No 12, Winter 1999
CONTENTS
Bournemouth
to Bermuda:Reflections on the
1999 EAA
Annual Conference
Bruce Morgan .....
1
The Annual Business Meeting
New Officers
and Board Members ..... 2
Changes
to the Statutes ..... 3
Reports from the Round Tables
Education
and Training ..... 3
Professional
Associations in Archaeology ..... 5
Illicit
Trade in Antiquities and Cultural Material .... 5
The Treasurer’s Report Cecilia Åqvist..... 5
Lisbon in 2000 ..... 6
New Secretariat address ..... 6
The European Heritage Prize ..... 7
Standards of
presentation at Bournemouth
John Collis .....
7
The Editor’s Corner ..... 7, Diary ..... 8
_____________________________________
Published by the European
Association of Archaeologists, c/o Riksantikvarieämbetet,
Box 10259, S-434 23 Kungsbacka,
Sweden
Phone: + 46 300 33907,
Fax: + 46 300 33901
e-mail petra.nordin@raa.se
Editor Dr
Henry Cleere
Assistant Editor
Petra Ottosson Nordin
Editorial contents (c) Named authors and the EAA
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent official EAA policy.
ISSN 1022-0135
Internet Edition webmaster: andrews@amu.edu.pl
Bournemouth to Bermuda: Reflections on the 1999 EAA Annual Conference
Bruce Morgan
(Museum
of London Archaeology Service – MoLAS)
I do not know if there is a collective noun for archaeologists, but having attended the 5th Annual Conference of the European Association of Archaeologists at Bournemouth University on 14-19 September 1999 and met some of the 685 participants from 40 countries I feel that we certainly need to invent one. The best collective noun would probably be a matrix of archaeologists. With up to 16 simultaneous lecture sessions covering topics such as contract archaeology, fragmentation, heritage management, oil lamps, and shamanism there was definitely something for everyone at the Conference. It was very pleasing to see Russia and all the former Eastern Bloc countries well represented. What really impressed me, however, was that everyone lectured in English. I wonder how many of the English could have presented a lecture in the language of the host country if the conference had been held in Bergen or Berlin. The use of one language was the most graphic proof of globalization, which was the theme of the opening address.
My only criticism of the way the conference was organized was the way that all the lectures were crammed into three days. The first two days were entirely devoted to pre-conference meetings and the opening ceremony, while the final day was devoted to coach trips, offering participants the opportunity to visit Stonehenge and other archaeological monuments within Wessex. I think that the lecture programme should have been spread over four days.
From the limited number of lecture sessions I was able to attend it is impossible to provide a comprehensive view of the proceedings. Therefore I have decided to offer a personal impression of my first EAA Conference. My first impression is that excavation is undertaken by two separate ‘tribes’ of archaeologists. One tribe is the contract archaeologists, undertaking developer-funded rescue projects, whilst the other tribe is the university archaeologists, who undertake excavation as summer expeditions involving sandals and sun-block. Some of the elders in both tribes remember a third group, the public sector excavators, who have become extinct over the last ten years owing to the destruction of their habitat.
This new tribal grouping of excavators raises several issues which were recurring themes in many formal and informal discussions. The first issue was that of quality (conforming to specification) in contract archaeology, which can create a conflict with the issue of costs, and this in turn leads on to the linked issues of pay and staff training (discussed later). The second issue which clearly vexes many people is the question of who are we undertaking rescue archaeology for. As a survivor from the public-sector tribe I remember when we excavated sites threatened by development or mineral extraction to save something of our archaeological heritage, which was then considered to be public property, so the tax payer funded our work. Now the same buried heritage appears to belong to the site developers, who are now expected to fund us to excavate threatened sites on the ‘polluter pays principle’. Paradoxically the less public money goes into rescue archaeology, the greater is the public interest in our work.
| Page 2 |  |
In this bewildering world of customers and clients the key question is, who are we now undertaking archaeological excavations for? The tribe of contract archaeologists practise polytheism, their galaxy of gods includes consultants, clients/developers, permit-givers/regulators, other archaeologists and/or research aims, and occasionally the general public. The tribe of university archaeologists have a choice of only two gods - other archaeologists and a capricious hydra known as the grant-awarding bodies.
