Current archaeological proceedure (NRA)

Filly_01

I feel compelled to post a notice here about what the bloody NRA intend on doing with archaeological contracts for road scheme.
Having been a professional archaeologist for a number of year, I have become increasingly peed off with how the NRA completely dictate to archaeological companies - i.e site interpretations, report layout etc etc.
The National Monuments Service allow them to do whatever they want as they will not accept an archaeological report until the NRA archaeologist has signed off on it. Thus they possess every aspect of control.
It's bad enough that over the past year or more, archaeological service contracts for road schemes are now fixed price. This means that companies have to 'guess' how much archaeology is out there prior to even testing the road way. As a result you could have 100 or 20 sites along a section of new road and the price has to cover the testing, excavation and post ex of the sites. This has already resulted in companies going down the swanny as they are not able to do project within the budget set. However, this is now changing. Companies will now test for archaeology - after that they have to identify the nature and exent of any sites by finding the edges and sectioning features. Once this is done the NRA will 'tell' the companies how many archaeologists are required to dig the site and how long it will take them. Post ex costs will be 10 percent of the overall cost - regardless of how many artefacts are discovered. If you find 10 sherds of pot fine- if you find 5,000, tough.
This will encourage 'not finding' archaeology and the throwing away of artefacts as there will be no money to assess them. I know this sounds a little over dramatic, but that is what will happen. The government of this country professes to care about its heritage - if they allow this type of contract to continue you may as well get rid of archaeological services as they won't be worth the paper they are written on.
There is already a race to the bottom, were certain companies are paying 250 euro to workers a week. A recent contract for 40km of new road way was awarded to a company who said they could test and excavate the unknown amount of site for under 1 million euro. That is a disgrace and an insult to professionals who spend 4 years in university to be able to undertake work that they have a passion for.
The NRA archaeologists (many of whom are not even licenced archaeologists) have a lot to answer for - the sooner the National Monuments Service grow a pair and take back a bit of control the better!!!

Smartypantsdig

Well stated friend! I was sick of the bull when working on NRA contracts. And the new National Monuments legislation will dovetail nicely into the NRA way of thinking so I don't see the OPW actually "grow a pair" at this stage! I yearn for the ols Duchas days...

Riamfada

Yeah but when we went to college we all new we were studying a subject that was more of an academic luxury than a real profession. While I dont agree with what the NRA are doing I can understand it. They are clearly saving huge money on a luxury the state cannot afford at the moment, that luxury is flinging money to do post-ex of 5000 pottery relatively meaningless pottery sherds. Simply put does the money invested in grand scale commercial archaeology give a return of information valued to the same extent. Would that money be better served being relocated .... probably.

Bad times.

RollYerOwn

Yes tough times. Times for sacrifices in fact. Perhaps we should sacrifice government investiture in archaeological heritage practices for an additional hospital somewhere it is undoubtedly necessary... or make some other "panic buy" that is more cost effective in difficult times. Its an easy question to answer - health or heritage? Maybe we should, however, allow some token excavations be done for appearances sake - get some volunteers in, that'll be cheap. Some students maybe. In fact, lets turn the clock back 20 years and start again.

Whilst the recession has had a massive impact on the archaeological profession, archaeologists themselves have rarely had the stones to make a move to determine the direction of their own profession.

Some solid attempts to unionise in the early 2000's failed utterly.

The IAI has come to be regarded by the majority of professional archaeologists (those at the "Coalface" as they came to be regarded by one academic commentator) as little more than a "gentlemen's club"-type collection of academics, NRA, government officials and company owners. What use in joining that elitist organisation which does little more than pat itself on the back and amuse itself with the results of other people's hard work? Why pay more money than you can afford to attend a biannual - and might soon be reduced to an annual - conference, that starts on a friday (allowing those who can claim expenses to have a gay day away from the office but means those that are working at the "Coalface" can't get - or can't afford - the time off work to attend. Add to this the conference fees and the cost of accommodation and the event becomes seen for what it is - exclusive.

The rot of disillusionment started long before the recession and the oft-quoted "we only have ourselves to blame" (followed by The Sigh; The glug of the 6th or 7th pint that led to the conversation that brought everyone in the pub to; The downer; The reflection on the uncertain future; finalised by The quick change in conversation) was and remains a sad and inescapable truth.

