Institute for Archaeologists (IfA)
http://www.archaeologists.net
• Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers (FAME)
http://www.famearchaeology.co.uk/
These bodies will be ready to help with advice, in order to safeguard the archaeological interest and to
assist in dealing with any issues such as those relating to planning permissions and obligations.
United Kingdom Archaeology in Economic Crisis
Archaeology and the global
economic crisis
Multiple impacts,
possible solutions
Edited by Nathan Schlanger
and Kenneth Aitchison
Abstracts in english
131
132
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
1. Introduction. Archaeology and the
global economic crisis
Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison
This volume, and the EAA 2009 session from which it developed, represent the irst multi-authored attempt to take a global
look at the current economic crisis and its effects on archaeology. In addition to the reality of its effects, the ‘crisis’ has
rapidly become a commonly understood concept, strategically
used to enable or legitimise decisions in archaeological heritage
management. It is worth remembering that various patterns and
processes have been going on before the crisis, and continue in
parallel with it. Four main themes or impact areas of the crisis
on archaeology are discussed: research funding and priorities;
professional employment, training and skills; conservation and
public outreach; and inally changes in heritage management
policies and legislation. As a developing sector, archaeological
heritage management has been hit particularly hard by the
economic recession, but it is also a sector that can reveal much
– especially in times of crisis – regarding the wider attitudes of
our contemporary societies towards the past and our heritage.
2. The crisis – economic, ideological, and
archaeological
Jean-Paul Demoule
Since its creation, the EAA has served as a forum for debates
on different approaches to the organisation of archaeological
heritage management in Europe. Two main approaches can
be distinguished. In one, it is the nation state, representing the
community of citizens, that takes charge over the protection of
the archaeological heritage, either through a state archaeological service or through dedicated public bodies. In the other
model, the archaeological heritage is considered as a merchandise or a service, where commercial archaeological units are
at the service of their clients, the developers, with only the
postulation of some ‘code of ethics’ to ensure quality control
in the overall framework of the free market economy. Such an
approach has been recently attempted in France, with the recent
accreditation of commercial companies as licensed operators in
preventive archaeology. However, the current economic crisis
clearly invites a rethinking of this idea. The state, once ‘part of
the problem’, is now recognised as a possible solution. Without
massive state interventions, a large part of the global economic
and inancial structure would have fared much worse. Likewise
in archaeology, a considerable number of private units have
been crippled or even forced to fold since the onset of the
economic crisis, putting in jeopardy archaeological operations,
as well as documentation and publications. Here then is a good
opportunity for the archaeological community as a whole to
take renewed stock of its responsibilities and perspectives.
3. The Impact of the Recession on
Archaeology in the Republic of Ireland
James Eogan
Archaeological services in the Republic of Ireland are provided
by a state-supervised private sector. From the mid-1990s this
sector experienced sustained growth in both the volume of
work commissioned by public and private-sector clients and the
numbers of archaeologists employed. Between 1995 and 2002
the numbers of excavations carried out increased annually by
30% on average; from 2003 to 2007 the number of excavations carried out stabilised above 1,500 per annum. By 2007
it was estimated that approximately 1,000 archaeologists were
employed. Large numbers of excavations were carried out
which generated signiicant new archaeological data which
have stimulated research and provided academic opportunities,
much of which was funded through grants administered by
the Heritage Council. Since 2008, however, there has been an
estimated 66% reduction in the numbers of excavations carried
out annually and a consequential reduction of 80% in the
numbers of archaeologists employed in the private sector. The
general economic climate has also led to a reduction in the funding available to support research projects. Provisional data for
2010 suggests that the numbers of excavations being undertaken may be stabilising, but at a level last experienced in the mid
– late 1990s; however, research funding may be cut further in
future years. The challenge for the future is to consolidate the
beneits accrued during the period of unprecedented economic
growth. There are three key areas:
– The development of the existing legislative framework and
administrative structures.
– The securing of excavation archives.
– The maintenance of co-operation across sectoral divisions to
enhance research and ensure that the data from excavations
are transformed into knowledge for the beneit of society as a
whole.
4. United Kingdom archaeology in
economic crisis
Kenneth Aitchison
Since 1990, archaeology in the United Kingdom has been
closely linked to the development process. All developers of
land that might potentially damage or destroy archaeological
sites are obliged to fund investigation of those remains, with
commercial enterprises competing in an open market to provide
these services. This led to a rapid growth in the number of
people working in archaeology, both in carrying out these ield
investigations and in advising decision makers on the potential impacts of proposed development. Since the onset of the
economic crisis, the levels of construction activity have fallen.
This has meant that the amount of archaeological work has
also dropped considerably, leading to considerable job losses
in the private sector. The new UK government elected in 2010
is committed to reducing the national iscal deicit by cutting
spending, and it can be expected that state agencies and local
government, together with universities, will all be heavily affected in the coming years.
5. The end of a golden age? The
impending effects of the economic
collapse on archaeology in higher
education in the United Kingdom
Anthony Sinclair
By contrast with archaeological practice in the professional,
commercial sector, the economic crisis has had little direct
impact upon archaeology in Higher Education until June 2010,
with the exception of a loss of work to some of the institutionally based contracting units. This will change markedly from
August 2010. The funding of Higher Education is due to be
cut by more than £1 billion, with expectations of a cut of more
than 25% in three years. This will reduce the ability of universities to replace staff except in key teaching areas (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), and will force
university managers to maximise teaching and research income
where possible, and to reduce expenditures in other areas, with
the possibilities of redundancies in teaching staff. A review of
higher education funding in late 2010 will almost certainly
increase the tuition fees paid by students, causing them to
choose their degrees even more carefully to match employment
prospects. Archaeology may be badly affected by these changes.
It has expanded enormously in terms of increased student
numbers and continued research success. Student applications,
however, are on the decline, and research funding is proving
very dificult to get. As well, archaeology departments are
mostly based in the research-intensive universities, which are
likely to be charging the highest tuition fees. Departments will
133
Abstracts in english
need to stress the valuable skills that are taught in archaeology
degrees, and the professional and educational sectors will need
to look at how to support training for ield archaeology in new
ways that reduce the perceived inancial burden on students.
6. Commercial archaeology in Spain: its
growth, development, and the impact of
the global economic crisis
Eva Parga-Dans
The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of
the impact of the global economic crisis on the Spanish
Archaeological Sector. It is part of a major research theme
entitled “The Socioeconomics of Heritage” by the Heritage
Laboratory that aims to analyse and systematise information
about this sector. At present we have been developing an
empirical study on the new market developed in the 1990s in
connection with archaeological heritage management in Spain,
keeping in mind important differences between the country’s
17 regions. We have paid particular attention on the emergence,
structure and development of this market sector, examining
the relationships between the actors and institutions involved
in the generation of knowledge and innovation processes. The
speciic emphasis in this publication concerns the effects of
the current economic crisis on the commercial sector in Spain
and on archaeological heritage management more generally.
The crisis has led to a signiicant decline in the construction
sector, and also in employment igures. Although we still lack
suficient data, initial quantitative and qualitative assessments
conirm that this downturn is also manifest in the commercial
archaeological sector, even if with some variations between the
regions. Particularly affected are the ield ‘intervention services’
provided by companies to the construction sector, and it may be
that a diversiication to other actions of outreach and cultural
resource management may be the way forwards.
7. A crisis with many faces. The impact
of the economic recession on Dutch
archaeology
Monique H. van den Dries, Karen E. Waugh &
Corien Bakker
A large percentage of the activities carried out within the Dutch
archaeological heritage management sector are inherently
linked to development and construction activities. In fact, well
over 90% of all archaeological activity is developer funded. The
ieldwork that this brings along is predominantly carried out by
the private sector. Because of this close relationship, one might
expect that a recession-induced slump in the building sector will
also seriously effect the archaeological (private) sector as well.
Nevertheless, in 2009 the effects of the economic crisis on the
archaeological sector were not as strong as expected, notably in
comparison to some other countries. In fact no archaeological
companies went bankrupt (although a few smaller companies
stopped trading) and a situation of nearly full employment
has been maintained. The national government temporarily
stimulated building and development activity by introducing
favourable inancial measures and bringing forward some largescale infrastructural works. This may well have helped, but a
more important factor might have been that the archaeological
sector, just like some others, is showing a delayed reaction,
with many companies still having, at the start of 2009, many
projects ‘in stock’. Still, while we had seen a constant yearly
growth of the number of ield projects from 2003 onwards, in
2009 for the irst time in more than 25 years we witnessed a
decline, of over 10%. Field evaluations by means of coring in
particular decreased signiicantly (15%), and also the number of excavations dropped by 7.2%. Was this all due to the
economic crisis? The picture for 2009 might in fact be slightly
more complex than a one-to-one relationship with economic
activity in the building sector. An important factor, admittedly
dificult to quantify, is the still early stage of development our
new archaeological heritage management system . Many local
governments are only just beginning to implement the principles of the Valletta Convention and to develop local heritage
management policies. As a consequence, there is still a lot of
work for archaeologists in developing characterisation maps,
policy plans, desk-based assessments etc. On the other hand, a
better grip by local authorities on their own archaeology and
the implementation of new guidelines and regulations on local
planning level might put a stop to the previously uncontrolled growth in survey and evaluation works. In general the
economic situation in 2010 and the years after might be slightly
improving, but expectations are that local and national authorities will then be faced with severe cuts in their budgets. For
archaeology, it may be that the bottom of the slump has not yet
been reached.
8. One crisis too many? French
archaeology between reform and relaunch
Nathan Schlanger & Kai Salas Rossenbach
This paper examines and interprets the impacts of the current
economic crisis on French archaeology in the light of previous
and ongoing processes within the discipline and beyond. So
far as preventive archaeology is concerned, a succession of
legal and organisational developments inally led in 2001 to its
conirmation as a public service, funded through the polluterpays principle and oriented towards scientiic research and
public outreach actions. By 2003, however, the excavation
phase of preventive archaeology was opened to commercial
competition among licensed operators, in the expectation that
the market would reduce costs and delays. This approach proves well in line with the general review of public policies launched in 2007 to rationalise and modernise public services, notably by reducing employment and by restructuring ministries
and public sectors. These reforms have already considerably
affected universities and research institutions, as well as bodies
in charge of archaeological management and supervision. With
the background of these upheavals, the global economic crisis
reached France in 2008. The ambitious relaunch plan subsequently devised includes major investments in infrastructure
and public works (roads, train tracks, etc.), with corresponding
requirements in terms of archaeological diagnostics and excavations. However, it was deemed necessary as a counterpart to
lighten the administrative procedures for building and development works. The Heritage code was speciically modiied
so as to ‘limit the henceforth excessive inluence’ of preventive
archaeology, by setting limits to the delays on prescriptions and
operations. It is probably too early to evaluate the effects of
such measures, but there are already grounds to suspect that,
apart from the archaeological operators, the developers, the
supervising bodies and indeed the archaeological heritage itself
may also prove to be at further risk.