My second impression is that within the tribe of contract archaeologists there is a universal concern with the issue of professionalism. This is a term that requires precise definition, since being a professional archaeologist to some is simply having paid employment in this type of work. However, the dictionary definition of being a professional is more complex: it states that it is the ‘type of work, such as being a doctor, that needs special training ... taking part in an activity, such as sport of music for money; very competent’ (Collins Gem English Dictionary, 1991, 426). Taking this dictionary definition I would argue that contract field archaeology in the UK today is not a true profession: it is more like a game of snakes and ladders.
We cannot, in my opinion, compare ourselves with doctors or footballers because of our relatively poor rates of pay and indifferent levels of training. The median full-time archaeological salary in the UK is £15,905 or 83% of the national average industrial wage, while some contract field staff earn as little as 53% of the national average wage (Aitchison 1999, xi). As for archaeological training within the UK the current situation is far from ideal. ‘The general picture is of a professional sector in which there is the beginnings of basic provision ... The emerging impression of patchy and in places, weak organisational provision compares with findings in other studies ‘ (Chitty, 1999, 13). However, I do realize that many UK archaeologists have done a great deal over the last twenty years to try and put things on a more professional footing, but my feeling is that this achievement is not yet complete, so we should not become complacent.
My third impression is that I found it very heartening that the EAA provided such a great opportunity for the members of the two tribes from many different nations to come together with the consultants and permit-givers and discover more about each other’s work and research. This interchange of ideas and data is one of the aims of the EAA, as set out by the President in his thoughts on the future of European Archaeology (Willems 1999).
My
final impression of the Conference is that archaeologists must start studying
Europe’s past systematically on an international basis and break free of
the rigid constraints of developer-funded projects.
When
we study the Roman period, how many of us only focus on material from our
own modern national state, paying scant attention to the rest of the Roman
Empire? Now that we have sophisticated and affordable computer technology
(GIS, data bases, etc), we have for the first time the means to efficiently
analyse and collate the large amounts of data we have spent the last 100
years collecting.
For
instance, in the not too distant future it should be possible to look at
European DNA by extracting samples from the teeth of existing skeletal
assemblages and collate the results on a Europe-wide basis, so as to test
theories of migrations and folk movements. Such a project would be one
way of getting the two tribes of excavators and their various deities to
co-operate in way that they have never done before. We could then explain
to the public who their ancestors were and when they arrived in Europe.
Some Europeans need to be reminded that we are all immigrants it is just
a question of who arrived first or last.
REFERENCES.
Aitchison,
K 1999 Profiling the Profession A survey of Archaeological
Jobs in the UK. CBA, English Heritage & IFA.
Chitty,
G 1999 Training in Professional Archaeology: A Preliminary
Review. Hawkshead Archaeology & Conservation.
Willems,
W J H 1999 The Future of European Archaeology. Oxbow
Lecture 3.