(sigh; glug; sniff; sigh again; "Anyone want to grab something from the chipper?" / "Did you see that documentary on...")

RollYerOwn

So now. Getting the disillusionment out of the way, is there a way forward?

The OP's main point seems to be this (please forgive my paraphrasing) ..

The NRA (an agency operating on behalf of the largest developer in the country) has apparent free reign to determine how archaeology is undertaken on their development projects, and is finding ways to cut the costs of work undertaken for them by commercial archaeologists.

I don't think you can blame the NRA for that.

My opinion is putting it more simply.. The NRA should NEVER have been allowed to have their own people directing the work undertaken for them. The NRA should feel in its right to have its own archaeological consultants and advisers, but the 2004 amendment to the National Monuments Act was a typical patch-it-now response from the Irish government to failures in the existing policy and framework, and has directly led to an unacceptable level of control, by a developer, of the level of recording and "preservation" of the archaeological heritage of this country. It would be a worthwhile task investigating whether it came as a response from the development sector.

It will not stop at these contracts.. They are cleverer than us and are being paid to save money.

So what is to be done?

Well, it's not all bad - or needn't be.

You are undoubtedly aware of the review of policy and practice which the DoEHLG is undertaking. If you are not, then you should be, but I am not surprised. It's been ongoing for a couple of years and I believe it had little uptake from the "Coalface" when they asked for comments, suggestions on what needs to change. However, it is apparently marching on with advisers from representative bodies forming "Expert Advisory Committees". Some of these comprised members of the IAI. I am not sure whether they are officially representing the IAI or are representing their own organisations however, but the point is, surely, THEY SHOULD BE.

Next point, if the IAI was representative of the bulk of professional archaeologists, then you should feel that there was a true representation of your perspectives in the future direction of procedural measures and policy and practice regarding heritage legislation in this country.

C'mon, someone say it...

DeepSleeper

Picking up on the points made about the IAI (Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland)... Yes, the IAI is supposed to represent all archaeologists working in Ireland, but this is very difficult when many simply don't join... OK, so the fees are expensive and conferences can cost money too, but some people decide to spend that money and some don't - that's life I suppose. Some years ago a decision was taken to hold the conferences on Friday-Saturday rather than Saturday-Sunday, since many people weren't attending due to family commitments etc. Now, some people who attend are given time off from work to go (and expenses are covered too), but many take personal time off and cover their own costs to attend. Those 6 or 7 pints mentioned by RollYerOwn would go a good way towards paying conference fees...;)

In essence, the IAI is only as strong as the membership it attracts and, with falling membership numbers and corporate sponsorship drying up, it is now struggling to maintain services to the members it has managed to hold on to. Yes - the IAI should certainly represent our views at meetings held to discuss the on-going review of policy and practice!! But how many people here have told the IAI how they feel by contributing to a meeting and/or conference on the topic? Anyone? Hello? Anyone?

RollYerOwn

I'm delighted to reply to your point DeepSleeper. Regarding the 6 or 7 pints - you'd be hard pushed to find many archaeologists being able to enjoy the pub conversations of yesteryear, as many no longer work together and so are as removed from each other as they are from the profession they once were part of. I was simply being illustrative of the malaise that has abounded for many years.

I agree with your premise, that the IAI is supposed to represent us all, and yet it fails in this regard. The biggest reason that it fails in this regard is, as you say, that it cannot represent those who fail to join. But the strongest reason folks don't want to join - other than costs - is because it doesn't represent them.

It sounds somewhat circular. However, it takes moves from both the IAI as well as the community of (ex?)professionals that are currently unrepresented to break this circle.

The IAI at present is not interested in increasing its membership unless it gets €100 per year from those members. This is a ridiculous position given the phenomenal number of unemployed archaeologists. To be fair it has recently introduced a monthly standing order which makes it easier on the bank - unless you are relying on that €8.50 at the end of the month of course. An additional attraction might be to give two years free membership to attract enough members to make the Institute into what it should be.

It has also introduced another initiative, that members can avail of JSTOR.