9. The crisis and changes in cultural
heritage legislation in Hungary: cul-de-sac
or solution?
Eszter Bánffy & Pál Raczky
This paper discusses a planned change in Hungarian legislation
concerning the deinition and protection of archaeological sites.
Until now, the legal deinition of a site included its inscription
in a national database held by the Ofice of Heritage Protection
(KÖH): the new proposal will require these sites are also localised and coordinated in a publicly available, certiied database
at municipal level. However, such database requirements are
currently fulilled for only a few thousand cases out of the ca.
40.000 sites nationally registered, let alone the c. 200.000 esti-
134
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
mated unregistered sites across the country. All these ‘non-sites’
would be left out of the protective legislation; they would not
beneit from prior assessments or from the 0.9% of compulsory
spending by the development projects on archaeological work.
This proposed regulation was apparently designed to help
developers and investors to face fewer obstacles before starting
building work. But in fact it damages them as well: if a site is
found after earthworks are begun, they will be stopped by the
KÖH - but since the excavation is then not preventive, there is
no assured budget for it, resulting in losses to both developers
and archaeology. The authors of the present paper propose a
solution that would help with these problems, not only for the
current period of economic crisis, but also in the long term,
in a way that could serve the interests of both archaeological
heritage and economic development.
10. Archaeology in Crisis: The Case of
Poland
Arkadiusz Marciniak & Michał Pawleta
The paper aims to discuss the effects of the current global
economic situation on Polish archaeology. It begins with a short
overview of archaeology and the archaeological heritage sector
in contemporary Poland, and its current legal and institutional
position. We set then to systematically discuss the nature of
the impact of the economic crisis upon major sectors of Polish
archaeology in terms of preventive and rescue works, watching
brief, academic activities, and the situation of archaeological
museums. In particular, we discuss the scope and amount
of ieldwork over recent years in relation to changes in the
construction industry as well as in the job market in different
sectors of archaeology. The most alarming effect of the crisis
in Polish archaeology is a dramatic decrease in the quality of
preventive and rescue works, due to the application of the most
liberal market solutions. This problem is further ampliied by
structural ineficiencies among the various bodies in charge of
setting up standards, of coordinating and of controlling preventive and rescue archeological works in Poland.
11. The impact of the economic crisis on
rescue archaeology in Russia
Asya Engovatova
The system of rescue or preventive archaeology in Russia begun
to develop in the late 1920s, and by the 1970s it represented
half of the archaeological operations in the country. Nowadays,
the body responsible for archaeology within the Academy of
Science attributes several kinds of licenses: for research excavations, for surface surveys, for archaeological survey work,
and for rescue excavations at endangered sites. The situation of
rescue archaeology has luctuated considerably following the
broarder changes of the early 1990s and the economic crisis
of 1998. However, the number of licenses granted for rescue
excavations sharply increased from 2000 onwards, and in the
years 2006-2008 some three quarters of all archaeological
projects throughout the country were rescue excavations. The
current economic crisis has brought about a reduction in the
number of archaeological operations, especially those related
to private developments. Important state investments in various
infrastructures projects will limit the impact of the crisis on
archaeological activities. However, effects of crisis can also be
seen in attempts in the Duma to reduce archaeological legal
protection measures, and also in new tax exemption measures
which favour private companies at the expense of public bodies
like museums and universities.
12. The Effect of the Global Recession on
Cultural Resources Management in the
United States
Jeffry H. Altschul
The effects of the global recession on cultural resource management (CRM) in the United States have been deeper and more
widespread than most in the industry anticipated. The reasons
for failing to appreciate the inancial repercussions of the recession are varied, ranging from simply misjudging the economy
to more complicated factors involving the ways government
agencies allocate funds. How these factors played out over
2009 and 2010 and what we can expect in the near term are
the subjects of this paper.
13. Postscript: on dead canaries,
guinea-pigs and other Trojan horses
Nathan Schlanger
If the current economic crisis can be compared to some medieval plague, what are the patterns of its progression? Does it
strike archaeological practice and heritage management indiscriminately, or are there weak spots or protected zones to be
discerned? The situation is contrasted regarding employment,
with some countries suffering important job losses, leading to
the image of archaeology as a ‘canary’ trade in times of crisis.
These losses will deeply affect the profession, since highly
specialised experts are dificult to replace, as are experienced
ield technicians and post-excavations personnel. In these
constrained conditions, the balance between the scientiic and
the economic dimensions of contemporary archaeology appears
increasingly biased against research objectives, scientiic quality,
publications and public outreach. Lastly, according to the policies and ideologies in place, state interventions can be expected.
Alongside stimulus packages and investments in infrastructure programmes, also in evidence are various adjustments
and tinkering with legislations, institutions and procedures.
Whatever their intentions or pertinence, these measures should
not be allowed to endanger the archaeological and patrimonial
principles of the Malta Convention – be it for the duration of
the crisis, and for the recovery that will follow.
United Kingdom Archaeology in Economic Crisis
L’archéologie et la crise
économique globale
Impacts multiples,
solutions possibles
Édition coordonnée par Nathan Schlanger
et Kenneth Aitchison
Résumés en français
135
136
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
1. Introduction. L’archéologie et la crise
économique globale
Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison
Ce volume, ainsi que la session de l’Association des archéologues européens (EAA 2009) dont il découle, propose pour la
première fois un regard global sur la crise économique actuelle
et ses effets sur l’archéologie. Mise à part son inéluctable réalité, la crise est aussi devenue une représentation collective, dont
l’usage stratégique permet de mettre en œuvre ou de justiier des
décisions portant sur la gestion du patrimoine archéologique.
En effet, dans ce champ comme dans d’autres, différents processus et trajectoires se sont déroulés avant la crise, et continuent
en parallèle de celle-ci. Quatre thèmes ou zones d’impact de la
crise sur l’archéologie sont identiiés ici, portant respectivement
sur : les inancements et les priorités de la recherche ; les questions d’emplois et de formation professionnelle ; les politiques
de conservation et de médiation au public ; et enin des changements dans les politiques et législations en matière de protection
du patrimoine archéologique. Secteur en plein développement,
la gestion du patrimoine archéologique a été durement frappée
par la récession économique. Mais c’est aussi un secteur qui
peut nous en apprendre beaucoup – précisément en temps de
crise – sur les façons dont nos sociétés contemporaines savent
apprécier le passé et le patrimoine.
2. La crise – économique, idéologique, et
archéologique
Jean-Paul Demoule
Depuis sa création, l’EAA a servi de forum pour des débats
sur l’organisation et la gestion du patrimoine archéologique en
Europe. Deux conceptions principales peuvent être distinguées.
Dans l’une, c’est l’État nation, représentant la communauté
des citoyens, qui se charge de la protection du patrimoine
archéologique, soit par un service archéologique d’État, soit par
des organismes publics consacrés. Dans l’autre conception, le
patrimoine archéologique est considéré comme une marchandise ou un service. Des unités archéologiques commerciales sont
au service de leurs clients, les aménageurs, avec le seul postulat
d’un certain « code éthique » pour assurer un contrôle de qualité, dans le cadre général de l’économie de marché. Une telle
approche a été récemment tentée en France, avec l’agrément
accordé à des sociétés commerciales en tant qu’opérateurs en
archéologie préventive. Cependant, la crise économique actuelle
invite clairement à repenser cette approche. L’État, autrefois
« partie du problème », est maintenant redécouvert comme une
possible solution. Sans les interventions massives de l’État, la
situation d’une grande partie des dispositifs économiques et
inanciers globaux serait bien pire qu’elle ne l’est. De même en
archéologie, un nombre important d’opérateurs privés a été
endommagé ou même forcé à plier depuis le début de la crise
économique, mettant en danger les opérations archéologiques,
ainsi que la documentation et les publications. Voici donc une
bonne occasion pour la communauté archéologique dans son
ensemble d’examiner ses responsabilités et ses perspectives.
3. L’impact de la récession sur
l’archéologie dans la République d’Irlande
James Eogan
Les services archéologiques en Irlande sont fournis par un secteur
privé supervisé par l’État. Depuis le milieu des années 90, ce
secteur a connu une forte croissance à la fois en terme du volume
de travail commandité par les aménageurs privés et publics, et
par le nombre d’archéologues employés. Entre 1995 et 2002, le
nombre de fouilles archéologiques a augmenté de 30% par an en
moyenne. De 2003 à 2007, le nombre de fouilles effectuées s’est
stabilisé autour de 1500 par an. En 2007 on estimait le nombre
d’archéologues employés en Irlande à environ 1000. Cette importante activité de terrain a mené à récolter une grande quantité de
données archéologiques nouvelles, qui ont stimulé la recherche
et contribué à des projets universitaires, souvent inancés par les
bourses du Heritage Council. Depuis 2008, cependant, le nombre annuel de fouilles a diminué d’environ 66%, et le nombre
d’archéologues employés par le secteur privé a par conséquence
chuté d’environ 80%. Le climat économique général a également
mené à une réduction des fonds destinés à la recherche scientiique. Les données provisoires pour 2010 suggèrent que le nombre
de projets en cours est en train de se stabiliser, mais à un niveau
comparable à celui des années 1990. Cependant, les fonds consacrés à la recherche seront probablement réduits davantage dans
les années à venir. Le déi pour l’avenir est de consolider les gains
accumulés durant la longue période de croissance économique,
sur trois points majeurs :
– Développer le cadre législatif et les structures administratives
existantes.
– Assurer la sauvegarde des archives et du mobilier
archéologique.
– Maintenir le dialogue entre les différents secteurs concernés
ain de valoriser la recherche et ain de s’assurer que les données
archéologiques récemment récoltées deviennent des véritables
connaissances, au bénéice de la société dans son ensemble.
4. Royaume-Uni : l’archéologie dans la
crise économique
Kenneth Aitchison
Depuis 1990, l’archéologie au Royaume-Uni est étroitement liée au
processus d’aménagement du territoire. Tous les aménageurs dont
les projets pourraient potentiellement endommager ou détruire
des sites archéologiques sont obligés de inancer l’investigation de
ces vestiges, en appelant des entreprises commerciales, rivalisant
sur un marché ouvert, pour fournir ces services. Cette approche a
mené à une croissance rapide du nombre de personnes travaillant
en archéologie, autant dans le domaine des opérations de terrain
que celui de la consultance aux décideurs concernant les impacts
potentiels de l’aménagement proposé. Depuis le début de la crise
économique, les niveaux d’activité de construction sont tombés.
Cela signiie que la quantité de travail archéologique a aussi
largement baissé, menant à des pertes d’emploi considérables dans
le secteur privé. Le nouveau gouvernement du Royaume Uni élu
en 2010 s’est engagé à la réduction du déicit iscal national en
réduisant les dépenses, et l’on peut s’attendre à ce que les agences
d’État et les collectivités locales, tout comme les universités, soient
toutes lourdement affectées dans les années à venir.