_______________________________________
The
Annual Business Meeting
New Officers and Board members
The results of the elections were announced at the Annual Business Meeting in Bournemouth on Saturday 18 September 1999. The activities of the EAA will be in the hands of the following members for the next twelve months (the names of those elected this year are shown in bold, as are the terms of office of re-elected members):
Executive Board
President
Willem
Willems (Netherlands) 1998-2000
Secretary
Arkadiusz
Marciniak (Poland) 1999-2002
Treasurer
Cecilia
Åqvist (Sweden) 1998-2001
Vice-President
Elisabeth
Jerem (Hungary) 1999-2002
Board
Members
Françoise
Audouze (France) 1997-2000
Ludmila
Koryakova (Russia) 1997-2000
Felipe
Criado Boado (Spain) 1998-2001
Elin
Dalen (Norway) 1998-2001
François
Bertemes (Luxembourg) 1999-2002
| Page 3 | |
Editorial Board
General
Editor
John
Chapman (UK) 1995-2001
Reviews
Editor
Peter
Biehl (Germany) 1998-2001
Board
Members
Natalia
Venclova (Czech Republic) 1995-2001
Paul
Wagner (Germany) 1995-2001
Kostas
Kotsakis (Greece) 1999-2002
Teresa
Chapa Brunet (Spain) 1998-2001
Predrag
Novakovic (Slovenia) 1999-2002
Editor,
The European Archaeologist
Henry
Cleere (UK) 1995-2001
Nomination Committee
Laszlo
Bartosiewicz (Hungary) 1997-2000
Susana
Oliveira Jorge (Portugal) 1998-2001
Hilke
Hennig (Germany) 1999-2002
Statutes Committee
Henry
Cleere (UK) 1998-2002
Maria
Mouliou (Greece) 1998-2001
Martin
Rundkvist (Sweden) 1998-2000
In
welcoming the new members, the President expressed the gratitude of the
Association to those members of the Executive Board whose terms of office
had come to an end – Barry Raftery (Ireland) and Viktor Trifonov (Russia)
– and to the co-opted member, Maurizio Tosi (Italy).
Changes to
the Statutes
The following changes to the Statutes, which had been circulated in advance to all members, were approved:
Article V:1 (revised)
Full Membership is open to professional archaeologists in the following categories:
a
- Regular (annual)
b
- Family (annual)
c
- Student (annual)
d
- Retired (annual)
e
- Long-term (period to be determined by the
Executive Board
f
- Life
Both Students and Retired Members should be considered Full Members and have the right to vote for the candidates in the elections to the various Boards.
Article V:2 (revised)
Associate Membership is open to non-professionals.
Article XI:2 (revised)
The Association shall institute the European Archaeological Prize, to be awarded periodically to an individual, institution, or local or regional government for an outstanding contribution to the protection and presentation of the European archaeological heritage.
______________________________________
Reports from the Round Tables
Round
tables have become a regular and popular feature at EAA Conferences. This
year in Bournemouth was no exception, and we shall be printing the reports
of several of these in our next two issues.
Education
and Training
John Collis
The principal area of discussion at Bournemouth was a series of new British initiatives which are likely to have a profound influence on the working practices of every archaeologist in Britain, and which could well have major implications throughout Europe as well. They follow on naturally from the round table on Standards, and are intimately linked with them. Two new committees have recently come into existence which are initiating these changes:
Gill Chitty described the Archaeology Training Forum (ATF), which was set up on the initiative of English Heritage, and consists of delegates representing national and local government, the Institute of Field Archaeologists, employers, universities, and other national archaeological bodies. Its remit is to look at the career structure in archaeology; the skills and standards required to carry out different types of job; the provision of training both for career development and for in-service training (Continuing Professional Development – CPD); initiating courses to provide that training; the funding to carry out the necessary training; and to ensure proper standards in training.
The
second body is the Professional Training Committee (PTC) of the Institute
of Field Archaeologists (IFA). This is working closely with the ATF, in
setting standards, and imposing them both on individual archaeologists
(through membership of the IFA) and on institutions (through registration
with the IFA). For both there are Codes of Conduct. It will be setting
up various sub-committees to deal with each of the specialist areas of
archaeology, the first of which, the Higher Education Committee (HEC) will
start work this autumn, looking at the provision of teaching in universities.
The
reasons for these changes are due not only to a concern with standards,
but also to a recognition that university training, which most archaeologists
in Britain have, only lays a general foundation, and is not adequate for
those entering the profession, especially as archaeology has tended to
become more and more specialized (eg academics, museums, sites and monuments
records (SMRs), commercial archaeology, scientific experts of various kinds,
etc.
| Page 4 | |
Such
specialist training can only be provided once students have entered the
profession, and decided in which area they wish to specialize. In addition,
archaeologists will at most only spend four to seven years studying, while
their professional life can span up to forty years, at a time when ideas,
technology, and the aims of archaeology are changing continuously. Feedback
from the profession suggests that, despite the large number of students
universities are producing, there is in fact a shortage in certain areas
of skilled people, in part because younger workers become disillusioned
with the lack of a career structure, and with poor pay and conditions,
and so are leaving the profession after only a few years.