There are c.300 members, and have been since its formation. I doubt whether most of those are paid up. I don't think those who haven't paid up to date cannot just pay for the next year because they are asked for previous years (not 100% on this but that's what Ive heard).

Of that membership, very few take part in the online forum (approximately 100 members are signed up, many of these don't seem to use it). Of those that do very few use it for discussion, and fail to respond to some good arguments and claims that have been put forward by a minority of those that do. It is clear that the current membership of the IAI has little interest in current issues.

But this is precisely why there should be an influx of new blood into the IAI. People who do want it to represent them should be encouraging discussion about the very real issues in Irish archaeology. There has been very little feedback on the IAI's position in relation to the currently ongoing review of policy and practice, and I haven't seen anyone on the forum asking for it other than myself (with little or no response).

But who is going to lash out half their weekly Jobseekers Benefit/Allowance to join something that is not interested in their current predicament?

Again, to be fair, there has been a recent (well, last couple of years) surveys and papers by the IAI and others which are published from their website:

[HTML]http://www.iai.ie/publications.html#Reports[/HTML]

The IAI forum should be an ideal place to discuss many of the issues within the confines of the Institute (you can't get access to it unless you're a member) because it is infintely cheaper than going to an out-of-the-way conference that will get you into trouble with the bank.

But as you say - without people seeking to join and involve themselves, how can it achieve anything?

I think the answer is to abandon the old mentality that there are people in positions who should be doing something. It's very easy to blame the DoEHLG, the Ministers (past and present), the NRA, the IAI, the companies blah blah blah, but its less easy to step up to the plate. The opportunities will certainly be there if people speak up, and if enough people feel strongly about the same things then people are going to have to take notice - especially if you are a member of the only Institute that claims to represent our profession. Its not up to someone else to get it right, its up to all of us.

The question is; are the current members of the IAI going to take an influx of new blood well or are they going to try and maintain a grip on an organisation they appear to believe is theirs?

There are very few other options folks - start a new club? The "Disillusionment Club"? Not likely to be a starter IMO.

You want things to change? Do something with your voice. If the podium is reserved for those with a tie, put on a bleedin tie and change the rules. We don't have to become a protest group to get heard, simply taking responsibility for our own profession would be enough.

Sorry for the rant folks.

DeepSleeper

I agree with most of the points you've made there RollYerOwn and I do think the central problem is the circular issue you mentioned - the low membership numbers = non-representative body = a body people don't want to join...

However, I don't agree with the idea that IAI conferences are exclusive (except in terms of cost I suppose) and I don't accept that 'the podium is reserved for those with a tie...' - You have to pay the fees in order to join, but then the IAI is a fairly open organisation. Conference papers are frequently sought from members and non-members alike and business meetings (held at conferences) are open to all members for discussion and debate. One problem though, which is unlikely to go away, is that the IAI must try to represent the opinions of all members and so in some areas of heated debate the institute has to walk a fine line between the feelings of members from various backgrounds.

In any case, there is no sign of a influx of new blood - only a small number of people were nominated for Board positions at the last AGM, so people who feel the IAI doesn't represent them lost out there on a chance to get involved.

There was a time (quite a few years ago) when there were two bodies representing archaeologists in Ireland, since one would only admit full-time permanent archaeologists (a very small number in those days) and so another grew up for everybody else - both of these bodies eventually became the IAI (after merging first I think). Now we have an institute which in theory is for all, but some academics don't like it because they see it as too commercial or because they are already involved in too many other committees and conferences, many diggers don't like it because they see too many company bosses involved or because they don't think it relevant to them, and many others don't join because they have a different priority for discretionary spending. There might be truth in all of these complaints, but I do think it is the only show in town for broad-spectrum debate on the profession...

Finally - the issue of fees - awarding a fees amnesty to people who are a few years behind in order to keep them as members sounds OK, but it would make fools of those of us who have paid €100 each year whether we could afford it or not. The IAI is gradually striking off people who are a few years behind in their payments and these people will have to go through the application process again if they want to rejoin - this seems to be the fairest way. It would be great to have an unemployed rate too, but this is very difficult to organise with people moving in and out of employment on a near-weekly basis. The Standing Order idea is a good thing and the JSTOR thing is great - lets not forget that these things have been organised largely by volunteer board members and that the institute could do lots more if it had more people volunteering to help... I think we have similar ideas on what is needed RollYerOwn, but we differ on our feelings for the IAI as it stands - At least there is a debate now, even if between two people only!