5. La fin d’un Âge d’or ? Les effets
menaçants de l’écroulement économique
sur l’archéologie dans l’enseignement
supérieur et la recherche au Royaume-Uni
Anthony Sinclair
Jusqu’en juin 2010, en contraste avec la situation dans le
secteur de l’archéologie commerciale, la crise économique a
eu peu d’impact direct sur l’archéologie dans l’enseignement
supérieur et la recherche, si ce n’est une perte de travail pour
certaines unités archéologiques basées dans des universités. Ceci
changera considérablement dès août 2010. Le inancement de
l’Enseignement supérieur doit en effet être coupé de plus d’un
milliard de livres sterling, avec une diminution de plus de 25%
attendue sur trois ans. Cela réduira la capacité des universités à
remplacer leur personnel sauf dans les secteurs-clefs d’enseignement (science, technologie, ingénierie et mathématiques). Les
dirigeants des institutions seront forcés à maximiser les revenus
de l’enseignement et de la recherche là où c’est possible, et à
réduire les dépenses dans d’autres secteurs, avec des possibilités
de licenciements économiques parmi le personnel enseignant. La
137
Résumés en français
révision des inancements de l’enseignement supérieur prévue
pour la in 2010 augmentera immanquablement les frais de
scolarité demandés aux étudiants, les incitant à choisir leurs
diplômes encore plus soigneusement, en vue de leurs perspectives
d’emploi. L’archéologie sera sans doute sérieusement affectée elle
aussi par ces changements. La discipline s’est considérablement
développée en nombre d’étudiants et en termes de recherche. Les
candidatures d’étudiants sont cependant en baisse, et les inancements pour la recherche s’avèrent très dificile à obtenir. Aussi,
les départements d’archéologie sont pour la plupart établis dans
des universités de recherche intensive, qui vont probablement
facturer le plus haut possible les frais de scolarité. Les départements d’archéologie devront souligner les compétences vocationnelles des diplômes d’archéologie et les secteurs professionnels et
éducatifs devront réévaluer leur soutien à la formation de terrain
ain de réduire le fardeau inancier reposant sur les étudiants.
6. L’archéologie commerciale en Espagne :
sa croissance, son développement et
l’impact de la crise économique globale
Eva Parga-Dans
Cette communication a pour but de présenter une vue d’ensemble de l’impact de la crise économique globale sur le secteur
archéologique espagnol. Elle fait partie d’un thème de recherche
plus large portant sur « Les socio économies du patrimoine »
mené par le Laboratoire du Patrimoine, dans le but d’analyser
et systématiser les informations sur ce secteur. Nous avons
notamment entrepris une étude empirique sur le nouveau marché qui s’est développé depuis les années 1990 en rapport avec
la gestion du patrimoine archéologique en Espagne, gardant à
l’esprit les importantes différences entre les 17 régions du pays.
Une attention particulière a été portée à l’émergence, la structure et le développement de ce secteur du marché, en examinant
les relations entre les acteurs et les institutions impliquées dans
la production d’innovations et de connaissance. Cette publication porte spéciiquement sur les effets de la crise économique
actuelle sur le secteur commercial en Espagne, et sur la gestion
du patrimoine archéologique plus généralement. La crise a
causé un important déclin dans le secteur de la construction,
ainsi que dans les chiffres de l’emploi. Bien que nous manquons
toujours de données sufisantes, des premières évaluations
quantitatives et qualitatives conirment que cette diminution
est aussi manifeste dans le secteur de l’archéologie commerciale, avec quelques variations entre les régions. Les services
d’intervention de terrain fournis par des sociétés au secteur de
l’aménagent du territoire sont particulièrement affectés. Une
diversiication vers d’autres activités de dissémination et de
gestion des ressources culturelles serait une voie à suivre.
7. Une crise aux multiples visages.
L’impact de la récession économique sur
l’archéologie néerlandaise
Monique H. van den Dries, Karen E. Waugh
& Corien Bakker
Un large pourcentage des activités effectuées dans le secteur de la
gestion du patrimoine archéologique hollandais est lié aux activités de construction et de l’aménagement du territoire. En fait,
bien plus de 90% de toute l’activité archéologique est inancée
par les aménageurs. Le travail de terrain que cela entraîne est
principalement effectué par le secteur privé. Etant donnée cette
relation étroite, on peut s’attendre à ce que la récession dans le
secteur de la construction affecte aussi sérieusement le secteur
archéologique (privé). Cependant, en 2009, les effets de la crise
économique sur le secteur archéologique aux Pays-Bas n’étaient
pas aussi forts qu’attendus, notamment en comparaison avec
d’autres pays. En fait, aucune société archéologique n’a fait faillite
(bien que quelques sociétés plus petites aient cessé leurs activités)
et une situation de presque plein-emploi a été maintenue. Le
gouvernement national a temporairement stimulé les constructions et l’aménagement du territoire, par des mesures inancières
favorables et en accélérant des grand travaux d’infrastructure.
Ces mesures ont sans doute joué un rôle, mais il se peut aussi
que le secteur archéologique, comme quelques autres, montre
une réaction retardée du fait que beaucoup de sociétés avaient,
au début de 2009, toujours beaucoup de projets « en stock ».
Cependant, tandis que nous avions vu une croissance annuelle
constante du nombre de projets de terrain depuis 2003, en 2009
pour la première fois en plus de 25 ans nous avons été témoins
d’une baisse de plus de 10%. Les évaluations de terrain au moyen
du carottage en particulier ont diminué signiicativement (15%),
alors que le nombre de fouilles a baissé de 7,2%. Est-ce que tout
cela est dû à la crise économique ? La situation pour 2009 ne
relève donc pas d’une simple relation de cause à effet avec les
activités économiques dans le secteur de l’aménagement. Un autre
facteur important, mais dificile à évaluer quantitativement, est le
fait que notre nouveau système de gestion du patrimoine archéologique est toujours dans une première étape de développement.
Beaucoup de collectivités locales ne font que commencer à mettre
en œuvre les principes de la Convention de Malte et à développer
des politiques de gestion du patrimoine local. En conséquence, il
reste beaucoup de travail pour le développement de cartes archéologiques, des plans d’implantation, des évaluations préliminaires,
etc. D’autre part, une meilleure prise en charge par les autorités
locales de leur propre archéologie, avec la mise en œuvre de nouvelles directives et règlements au niveau local, pourrait mettre in
à l’excédent de travaux de prospection et d’évaluation. En général
la situation économique de 2010 et des années suivantes pourrait
légèrement s’améliorer, mais il semble que les autorités locales
et nationales auront à faire face à des coupes sévères dans leurs
budgets. Pour l’archéologie, il se peut fort bien que la récession
n’ait pas encore atteint le fond.
8. Une crise de trop ? L’archéologie
française entre réformes et relance
Nathan Schlanger & Kai Salas Rossenbach
Il est proposé ici d’analyser les impacts de la crise économique
globale sur l’archéologie française à l’aune de processus antérieurs et en cours, au sein de la discipline et au delà. Pour ce
qui est de l’archéologie préventive, une série de développements
juridiques et organisationnels ont inalement mené, en 2001, à
sa conirmation comme mission de service public, inancée par
le principe du « pollueur payeur » et comprenant des volets de
recherche scientiique et de médiation au public. Néanmoins,
dès 2003, la phase de fouilles de l’archéologie préventive a été
ouverte à la concurrence commerciale entre opérateurs agrées,
dans l’attente que ce marché contribue à la réduction des délais
et des coûts. Cette approche s’aligne avec la Révision générale
des politiques publiques entamée en 2007 ain de rationaliser et
de moderniser les services publics, notamment par la réduction
d’emplois et la restructuration des ministères et des établissements sous tutelle. Ces réformes ont déjà fortement marqué
l’enseignement supérieur et la recherche, ainsi que les services
en charge de gestion et de contrôle en matière d’archéologie.
C’est sur l’arrière-plan de ces réformes que la crise économique
globale it son apparition en 2008. L’ambitieux plan de relance
mise en œuvre comprend notamment des investissements
important en infrastructures et travaux public (routes, TGV)
qui nécessiteront des diagnostics et des fouilles d’archéologie
préventive. En contrepartie, cependant, il a été décidé d’alléger
les procédures administratives pour les travaux d’aménagement:
le Code du patrimoine a été modiié ain de limiter l’inluence
« désormais excessive » de l’archéologie préventive, en imposant
des délais plus contraignants pour les prescriptions et les opérations de terrain. Il est sans doute trop tôt pour évaluer les effets
de ces mesures, mais on peut déjà pressentir que, mis à part les
opérateurs archéologiques, ce sont aussi les aménageurs, les
autorités de contrôle et surtout le patrimoine archéologique luimême qui risquent d’en faire les frais.
138
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
9. La crise et les changements de la
législation du patrimoine culturel en
Hongrie : cul-de-sac ou solution ?
Eszter Bánffy & Pál Raczky
Cet article porte sur un changement planiié de la législation
hongroise concernant la déinition et la protection des sites
archéologiques. Jusqu’à présent, la déinition légale d’un site
incluait son inscription dans une base de données nationale
tenue par le Bureau de la Protection du Patrimoine (KÖH) : la
nouvelle proposition exigerait que ces sites soient aussi localisés
et coordonnés dans une base de données publiquement disponible et certiiée, au niveau municipal. Cependant, de telles
exigences ne sont actuellement remplies que dans quelques milliers de cas sur près des 40 000 sites nationalement enregistrés,
sans parler des c. 200 000 sites dont l’existence est estimée à
travers le pays. Tous ces « non-sites » seraient laissés en dehors
de la législation protectrice ; ils ne proiteraient pas des évaluations antérieures ou des 0,9 % que les projets d’aménagement
doivent dépenser pour la protection des sites archéologiques.
Le règlement proposé a apparemment été conçu pour aider les
aménageurs et les investisseurs à faire face à moins d’obstacles
avant de commencer les travaux de construction. Mais en
fait cela les endommage également : si un site est trouvé après
que les travaux aient commencé, ceux-ci seront arrêtés par le
KÖH – mais puisque les fouilles ne sont plus préventives, elles
n’auront aucun budget assuré, aboutissant à des pertes tant
pour les aménageurs que pour l’archéologie. Les auteurs de la
présente communication proposent une solution qui aiderait
à résoudre ces problèmes, non seulement pendant la période
actuelle de crise économique, mais aussi sur le long terme, en
prenant autant compte de l’intérêt du patrimoine archéologique
que du développement économique.