CPD
is obviously one of the solutions, and has government backing;
Bob Hook discussed how CPD was developing in his own organization, English Heritage, as an example of what can be done.
Though some stop-gap measures are being brought in (eg provision of training where there are obvious needs, especially at the point at which students enter the profession), the intention of both the ATF and the IFA is to look at the long term. To this end surveys have been started on the state of British archaeology. The first has been a survey simply to find out how many archaeologists there are, where they are, and who they are working for – it seems about 4600 in Britain (Aitchison 1999).
Secondly, we have tried to get a quick idea of what they consider their training needs to be (Chitty 1999), but this will be followed up by a more detailed survey later, which will also include employers’ views. A survey is already under way on the provision of specialist services, and where shortages may exist, or may do so in the future.
The next major survey will be to find out in detail what archaeologists are actually doing in the various jobs (we have some 460 different titles, ranging from very detailed ones to simply ‘the archaeologist’), and the skills, both specialist and generic, that are required to carry them out. In this way we will be able to define what is need for individual posts, map out career paths, and try to ensure the necessary training.
Clearly, much of this is peculiar to Britain, and our solutions depend on using the institutions which exist, and which are very different from those in other countries. However, some of our solutions may be of interest elsewhere, and can be adapted. We must also be looking at international collaboration, arranging for individuals to take part on courses which are provided in other countries, and also looking at where we need to be developing joint training projects, and sharing experiences.
Examples that were discussed included the training which the Dutch are providing for managers of large-scale projects, or the plans at Mont Beuvray in France for an international training scheme based on the Iron Age site of Bibracte.
Ludmila Koryakova described her training school in Russia, which is attracting international participation, and Rafael Greenberg discussed the problems faced by Israeli archaeologists. Both emphasized the need for an international exchange of ideas. It is interesting to note that our colleagues in North America are going though a similar process, though we have yet to exchange ideas. Information on initiatives by the Society for American Archaeology can be found on: http://www.saa.org/Education/Curriculum.
I shall be publishing a couple of papers in Antiquity discussing the situation in Britain, both in general and in the universities. Copies of the two studies (Aitchison 1999; Chitty 1999) so far produced under the aegis of the ATF can be obtained free of charge from David Stocker, English Heritage, 23 Savile Row, London W1X 1AB
Bibliography
Aitchison
K. 1999. Profiling the profession: a survey of archaeological jobs and
job profiles in the UK. London, Institute of Field Archaeologists/Council
for British Archaeology/English Heritage.
Chitty
G. 1999. Preliminary Review of Archaeology Training. London, Archaeology
Training Forum, English Heritage.
A proposal for the Lisbon 2000 Education and Training Round Table
Leading on from our discussion this year, I suggest that at Lisbon we discuss the training of students and volunteers on excavations. We send our students out to excavations, but often get very little feedback on what they should have learnt, they actually learnt, or how they have performed. I remember one of our students who was thrown off an excavation when she rightly complained about the low standards of recording! More and more organizations are charging large sums to provide training – are they worth it? What are the basic administrative requirements (eg matters such as insurance, accommodation, etc)? What standards should we insist on? Who should provide advice about standards, and can and should they be imposed, and if so, how? I hope at the end we will come up with a code of conduct which those providing training will be happy to agree to and implement.
However, I am open to other ideas to discuss, so let me know. Also, I would welcome help in organizing these round tables – I was desperately short of time this year, and we have not fully implemented what was agreed at Gothenburg, such as setting up a discussion group on the Web.
John
Collis
Department
of Archaeology and Prehistory
West
Street
Sheffield
S1 4ET
UK
e-mail:
j.r.collis@sheffield.ac.uk