RollYerOwn

It doesn't matter if someone is week on week - off the dole, if they're out of work at all then obviously they haven't got a ready supply of money. If a professional maintains that they are out of work in a recession, their word should be good enough - what does it matter if they occasionally get work? They still aren't going to have the money to afford the fees for the IAI - they have other more urgent needs for that bit of money. We could be talking about several hundred or over a thousand people here!

It's my guess that very few members are or have been out of work for any length of time - if that's the case then its exclusivity (in terms of cost) speaks for itself. It would also be worthwhile surveying how many paid up members have their fees paid for by their institutions - NMS? NRA? Academics? and how many get paid to go to conferences. If that is a significant number of paid up members then THAT will speak volumes about exclusivity.

How one feels about the IAI is not the issue, persuading people that the best way to feel represented is to represent yourself IS, in my opinion.

I'm aware that there are a few members who seem to be trying to make things happen. I would hope people might join in to make things REALLY happen.

Regarding it's exclusivity, it is a possibility that people have excluded themselves from the IAI (too cool for school). On the other hand though, there is yet to be an initiative other than the standing order that is aimed to help people with very little income join the only choice of institute for archaeologists that exists.

C'mon.. Students can get in cheap but the unemployed professionals can't?

Hoping for a bit more debate here from others.. Can't do it in the IAI yet as no-one wants to know....

shellykbookey

Filly_01 wrote: »

Companies will now test for archaeology - after that they have to identify the nature and exent of any sites by finding the edges and sectioning features. Once this is done the NRA will 'tell' the companies how many archaeologists are required to dig the site and how long it will take them. Post ex costs will be 10 percent of the overall cost - regardless of how many artefacts are discovered. If you find 10 sherds of pot fine- if you find 5,000, tough.
This will encourage 'not finding' archaeology and the throwing away of artefacts as there will be no money to assess them. I know this sounds a little over dramatic, but that is what will happen. The government of this country professes to care about its heritage - if they allow this type of contract to continue you may as well get rid of archaeological services as they won't be worth the paper they are written on.
There is already a race to the bottom, were certain companies are paying 250 euro to workers a week. A recent contract for 40km of new road way was awarded to a company who said they could test and excavate the unknown amount of site for under 1 million euro. That is a disgrace and an insult to professionals who spend 4 years in university to be able to undertake work that they have a passion for.
The NRA archaeologists (many of whom are not even licenced archaeologists) have a lot to answer for - the sooner the National Monuments Service grow a pair and take back a bit of control the better!!!

That phase two is a pain in the ass and it's bad for the archaeology. Reports have to be sent in and approved before you can start actually digging things properly and in the mean time sites are basicly open and any things that cant be removed (like pottery) are out exposed to the elements. Then when you do start back everything has to be flaked through because there's no room to run over the finish date. The workers are fecked too because you've to hang around paying rent hoping the project will start up again soon and if its seperate contracts there's always the chance the company will replace the crew with another one 'cos they can pay them less. I know you'll never get research dig time limits but rushing jobs like this is going to result in badly dug sites, things missed and half assed rushed reports. You get one shot and sites on road jobs the NRA needs to relize this. Grrr!

RollYerOwn

I think its worth looking at what special remits the NRA actually have according to the existing legislation. I don't recall the 2004 amendment allowing developer-specified methodology. Surely the directions are still supposed to come from the minister?

I don't really agree with the changes that have been made to testing ("phase 1"). Archaeological testing, in my opinion, has one purpose and one purpose only - to locate, and to a small extent characterise, archaeological sites that were previously unknown to exist. To have to determine the extents of those sites at this stage is to use the wrong (and a quite blunt) tool for the job.

The "phase 2" methodology - which as you say leaves sites open to the elements for an unspecified length of time until certain contractual obligations are met - can hardly be a methodology that the National Monuments Section should approve - so why do they?

Again, why is a developer being allowed to dictate the archaeological methodology?

Also, how many ways can I put the same question?