10. L’archéologie et la crise. Le cas de la
Pologne
Arkadiusz Marciniak & Michał Pawleta
Cet article vise à discuter les effets de la situation économique
mondiale sur l’archéologie polonaise. Il commence par un bref
aperçu de l’archéologie et du patrimoine archéologique dans la
Pologne contemporaine, ainsi que les solutions juridiques et institutionnelles en vigueur. Nous nous tournons vers l’impact de
la crise économique sur les principaux secteurs de l’archéologie
polonaise, en particulier les travaux préventifs et de sauvetage,
les activités académiques, et la situation dans les musées archéologiques. Nous abordons en particulier la nature et la portée
de projets de terrain menés au cours de ces dernières années, en
rapport avec des changements dans le secteur de l’aménagement
du territoire et dans le marché du travail des différents secteurs
de l’archéologie. L’effet le plus alarmant de la crise sur l’archéologie polonaise est une diminution dramatique de la qualité du
travail de terrain dans le cadre des fouilles préventives ou de
sauvetage, en raison de l’application de solutions économiques
les plus libérales. Ce constat est encore renforcé par une ineficacité structurelle des divers organismes en charge de la mise en
place des normes, de la coordination et du contrôle des travaux
archéologiques préventifs et de sauvetage en Pologne.
11. L’impact de la crise économique sur
l’archéologie de sauvetage en Russie
Asya Engovatova
Le système de l’archéologie de sauvetage ou préventive en
Russie a commencé à se développer à la in des années 1920
et, avant les années 1970, il représentait la moitié des opérations archéologiques dans le pays. De nos jours, l’organisme
responsable de l’archéologie au sein de l’Académie des sciences
attribue plusieurs sortes de licences ou autorisations : pour les
fouilles de recherche, pour les prospections de surface, pour les
travaux de reconnaissance archéologique et pour les fouilles
de sauvetage sur des sites en danger. La situation de l’archéologie de sauvetage a considérablement luctué après les grands
changements du début des années 1990 et la crise économique
de 1998. Cependant, le nombre de licences accordées pour des
fouilles de sauvetage a brusquement augmenté à partir de 2000,
et dans les années 2006-2008, près des trois quarts de tous les
travaux archéologiques à travers le pays étaient des fouilles de
sauvetage. La crise économique actuelle a provoqué une réduction du nombre d’opérations archéologiques, particulièrement
celles liées aux aménagements privés. D’importants investissements d’État dans des projets d’infrastructures divers limiteront
l’impact de la crise sur les activités archéologiques. Cependant,
des effets de la crise se perçoivent dans des tentatives de la
Duma de réduire légalement des mesures de protection archéologique, ainsi que dans les nouvelles mesures d’exonération
d’impôt qui favorisent les sociétés privées aux dépens d’organismes publics tels les musées et les universités.
12. L’effet de la récession mondiale
sur la gestion des ressources culturelles
aux Etats-Unis
Jeffry H. Altschul
Les effets de la récession mondiale sur la gestion des ressources
culturelles (CRM) aux États-Unis ont été plus profonds et plus
répandus que ne l’avait anticipé le secteur. Les raisons de l’échec
dans l’appréciation des répercussions inancières de la récession
sont variées, allant de la simple sous-estimation de l’économie,
aux facteurs plus compliqués impliquant les modes d’allocation
de fonds suivis par les agences gouvernementales. Comment ces
facteurs ont joué au cours de 2009 et 2010, et à quoi pouvons
nous nous attendre à court terme ; tels sont les sujets de cette
communication.
13. Postscript : canaris, cobayes
et autres chevaux de Troie
Nathan Schlanger
Si la crise économique actuelle est comparable à une peste
médiévale, quels en sont les modes de progression ? Frappet-elle la pratique de l’archéologie et la gestion du patrimoine
de façon indiscriminée, y a-t-il des points faibles ou des zones
protégées? Pour ce qui est de l’emploi en archéologie, la situation est contrastée. Des pertes importantes dans certains pays
ont d’ailleurs donné à l’archéologie la réputation d’un « canari »
annonçant la crise. Ces pertes d’emploi ont des conséquences néfastes, que ce soit pour les compétences spécialisées
irremplaçables ou pour l’expérience des techniciens et autres
employés. Ces nouvelles contraintes perturbent l’équilibre entre
les dimensions scientiiques et économiques de l’archéologie
contemporaine, au détriment des problématiques de recherche,
de la qualité scientiique, des publications et des médiations au
public. Enin, en fonction des politiques et des idéologies en
place, des interventions de l’État sont attendues. Aux cotés de
divers projets de relance et d’investissement dans des programmes d’infrastructure, sont aussi identiiés divers ajustements et
manipulations en termes de lois, d’institutions ou de procédures. Quelles que soient leurs intentions ou leurs pertinence, il ne
faut pas que ces mesures mettent en péril les acquis archéologiques et patrimoniaux de la convention de Malte – que ce soit
pour la durée de la crise, et pour la reprise qui s’ensuivra.
United Kingdom Archaeology in Economic Crisis
Archäologie und die globale
Wirtschaftskrise
Vielfältige Auswirkungen,
mögliche Lösungen
Herausgegeben von Nathan Schlanger
und Kenneth Aitchison
Deutsche zusammenfassungen
139
140
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
1. Einleitung: Archäologie und die globale
Wirtschaftskrise
Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison
Der folgende Band ist nicht nur das Ergebnis der EAATagung 2009. Er darf auch als der erste Überblick über die
aktuelle Wirtschaftskrise und ihre Auswirkungen auf die
Archäologie betrachtet werden. Die Krise ist nicht nur eine
Tatsache, sie ist auch zur kollektiven Vorstellung geworden,
unter deren Vorwand Entscheidungen über die archäologische Denkmalplege getroffen bzw. gerechtfertigt werden.
In diesem Feld entwickelten sich vor der Krise verschiedene
Verfahren, die sich im Laufe der Krise bisher weiter entwickelt haben. Vier unterschiedliche Auswirkungen der Krise
auf die Archäologie werden hier untersucht, und zwar: auf die
Finanzierung und die Schwerpunkte der Forschung; auf die
Beschäftigung und die Ausbildung; auf die Bewahrungs– und
Vermittlungspolitik; schließlich auf die Entwicklung der Politik
und der Gesetzgebung zur archäologischen Denkmalplege.
Der aufblühende Bereich „archäologische Denkmalplege“ hat
unter der wirtschaftlichen Rezession schwer gelitten. Besonders
in der Krise sollten wir aus diesem Bereich viel darüber lernen,
wie unsere Gesellschaften die Vergangenheit und das Kulturerbe
heute schätzen können.
2. Die Krise – aus wirtschaftlichem,
ideologischem und archäologischem
Gesichtspunkt
Jean-Paul Demoule
Seit ihrer Gründung spielt die EAA die Rolle eines
Diskussionsforums über die europäische archäologische
Denkmalplege. Zwei verschiedene Hauptauffassungen werden hier vertreten. Nach der einen Auffassung ist der Staat
als Vertreter der Bürgergemeinschaft für die archäologische
Denkmalplege verantwortlich: entweder durch archäologiespeziische Behörden, oder durch jener Aufgabe gewidmete staatliche Organisationen. Nach der anderen Auffassung wird das
archäologische Kulturerbe als eine Ware und sein Erhalt als eine
Dienstleistung betrachtet. Geschäftsartige archäologische Zentren
stehen zur Verfügung ihrer Kunden, der Raumplaner, und
richten sich ausschließlich nach einer bestimmten „Ethik“, die
im Rahmen der Marktwirtschaft eine ausgezeichnete Kontrolle
versichert. Neulich sind Handelsgesellschaften in Frankreich
als „Anbieter“ im Bereich der präventiven Archäologie genehmigt worden. Die aktuelle Wirtschaftskrise lädt uns aber ein,
diese Auffassung richtig neu durchzudenken. Der Staat, der
früher „Teil des Problems“ war, wird heute als mögliche Lösung
betrachtet. Wenn der Staat sich inanziell nicht so stark engagieren würde, gerietenviele wirtschaftliche bzw. Finanzeinrichtungen
in eine noch schlimmere Lage. Im Bereich der Archäologie
auch ist eine große Anzahl von privaten Anbietern seit Anfang
der Krise geschwächt worden; dadurch werden die archäologischen Operationen, sowie das Informationsmaterial und die
Publikationen gefährdet. Alle Mitarbeiter der „archäologischen
Gemeinschaft“ haben hier die Gelegenheit, über ihre Plichten
und Erwartungen nachzudenken.
3. Die Wirkung der Rezession auf die
Archäologie in der Republik Irland
James Eogan
Archäologische Ausgrabungen werden in der Republik Irland
vor allem von staatlich reglementierten Privatirmen durchgeführt. Seit Mitte der 1990er Jahre ist dieser privatwirtschaftliche
Bereich sowohl in Bezug auf die Anzahl der für öffentliche und
private Kunden ausgeführten Aufträge, als auch in Bezug auf
die Anzahl der beschäftigen Archäologen gewachsen. Zwischen
1995 und 2002 stieg die Anzahl der Ausgrabungen jährlich um
durchschnittlich 30% an; zwischen 2003 und 2007 stabilisierte
sich diese Anzahl bei 1500 pro Jahr. Dies schuf Arbeitsplätze
für Archäologen und 2007 wurde in der Studie Discovering
the Archaeologists of Europe die Anzahl der beschäftigten
Archäologen auf ungefähr 1000 geschätzt. Die große Menge
von neuen Grabungsergebnissen förderte die Forschung
im Allgemeinen sowie akademische Forschungsprojekte.
Forschungsmittel wurden vom Staat und Stipendien vom
Heritage Council verteilt. Seit 2008 aber hat sich die Anzahl der
jährlichen Ausgrabungen um 66% und infolgedessen die Anzahl
der in der Privatwirtschaft angestellten Archäologen um 80%
reduziert. Das allgemeine wirtschaftliche Klima hat außerdem
die Gelder, die zur Finanzierung von Forschungsprojekten zur
Verfügung stehen, verringert. Nach vorläuigen Daten für 2010
stabilisiert sich die Anzahl der Ausgrabungen, allerdings auf dem
Niveau der mittleren bis späten 1990er Jahre. Forschungsgelder
werden aber wahrscheinlich in den nächsten Jahren noch
weiter reduziert werden. Als Herausforderung für die Zukunft
handelt es sich darum, die in den Jahren des nie zuvor gesehenen
wirtschaftlichen Wachstums erzielten Ergebnisse in den drei
folgenden Schlüsselbereichen zu bestätigen:
– in der Weiterentwicklung der vorhandenen gesetzlichen
Rahmenbedingungen und Verwaltungsstrukturen;
– in der Sicherung von Grabungsarchiven
– in der Fortsetzung der Zusammenarbeit zwischen
Archäologen in der Privatwirtschaft, den staatlichen und
akademischen Institutionen, um die Forschung zu fördern und
sich dessen zu vergewissern, dass die Ausgrabungsergebnisse
wissenschaftlich ausgewertet und der gesamten Gesellschaft
zugängig gemacht werden können.
4. Vereinigtes Königreich: Archäologie in der
Wirtschaftskrise
Kenneth Aitchison
Seit 1990 ist die Archäologie im Vereinigten Königreich mit
der Entwicklung der Raumplanung eng verbunden. Alle
Raumplaner, deren Projekte Ausgrabungsstätten beschädigen bzw. zerstören könnten, müssen die Ausgrabungen selbst
inanzieren und beauftragen damit Handelsgesellschaften,
die auf offenem Markt miteinander konkurrieren. Deswegen
wuchs die Anzahl der Mitarbeiter in der Archäologie ziemlich
schnell, sowohl im Bereich der Untersuchungen vor Ort als
auch im Bereich der Beratung von Entscheidungsträgern über
die mögliche Wirkung der vorgeschlagenen Raumplanung. Seit
Anfang der wirtschaftlichen Krise ist die Bautätigkeit schwächer geworden. Das bedeutete auch den starken Rückgang
der archäologischen Arbeit und infolgedessen eine wachsende
Arbeitslosigkeit im privaten Sektor. Die neue, 2010 gewählte
Regierung hat sich zum Zweck eines reduzierten Deizites
dazu verplichtet, die Ausgaben zu verringern. Unter dieser
Politik sollten staatliche Einrichtungen, lokale Behörden sowie
Universitäten in den nächsten Jahren schwer leiden.
5. Das Ende eines goldenen Zeitalters? Der
wirtschaftliche Zusammenbruch und seine
drohende Wirkung auf akademische und
forscherische Archäologie im Vereinigten
Königreich
Anthony Sinclair
Im Gegensatz zum Bereich der kommerziellen Archäologie
zeigte die Wirtschaftskrise bis Juni 2010 nur wenige direkte
Auswirkungen auf die akademische bzw. forschungsorientierte
Archäologie, wenn bestimmte archäologische Fachbereiche
auch weniger Aufgaben hatten. Die Situation sollte sich ab
August 2010 völlig verändern. Die inanzielle Unterstützung des
Hochschulwesens sollte um mehr als eine Milliarde Pfund sinken;
man muss auf eine Verringerung der Gelder um mehr als 25% in
141
Deutsche Zusammenfassungen
den nächsten drei Jahren gefasst sein. Deswegen wird es gleich
den Universitäten schwer fallen, neue Mitarbeiter außer den
Hauptstudienfächern (Wissenschaft, Technologie, Engineering
und Mathematik) einzustellen. Die Führung muss dann den
Ertrag des Studiums und der Forschung möglichst optimieren,
dagegen die Ausgaben in weiteren Bereichen verringern und
die Lehrkräfte aus konjunkturbedingten Gründen möglicherweise entlassen. Die am Ende des Jahres 2010 vorgesehene
Neufestsetzung der dem Hochschulwesen gewährten Gelder
sollte zur unvermeidlichen Erhöhung der Studiengebühren
führen: Dadurch werden die Studenten mehr oder weniger
gezwungen, sich für ein Studium mit günstigen Arbeitsaussichten
zu entscheiden. Die Archäologie sollte unter einer solchen Politik
auch schwer leiden. Die Anzahl der Studenten der Archäologie
ist beträchtlich gestiegen und die Forschung hat sich entwickelt.
Dafür sinken die Bewerbungen immer weiter und es wird immer
schwierig, Forschungsstipendien zu bekommen. Deswegen
sind die meisten archäologischen Fachbereiche in Universitäten
mit hohem Forschungspotenzial und infolgedessen höheren
Studiengebühren angesiedelt. Die Verantwortung der archäologischen Fachbereiche besteht darin, die Diplome in Archäologie
kompetenzbezogen aufzuwerten. Den berulichen und ausbildenden Sektoren kommt es dann zu, die praktische Ausbildung
neu zu unterstützen, damit weniger Kosten von den Studenten
getragen werden.
6. Kommerzielle Archäologie in Spanien: Ihre
Entwicklung und die Wirkung der globalen
Wirtschaftskrise
Eva Parga-Dans
Hier wird die Wirkung der globalen Wirtschaftskrise auf den
spanischen archäologischen Bereich überblicklich vorgestellt.
Dieser Beitrag ist Teil eines weiteren Forschungsprojekts
des Instituts für Denkmalplege über „Sozioökonomien der
Denkmalplege“, in dem alle Daten in diesem Bereich systematisch analysiert werden können. An diesem Institut erfolgt
eine empirische Untersuchung des jetzt zehn-fünfzehnjährigen
Marktes, der sich mit der archäologischen Denkmalplege in
Spanien beschäftigt. Wichtig ist auch, dass diese Untersuchung
die unterscheidenden Merkmale der siebzehn autonomen
Gemeinschaften nicht beiseitelässt. Besonders berücksichtigt
werden hier die Entstehung, die Struktur und die Entwicklung
dieses Marktbereichs und die Beziehungen zwischen Akteuren
und innovationsfähigen bzw. Wissen herstellenden Institutionen
erforscht. Hier werden vorrangig die Auswirkungen der
aktuellen Wirtschaftskrise auf den Handelssektor und auf
die archäologische Denkmalplege im Allgemeinen behandelt. Die Krise hat das Baugewerbe deutlich geschwächt und
die Beschäftigungsrate geschadet. Trotz lückenhafter Daten
bestätigen erste quantitative und qualitative Schätzungen,
dass es im Bereich der kommerziellen Archäologie auch solche
Schwierigkeiten gibt, wenn sie in jeder Gemeinschaft auch
unterschiedlich sind. Dieses Problem betrifft in erster Linie die
Untersuchungen vor Ort, die von Privatgesellschaften angeboten werden. Es ist wünschenswert, dass solche Einrichtungen
sich auch weiter mit der Beratung über kulturelle Ressourcen
und ihrer Verwaltung beschäftigen.
7. Eine janusartige Krise: Die Wirkung der
Wirtschaftsrezession auf die niederländische
Archäologie
Monique H. Van Den Dries, Karen E. Waugh
& Corien Bakker
Die verschiedenen Tätigkeiten im Bereich der niederländischen
archäologischen Denkmalplege sind mit der Entwicklung des
Baugewerbes und der Raumplanung verbunden. Mehr als
90% der gesamten archäologischen Tätigkeit wird eigentlich
von den Raumplanern inanziert. Die Ausgrabungen werden
hauptsächlich vom privaten Sektor durchgeführt. Wegen
dieser engen Verbindung könnte man sich vorstellen, dass die
Rezession im Baugewerbe den privaten archäologischen Sektor
auch erreichen würde. 2009 waren aber die Auswirkungen
der Wirtschaftskrise auf den archäologischen Sektor in den
Niederlanden im Vergleich zu anderen Ländern nicht so stark.
Obwohl ein paar kleinere archäologische Gesellschaften
aufgeben sollten, ging gar keine wirklich bankrott und die
Vollbeschäftigung wurde fast aufrechterhalten. Die niederländische Regierung hat das Baugewerbe und die Raumplanung
durch inanzielle Unterstützungen vorübergehend gefördert und
weitere Infrastrukturbauten bestellt. Diese Maßnahmen mögen
geholfen haben. Wie andere vielleicht reagierte der archäologische Sektor erst nachträglich, weil viele Gesellschaften Anfang
2009 immer noch eine Menge von Projekten „auf Vorrat“
hatten. Obwohl die Anzahl der Ausgrabungsprojekte jedes Jahr
seit 2003 regelmäßig gewachsen ist, sank sie 2009 zum ersten
Mal in den letzten 25 Jahren um mehr als 10%. Besonders die
Anzahl der Bohrungen zur Bodenschätzung sank tief (15%),
während die der Ausgrabungen sich um 7,2% verringerte. Sind
all diese Schwierigkeiten Auswirkungen der Wirtschaftskrise?
Es gibt keine schlichte Ursache-Wirkung-Beziehung zwischen der Situation im Jahre 2009 und den wirtschaftlichen
Tätigkeiten des Baugewerbes. Ein weiterer, quantitativ
schwer einzuschätzender Faktor ist, dass die Organisation
der archäologischen Denkmalplege neulich umgestaltet
worden ist und erst jetzt anfängt, sich richtig zu entwickeln.
Viele lokale Behörden fangen erst an, die Beschlüsse der
Konvention von Malta auszuführen und eine Politik zur lokalen
Denkmalplege auszuarbeiten. Deswegen gibt es noch viel zu
tun, um die Entwicklung von archäologischen Landkarten,
Planungsprojekten und vorbereitenden Schätzungen zu fördern.
Wenn die lokalen Behörden die Archäologie vor Ort entwickeln und neue Beschlüsse bzw. Vorschriften in Kraft setzen
würden, könnte man auf alle überlüssigen Ausgrabungen und
Bewertungen verzichten. Die Wirtschaftskonjunktur könnte
sich 2010 und in den folgenden Jahren ein wenig verbessern.
Die lokalen und nationalen Behörden werden aber gleich
wahrscheinlich vor drastischen Budgetkürzungen stehen. Was
die Archäologie betrifft, ist es möglich, dass die Rezession den
tiefsten Stand noch nicht erreicht hat.
8. Eine Krise zuviel? Französische
Archäologie zwischen Reformen und
Aufschwung
Nathan Schlanger & Kai Salas Rossenbach
Hier wird von den Auswirkungen der globalen Wirtschaftskrise
auf die französische Archäologie gehandelt, mit Rücksicht auf
frühere sowie aktuelle Verfahren, die im archäologischen sowie
in weiteren Bereichen laufen. Was die präventive Archäologie
betrifft trugen verschiedene juristische und organisatorische
Entwicklungen 2001 dazu bei, dass die Archäologie als
öffentliche Aufgabe anerkannt wurde: das bedeutet, dass die
Archäologie seitdem nach dem Verursacherprinzip inanziert
wird und sich in zwei Hauptrichtungen entwickeln soll – die
Forschung und die öffentliche Vermittlung. 2003 schon wurde
aber die präventive Ausgrabungsphase dem Wettbewerb zwischen anerkannten Anbietern archäologischer Dienstleistungen
geöffnet, in der Hoffnung, dass dieser Markt die Verringerung
der Fristen und Kosten ermöglichen würde. Diese Politik
entspricht der französischen, 2007 angefangenen sog. „Révision
générale des politiques publiques“ (der Reform der öffentlichen Verwaltung) zur Rationalisierung und Modernisierung
der öffentlichen Einrichtungen, nach welcher die Ministerien
und die der Aufsicht des Staates unterliegenden Einrichtungen
strukturell verändert und ihr Personal abgebaut werden sollen.
Diese Reformen haben das Hochschulwesen und die Forschung,
sowie die für die Archäologie verantwortlichen Verwaltungs–
und Kontrolleabteilungen schon tief geprägt. Solche Reformen
hatte die globale Wirtschaftskrise 2008 im Hintergrund,
als sie ausbrach. Zu diesem zielstrebigen Aufschwungsplan
142
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
gehören erhebliche Investitionen in die Infrastruktur und das
Bauwesen (Strassen, Züge, usw.), die Untersuchungen und
präventive Ausgrabungen benötigen werden. Dagegen sind die
Verwaltungsverfahren zur Raumplanung vereinfacht worden:
das französische Gesetzbuch über die Denkmalplege hat man
verändert, um den „nunmehr übertriebenen“ Einluss der
präventiven Archäologie zu begrenzen; dazu wird eine kürzere
Frist für Anträge und Ausgrabungen geleistet. Die Wirkung
solcher Maßnahmen lässt sich noch nicht erkennen. Man
hat aber das Gefühl, dass nicht nur die Anbieter archäologischer Dienstleistungen, sondern auch die Raumplaner, die
Kontrollbehörden und das archäologische Kulturerbe selbst
darunter leiden werden.
9. Die Krise und die Entwicklung der
Gesetzgebung über Denkmalpflege in
Ungarn: eine Lösung oder nicht?
Eszter Bánffy & Pál Raczky
Dieser Beitrag handelt von der vorgesehenen Entwicklung der
ungarischen Gesetzgebung über Kennzeichnung und Schutz
der Ausgrabungsstätten. Bisher gehörte zur gesetzlichen
Kennzeichnung einer Ausgrabungsstätte die Eintragung in eine
nationale, vom sog. KÖH („Amt zur Denkmalplege“) koordinierte Datenbank. Nach neuen Verordnungen müssten die
Ausgrabungsstätten auch in eine anerkannte und öffentliche,
auf Stadtebene koordinierte Datenbank eingetragen werden.
Solche Regelungen werden jetzt nur noch in ein paar Tausend
Orten befolgt, während ungefähr 40000 Ausgrabungsstätten
auf nationaler Ebene registriert worden sind und die gesamte
Anzahl der Ausgrabungsstätten im Lande auf ca. 200000
geschätzt worden ist. Diese würden vom Gesetz nicht berücksichtigt. Ihnen würde weder die frühere Schätzung helfen, noch
der 0,9%-ige Teil der Gelder, der in Raumplanungsprojekten
zum Schutz der Ausgrabungsstätten ausgegeben werden sollte.
Offenbar wurde die Regelung getroffen, damit Raumplaner
bzw. Geldgeber am Anfang der Bauarbeiten vor geringen
Schwierigkeiten stehen. Die Regelung hat aber auch Nachteile:
wenn eine Ausgrabungsstätte im Laufe der Bauarbeiten
entdeckt wird, werden diese vom KÖH unterbrochen. Da es
sich aber um keine präventive Ausgrabungen handelt, werden
sie nicht inanziert: es schadet also den Raumplanern sowie
der Archäologie. Eine weitere Lösung wird in diesem Beitrag
vorgeschlagen, die nicht nur in der aktuellen Wirtschaftskrise,
sondern auch auf Dauer günstig wäre: Es handelte sich darum,
das archäologische Kulturerbe zugleich mit der wirtschaftlichen
Entwicklung zu berücksichtigen.
10. Archäologie und die Krise – Am Beispiel
Polens
Arkadiusz Marciniak & Michał Pawleta
Ziel des Beitrages ist es, die Auswirkungen der aktuellen
globalen Wirtschaftskrise auf die polnische Archäologie zu
diskutieren. Er beginnt mit einem kurzen Überblick über die
Archäologie und die archäologische Denkmalplege im heutigen
Polen und die bestehenden rechtlichen und institutionellen
Vorgaben. Anschließend soll die Art der Auswirkungen der
Wirtschaftskrise systematisch diskutiert werden, in dem die
Hauptbereiche der polnischen Archäologie im Sinne von
Schutz– und Rettungsmaßnahmen, kurz die akademischen
Tätigkeiten und die Situation der archäologischen Museen
betrachtet werden. Insbesondere sind Ausmaß und Menge
der in den letzten Jahren unternommenen Feldforschung und
deren Verhältnis zum Wandel in der Baubranche, wie auch der
Arbeitsmarkt in verschiedenen Bereichen der Archäologie zu
diskutieren. Die alarmierendsten Effekte der Krise auf die polnische Archäologie zeigen sich in der dramatischen Abnahme
der Qualität von Schutz– und Rettungsmaßnahmen wegen einer
sehr liberalen Anwendung von Marktlösungen. Verstärkt wird
dies noch durch eine strukturelle Ineffektivität der verschiedenen Behörden, die die Richtlinien festlegen, Schutz– und
Rettungsmaßnahmen in Polen koordinieren und kontrollieren.
11. Die Wirkung der Wirtschaftskrise auf die
Rettungsarchäologie in Russland
Asya Engovatova
Die Rettungs– oder präventive Archäologie in Russland hat
sich ab Ende der 1920er Jahre entwickelt; schon vor den
1970er Jahren betraf sie die Hälfte der archäologischen
Operationen im Land. Die an der Akademie der Wissenschaften
für Archäologie verantwortliche Abteilung erteilt heute
Genehmigungen und Erlaubnisse unterschiedlicher Art: für
Ausgrabungen, für Flächenerkundungen, für archäologische
Erkundungsarbeiten und Rettungsausgrabungen auf gefährdeten Zonen. Seit der Umwälzung am Anfang der 1990er Jahre
und der 1998er Wirtschaftskrise erlebt die Rettungsarchäologie
eine wechselnde Situation. Dennoch hat sich die Anzahl der für
Rettungsarbeiten erteilten Genehmigungen ab 2000 plötzlich
erhöht; 2006-2008 waren fast 75% der gesamten archäologischen Operationen durch das Land Rettungsausgrabungen.
Die aktuelle Wirtschaftskrise hat die Anzahl der archäologischen, besonders der mit privater Raumplanung verbundenen Operationen reduziert. Wichtige Staatsinvestitionen
in Infrastrukturprojekte sollen die Wirkung der Krise auf
die archäologischen Tätigkeiten begrenzen. Trotzdem sind
Auswirkungen der Krise zu spüren, weil die Duma versucht,
die archäologische Denkmalplege gesetzlich zu begrenzen; sie
hat z. B. neue Maßnahmen zugunsten der Privatgesellschaften
getroffen, die im Gegensatz zu Staatseinrichtungen (Museen,
Universitäten) dadurch steuerbefreit werden.
12. Die Wirkung der Weltrezession auf die
Verwaltung von kulturellen Ressourcen in den
Vereinigten Staaten
Jeffry H. Altschul
Die Auswirkungen der Weltrezession auf die Verwaltung von
kulturellen Ressourcen (sog. CRM) in den Vereinigten Staaten
sind tiefer und weiter verbreitet als das, was der Sektor erwartete. Die falsche Einschätzung der inanziellen Auswirkungen
der Rezession kann man aus verschiedenen Gründen erklären, von der schlichten Unterschätzung der Wirtschaft bis
zu komplizierten Verfahren, die mit der Art und Weise, wie
Regierungsstellen die Gelder bereitstellen, zu tun haben. Welche
Rolle diese Verfahren 2009 und 2010 gespielt haben? Worauf
kann man kurzfristig gefasst sein? Solche Fragen versucht dieser
Beitrag zu beantworten.
13. Nachwort: Über Kanarienvögel,
Meerschweinchen und Trojanische Pferde…
Nathan Schlanger
Wenn man die aktuelle Wirtschaftskrise mit einer mittelalterlichen Plage vergleichen darf, welche sind ihre
Entwicklungsprozesse? „Befällt“ sie die archäologischen
Praktiken und die Denkmalplege in gleicher Weise? Gibt
es zugleich gefährdete und geschützte Zonen? In Bezug auf
die Berufstätigkeit im archäologischen Bereich lässt sich die
Situation unterschiedlich beschreiben: wegen zahlreicher
Arbeitsplatzverluste in manchen Ländern wird die Archäologie
manchmal als einen unglücksbringenden „Kanarienvogel“
betrachtet. Die Folgen solcher Arbeitsplatzverluste sind
schlecht, weil sie unersetzbare Fachleute sowie erfahrene
Techniker und weitere Mitarbeiter betreffen. Solche Zwänge
stören das Gleichgewicht zwischen der wissenschaftlichen
143
Deutsche Zusammenfassungen
und der wirtschaftlichen Seite der heutigen Archäologie;
das geschieht auf Kosten der Forschungsprojekte, der
Wissenschaftlichkeit, der Publikationen und der öffentlichen
Vermittlung. Der regierenden Politik bzw. Ideologie entsprechende Staatseingriffe sind auch schließlich zu erwarten.
Verschiedene Aufschwungspläne und Investitionen in die
Infrastruktur, sowie Änderungen und „Herumbasteln“ an dem
Gesetz, den Einrichtungen und den Vorgehensweisen können
hervorgehoben werden. Ganz gleich, was das Ziel solcher
Maßnahmen ist und ob sie relevant sind! Höchst wichtig ist
es, dass sie gegen die Beschlüsse der Konvention von Malta
über Archäologie und Denkmalplege nicht verstoßen – solange
die Wirtschaftskrise dauert, aber auch danach, wenn der
Aufschwung sich erkennen lässt.
144
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
Arqueología y la crisis
económica global
Impactos múltiples,
posibles soluciones
Edición coordinada por Nathan Schlanger
y Kenneth Aitchison
Resúmenes en español
145
Resúmenes en español
1. Introducción: la arqueología y la crisis
económica global
Nathan Schlanger & Kenneth Aitchison
Este volumen, así como la sesión de la Asociación de arqueólogos europeos (EAA 2009) de la cual deriva, propone por
primera vez una mirada global sobre la crisis económica actual
y sus efectos sobre la arqueología. Además de su ineluctable
realidad, la crisis se convirtió rápidamente en una representación colectiva, utilizada de manera estratégica para llevar
adelante o para justiicar decisiones en torno a la gestión del
patrimonio arqueológico. En efecto, en este campo como en
otros, diversos procesos y trayectorias tuvieron lugar antes
de la crisis para luego continuar paralelamente a ella. Aquí
son identiicados cuatro temas o zonas de impacto de la crisis
sobre la arqueología: los inanciamientos y las prioridades
de la investigación; las cuestiones de empleo y de formación
profesional; las políticas de conservación y de mediación al
público y, inalmente, los cambios en las políticas y legislaciones en materia de patrimonio arqueológico. Sector en auge, la
gestión del patrimonio arqueológico fue duramente golpeada
por la recesión económica. No obstante, constituye también un
sector revelador -precisamente en tiempo de crisis- acerca de las
diferentes formas que tienen nuestras sociedades contemporáneas de apreciar el pasado y nuestro patrimonio.
2. La crisis – económica, ideológica y
arqueológica
Jean-Paul Demoule
Desde su creación, la EEA sirvió de forum para los debates
sobre las diferentes concepciones de la organización de la
gestión del patrimonio arqueológico en Europa. Se pueden
distinguir dos concepciones principales. Para una, es el “Estado
Nación”, representante de la comunidad de ciudadanos, quien
se encarga de la protección del patrimonio arqueológico, por
intermedio de un Servicio arqueológico estatal o de organismos
públicos. Para la otra, el patrimonio arqueológico es considerado como una mercadería o un servicio, en el cual unidades
arqueológicas comerciales se hallan al servicio de sus clientes,
las empresas de obras, y como único postulado una “deontología” para asegurar el control y la calidad en el marco de una
economía de mercado. Este sistema fue puesto en marcha en
Francia con la reciente aprobación de un sistema de licencias
para las sociedades comerciales en arqueología preventiva. Sin
embargo, la crisis económica actual invita claramente a repensar esta concepción. El Estado, considerado antes como “parte
del problema”, es visto nuevamente como una posible solución.
Sin las intervenciones masivas del Estado, una gran parte de
los dispositivos económicos y inancieros globales estarían peor
que en la actualidad. En el sector de la arqueología, una gran
cantidad de unidades privadas fueron dañadas o cerraron desde
el comienzo de la crisis, lo que puso en peligro las operaciones
arqueológicas, así como la documentación y las publicaciones.
He aquí entonces una ocasión para toda la comunidad arqueológica de examinar sus responsabilidades y oportunidades.
3. El impacto de la recesión sobre la
arqueología en la Republica de Irlanda
James Eogan
Los servicios arqueológicos en Irlanda son efectuados por
un sector privado controlado por el Estado. A mediados de
la década del 90, dicho sector conoció un fuerte crecimiento
del volumen de trabajo, comanditado a la vez por empresas
privadas y por el sector publico. Este crecimiento contribuyó
al aumento del número de arqueólogos empleados. Entre 1995
y 2002, el número de excavaciones arqueológicas aumentó
aproximadamente un 30 % por año. De 2003 a 2007, el
número de excavaciones se estabilizó a unas 1500 por año.
Esto permitió la creación de empleos y en 2007, el proyecto
“Descubrir los arqueólogos en Europa” estimaba el número
de arqueólogos a alrededor de 1000. Numerosas excavaciones
llevadas a cabo generaron una signiicativa cantidad de nuevos
datos arqueológicos que estimularon investigaciones y oportunidades académicas. La mayoría de ellas fueron inanciadas por
becas administradas por el ‘Heritage Council”.
A partir de 2008, se constató una disminución del 66% del
número de excavaciones y en consecuencia una reducción del
80% del número de arqueólogos empleados en el sector privado. El clima económico general ocasionó también una reducción del inanciamiento disponible para apoyar los proyectos
de investigación. Los datos previsionales para 2010 sugieren
que el número de excavaciones se estaría estabilizando, aunque
a niveles conocidos por última vez en la segunda mitad de los
90; sin embargo, los créditos afectados a la investigación serán
reducidos en los años próximos.
El desafío para el porvenir será el de consolidar las ganancias
acumuladas durante el crecimiento económico. Esto, en tres
puntos claves:
• Desarrollar los marcos legislativos existentes y las estructuras
administrativas
• Proteger los archivos de las excavaciones
• Mantener la cooperación entre los diversos sectores para
favorecer la investigación y asegurar que los datos provenientes
de las excavaciones sean transformados en conocimiento en
beneicio del conjunto de la sociedad
4. La arqueología del Reino Unido en la crisis
económica
Kenneth Aitchison
Desde 1990, la arqueología en el Reino Unido estuvo estrechamente ligada al proceso de desarrollo territorial. Todas las
empresas de obras de construcción potencialmente susceptibles
de causar daños o destrozos a sitios arqueológicos se hallan en la
obligación de inanciar su estudio a través de empresas privadas
que compiten en un libre mercado para efectuar tales servicios.
Esto ha generado un rápido aumento del número de individuos
que trabajan en arqueología, tanto directamente en la investigación de campo, como también en el ámbito de consultación
y consejo brindados a los tomadores de decisiones acerca del
potencial impacto de tal o cual plan de desarrollo territorial.
Desde que apareció la crisis económica, la actividad del sector
de la construcción disminuyó radicalmente. Esto signiicó una
considerable disminución de la actividad arqueológica, que tuvo
como consecuencia principal la pérdida de numerosos empleos
en el sector privado de la arqueología. Con el nuevo gobierno
electo en el Reino Unido en 2010, que prometió reducir el déicit
iscal nacional disminuyendo los gastos, se puede suponer que las
agencias nacionales y los gobiernos locales, así como las universidades, serán fuertemente afectados en los años venideros.
5. ¿El fin de una Edad de Oro? Los efectos
amenazadores del colapso económico sobre
la arqueología en la enseñanza académica.
Anthony Sinclair
En contraste con la práctica arqueológica profesional del sector
comercial, la crisis económica tuvo poco impacto directo sobre
la arqueología en la enseñanza académica hasta junio de 2010,
con la notable excepción de la disminución de actividad para
las unidades institucionales que compiten en el sector comercial. Esto cambiará radicalmente a partir de agosto de 2010.
El inanciamiento de la enseñanza académica será disminuido
en más de 1000 millones de euros, con previsiones de una
disminución de más del 25 % en tres años. Esto signiicará
una menor capacidad para las universidades de reemplazar
a su personal excepto en áreas claves de la enseñanza (ciencia, tecnología, ingeniería y matemáticas), y obligará a las
146
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
direcciones de las universidades a aumentar al máximo las
ganancias económicas de la enseñanza y de la investigación y a
disminuir los gastos en otros sectores, especialmente reduciendo
el número de profesores. La revisión de este inanciamiento al
inal de 2010 acarreará sin duda como consecuencia el aumento
de los derechos de inscripción para los estudiantes, que elegirán
sus estudios teniendo particularmente en cuenta las posibilidades laborales. La arqueología podría recibir un gran impacto
debido a estos cambios. Ella creció en gran parte sobre la base
del número de estudiantes y del éxito continuo de sus investigaciones. El número de inscripciones de estudiantes disminuye
y los créditos para la investigación se tornan cada vez más
difíciles de conseguir.
Asimismo, los departamentos de arqueología se encuentran principalmente basados en universidades de alto nivel de intensidad
en investigación, las cuales poseen altos niveles de derechos de
inscripción. Los departamentos deberán subrayar las competencias valorables - fuera de la arqueología- enseñadas en los cursos
de arqueología, y los sectores profesionales y educativos tendrán
que encontrar soluciones para mantener la formación sobre el
terreno en arqueología en nuevas maneras que permitan aliviar el
peso económico sostenido por los estudiantes.
6. La arqueología comercial en España: Su
crecimiento, desarrollo y el impacto de la
crisis económica global
Eva Parga-Dans
El propósito de este artículo es el de presentar una aproximación empírica sobre el sector arqueológico español, concretamente en el ámbito de la arqueología comercial y los efectos de
la crisis global en relación a esta actividad. Este trabajo forma
parte de una iniciativa mayor que tiene como objetivo analizar
y sistematizar la información vinculada a la gestión del patrimonio arqueológico español.
A continuación, se presentan los resultados preliminares sobre
el análisis de la actividad comercial desarrollada en torno a la
arqueología como una nueva oferta de servicios generada en la
década del 90, teniendo en consideración las relevantes diferencias entre las 17 provincias del país. Se presta especial atención
a las causas que favorecieron su emergencia, analizando su
estructura y desarrollo. Asimismo, se examinan las relaciones
entre los actores y las instituciones involucradas en la generación del conocimiento y en los procesos de innovación.
El énfasis especíico de esta publicación atañe a los efectos
de la crisis económica actual sobre el sector comercial en
España y, de manera general, sobre la gestión del patrimonio
arqueológico.
La crisis indujo un importante declive en el sector de la construcción y en su correspondiente sector de empleos. Aún si
faltan datos, los análisis cuantitativos y cualitativos iniciales
conirman que esta caída también se maniiesta en el sector
comercial de la arqueología, aunque con variables entre las
provincias.
Los “servicios de intervención” provistos por empresas al sector
de la construcción fueron particularmente afectados, y puede
que la salida a esta crisis se encuentre en una diversiicación
hacia otros servicios de mediación al público y de gestión de los
recursos culturales.
7. Una crisis de múltiples caras. El impacto
de la recesión económica sobre la
arqueología de los Países Bajos
Monique H. van den Dries, Karen E. Waugh
& Corien Bakker
Un gran porcentaje de las actividades desarrolladas en el sector
de la gestión del patrimonio arqueológico holandés está ligado
a las actividades del sector de la construcción y del desarrollo
territorial. En realidad, mucho más del 90% de toda la actividad
arqueológica está inanciada por las empresas de obras. El
trabajo de terreno ligado a estas obras es realizado por el sector
privado. A causa de esta cercanía, se podría esperar que la
recesión en el sector de la construcción afecte seriamente el sector
privado de la arqueología. La recesión económica parece haber
tenido algún impacto sobre las actividades arqueológicas en los
Países Bajos. Pero, en 2009, los efectos de la crisis económica
sobre el sector arqueológico no fueron tan fuertes como previsto
y seguramente han sido menores que en otros países. En realidad,
ninguna empresa de arqueología cayó en bancarrota (aún si algunas pequeñas empresas dejaron su actividad) y una situación de
casi pleno empleo se mantuvo. El gobierno nacional estimuló de
manera temporaria las actividades de construcción y de desarrollo territorial introduciendo condiciones favorables de inanciamiento y planiicando obras públicas de gran escala. Esto puede
haber jugado un papel importante, pero más importante aún es
que el sector de la arqueología, al igual que otros sectores, presenta una reacción atrasada debido que, a comienzos de 2009,
muchas empresas poseían todavía muchos proyectos en “stock”.
A pesar de todo, si bien desde 2003 se observa un constante
aumento anual del número de proyectos de terreno en arqueología, en 2009 y por primera vez en 25 años se observó una
disminución del 10%. En particular, las evaluaciones de terreno
por sondeos disminuyeron signiicativamente (15%). De la
misma manera, el número de excavaciones disminuyó del 7,2%.
¿Fue todo esto causa de la crisis económica? La situación de
2009 suele en realidad ser un poco más compleja que la de una
relación lineal entre la actividad arqueológica y las actividades
económicas del sector de la construcción. Un factor importante,
pero difícil de medir, es que nuestro nuevo sistema de gestión del
patrimonio arqueológico se encuentra todavía en una primera
etapa de desarrollo. Esto signiica que numerosos gobiernos
locales están apenas comenzando a implementar los principios
de la Convención de la Valletta, y a desarrollar leyes locales de
gestión patrimonial. En consecuencia, existe aún mucho trabajo
para los arqueólogos concerniente al desarrollo de mapas de
localización de sitios, mapas de los proyectos de desarrollo territorial, evaluaciones preliminares en gabinete, etc. Por otro lado,
una mejor toma en mano por parte las autoridades locales de su
propia arqueología y la puesta en práctica de nuevas directivas
y políticas de regulación a nivel de la planiicación local podrían
frenar el crecimiento descontrolado en el pasado de los trabajos
de prospecciones y evaluaciones. De un punto de vista general, la
situación económica en 2010 y en los años futuros se mejorará
de manera clara, pero las previsiones indican que entonces las
autoridades locales y nacionales enfrentarán disminuciones
mayores que sus créditos. Así que desde el punto de vista de las
operaciones arqueológicas, es posible que no se haya llegado
todavía al fondo de la recesión.
8. ¿Una crisis de más? La arqueología
francesa entre reformas y relanzamiento
Nathan Schlanger & Kai Salas Rossenbach
Proponemos aquí un análisis de los impactos de la crisis económica global sobre la arqueología francesa, teniendo como
parámetro los procesos anteriores y en curso, en el seno de la
disciplina y más allá de ella. En lo concerniente a la arqueología
preventiva, una serie de desarrollos jurídicos y organizacionales
la conirmaron, en 2001, como misión de servicio público, inanciada por el principio “quien contamina, paga”, que comprende
a su vez aspectos de investigación cientíica y de mediación al
público. Sin embargo, desde 2003, la fase de excavaciones de la
arqueología preventiva fue abierta a la concurrencia comercial
entre operadores autorizados, con la expectativa de que este
mercado contribuya a reducir plazos y costos. Este abordaje se
alinea con la Revisión General de Políticas Públicas (RGPP) entablada en 2007 a in de racionalizar y modernizar los servicios
públicos, particularmente a través de la reducción de empleos y
de la reestructuración de ministerios y de establecimientos bajo
tutela. Estas reformas ya han impactado fuertemente en la enseñanza superior y en la investigación, así como en los servicios
147
Resúmenes en español
encargados de la gestión y del control en materia arqueológica.
En segundo plano de estas reformas, la crisis económica global
hizo su aparición en 2008. El ambicioso plan de relanzamiento
puesto en obra comprende especialmente importantes inversiones en infraestructura y obras públicos (rutas, trenes de
alta velocidad...) que necesitarán diagnósticos y excavaciones
de arqueología preventiva. Sin embargo, en contrapartida, se
decidió aligerar los procedimientos administrativos concernientes
a las obras de desarrollo territorial -emprendimientos-: el Código
del Patrimonio fue modiicado a in de limitar la inluencia “en
adelante excesiva” de la arqueología preventiva, imponiendo
plazos más apremiantes para las prescripciones administrativas
y las operaciones de terreno. Es sin duda demasiado temprano
para evaluar los efectos de estas medidas, pero podemos presentir desde ahora que, al márgen de los operadores arqueológicos,
serán también los emprendedores, las autoridades de control
y, sobre todo, el patrimonio arqueológico en sí mismo, quienes
corran el riesgo de padecer las consecuencias.
9. ¿La crisis y las evoluciones de la
legislación del patrimonio cultural en
Hungría: callejón sin salida o solución?
Eszter Bánffy & Pál Raczky
El artículo se interesa a un cambio planiicado en Hungría de
la legislación sobre la deinición y la protección de los sitios
arqueológicos. Hasta hoy, la deinición legal de un sitio incluye su
inscripción en una base de datos nacional mantenida por la oicina
de protección del patrimonio (KÖH): la nueva proposición necesitaría que estos sitios sean localizadas y coordenados en una base
de datos disponible públicamente y certiicado al nivel municipal.
Sin embargo, las exigencias de una tal base de datos están actualmente cumplidas solo en unos miles de caso sobre 40 000 sitios en
registrado nacionales, sin hablar de circa 200 000 sitios sondeados
a través del país. Todos estos “no-sitios” estarían dejados de lado
en la legislación de protección; no aprovecharían de las evaluaciones anteriores o del 0,9% de gastos obligatorios para los proyectos
de obras sobre sitios arqueológicos. Esta legislación propuesta fue
aparentemente concebida para ayudar las empresas de obras y
los inversores a empezar las obras de construcción sin obstáculos.
Pero en realidad dañan los sitios: si un sitio es localizado después
que comenzaron las obras terrestres, serán paradas por el KÖH
–pero de no ser mas preventivas, las excavaciones no tendrán
los recursos suicientes, lo que llevara a perdidas tanto para
las empresas de obras que para la arqueología. Los autores del
presente artículo proponen una solución que ayudaría a resolver
estos problemas, no solamente en el periodo de crisis actual, pero
también a largo plazo, de una manera que podría preservar tanto
el patrimonio arqueológico que el desarrollo económico.
10. Arqueología en crisis: el caso de Polonia
Arkadiusz Marciniak & Michał Pawleta
El objetivo de este ensayo es discutir los efectos que la presente
situación económica global tiene sobre la arqueología polaca.
Empieza con una breve explicación de la arqueología y la
herencia arqueológica de la Polonia contemporánea y las
presentes soluciones legales e institucionales que se han llevado
a cabo. El ensayo discute la naturaleza del impacto de la crisis
económica en los sectores más importantes y vulnerables de
la arqueología polaca en términos de trabajos de prevención y
rescate, actividades académicas y la precaria situación de los
museos arqueológicos. Particularmente se discute la perspectiva
y los trabajos arqueológicos de los últimos años en relación a
los cambios dentro la industria de la construcción al igual que
las ofertas de trabajo en los diferentes sectores de la arqueología polaca. Los efectos más alarmantes de la crisis de la arqueología polaca son los drásticos incrementos de la baja calidad de
los trabajos de prevención y rescate, al igual que los efectos de
la ineicacia estructural debido a la aplicación de las soluciones
de un mercado neoliberal. Esto se refuerza por la ineicacia
estructural de varios sectores institucionales a cargo de crear
políticas de coordinación y control preventivo y de trabajos de
rescate arqueológico en Polonia.
11. El impacto de la crisis económica sobre
la arqueología de rescate en Rusia
Asya Engovatova
El sistema de la arqueología de rescate o preventiva en Rusia
comenzó a desarrollarse al in de los años 1920 y, antes de los
70, representaba la mitad de la operaciones arqueológicas en el
país. Hoy en día, el organismo responsable de la arqueología
en la Academia de las ciencias atribuye varios tipos de licencias:
para excavaciones de investigación; para prospecciones de
supericie; par trabajos de reconocimiento arqueológico; y para
excavaciones de rescate de sitios en peligro. La situación de la
arqueología de rescate luctuó considerablemente después de los
cambios del comienzo de los años 1990 y de la crisis económica
de 1998. Sin embargo, el número de licencias otorgadas para
excavaciones de rescate aumento repentinamente a partir de
2000, y en los años 2006-2008, más de los tres cuartos de todas
las operaciones arqueológicas a través del país eran excavaciones de rescate. La crisis económica actual provoco una reducción del número de operaciones arqueológica, particularmente
cuyas ligadas a las obras privadas. Importantes inversiones del
Estado en diversos proyectos de infraestructuras limitaron el
impacto de la crisis sobre las actividades arqueológicas. Sin
embargo, se pueden igualmente ver los efectos de la crisis en
los ensayos de la Duma de reducir los medios de protección del
patrimonio arqueológico y igualmente en las nuevas exoneraciones de impuestos que favorecen a las empresas privadas
a expensas de los organismos públicos como los museos o las
universidades.
12. El efecto de la recesión global sobre la
gestión de recursos culturales en Estados
Unidos
Jeffry H. Altschul
Los efectos de la recesión global sobre la gestión de los recursos
culturales en Estados Unidos fueron más profundos y extendidos que lo que se previo en la industria. Las razones de la mala
evaluación de las repercusiones inancieras de la recesión son
varias, van del mal entendimiento de la economía hasta factores
más complejos como la manera que tienen las agencias estatal
de distribuir los inanciamientos. El sujeto de este artículo es de
describir el papel jugado por estos factores en 2009 y 2010 y lo
que se puede esperar para los tiempos futuros.
13. Post scriptum: sobre canarios muertos,
cobayas y otros caballos de Troya
Nathan Schlanger
¿Si la crisis económica actual es comparable a una peste medieval, cuáles son sus modos de progresión? ¿Golpea la práctica de
la arqueología y la gestión del patrimonio de manera indiscriminada? ¿Existen unos puntos débiles o zonas protegidas? En
cuanto al empleo en arqueología, la situación es contrastada.
Pérdidas importantes en ciertos países dieron a la arqueología
la reputación de ser un “canario” que anuncia la crisis. Estas
pérdidas de empleo tienen consecuencias nefastas, por las
desapariciones irreemplazables en materia de competencias
especializadas o de experiencia de técnicos y otros empleados.
Estas nuevas limitaciones perturban el equilibrio entre las
dimensiones cientíicas y económicas de la arqueología contemporánea, en detrimento de las problemáticas de investigación,
de la calidad cientíica, de las publicaciones y de la mediación al
148
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
público. Por in, en función de las distintas políticas e ideologías, intervenciones del estado son esperadas. A lado de diversos proyectos de relanzamiento y de inversión en programas
de infraestructura, también son identiicados diversos ajustes
y manipulaciones en términos de leyes, de instituciones o de
procedimientos. Cuáles que sean sus intenciones o su pertinencia, estas medidas no tienen que poner en peligro los principios
arqueológicos y patrimoniales de la Convención de Malta - sea
por el período de la crisis, como para la próxima reanudación
de la economía europea.
150
Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions
ARCHAEOLOGY
AND THE GLOBAL
ECONOMIC CRISIS
MULTIPLE IMPACTS,
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
Edited by Nathan Schlanger
and Kenneth Aitchison
Developing from a session at the annual meeting of
the European Association of Archaeologists in 2009,
this volume is probably the irst of its kind to attempt
a global, comparative look at the current economic
crisis and its effects on archaeology. This impact can be
identiied in four overlapping areas or themes: research
funding and priorities; professional employment, training
and skills; conservation and public outreach; and changes
in heritage management policies and legislation. The
chapters assembled here describe, in various degrees
of detail, the effects of the crisis in Ireland, the United
Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, France, Hungary,
Poland, Russia and the United States. The authors come
from academia, the commercial sector and public bodies:
knowledgeable as they are about the situation prevailing
in their respective countries, their aim here has not been
to produce formal, authorised statements, but to provide
a sense, through case studies and analyses, of the multiple
impacts of the crisis on archaeology. In effect, alongside
its widely felt economic effects, the crisis has also become
something of a mantra for decision making, and indeed
a prism by which we can better appreciate the wider
attitudes of our contemporary societies towards the
heritage of the past.
Provided there is suficient interest, the editors hope to publish a
follow-up volume in one year’s time, with updated information and
covering new countries, sectors and analyses.
Download PDF file at:
http://ace-archaeology.eu/fichiers/25Archaeology-and-the-crisis.pdf