Participating in the Past: An Unfulfilled Demand for Excavation Opportunities
3.5 An Unfulfilled Demand for Excavation Opportunities
There is a considerable public demand for participation in excavations. In the past a substantial number of excavations were staffed largely or completely with volunteers. This is no longer the case as the majority are now driven principally by commercial imperatives, rather than specific research objectives or local initiatives.
With a few exceptions public participation on commercial excavations was perceived not to be encouraged for reasons which can be summarised as: health and safety regulations, insurance cover, uncertainties about timing, costings, quality control, privacy, the short-term contracts of employed staff, weekday working-hours and the general attitude of developers and archaeological units. On the other side the use of ‘free’ volunteer labour was seen by commercial archaeological organisations to introduce an unfair element into the tendering process. Volunteer labour on-site was seen on the one hand as threatening the stability of the archaeological jobs market (where low wages are in any event a frequent cause for complaint), whilst on the other hand the cost of providing professional supervision was seen to outweigh the advantages. Some suggested it would be unexpected to encounter volunteer quantity surveyors or machine drivers on-site, and the presence of archaeological volunteers would undermine the ‘professional image’.
(Note: The use of volunteers on-site is rarely a condition of briefs issued by local planning archaeologists which determine the general character of work on-site, and in any event a considerable proportion of fieldwork, such as evaluation trenching, may be pre-determination in character, that is to say not strictly subject to planning controls or requirements, although normally consultations with the local planning authority will have taken place.)
Some volunteers who had been offered a role on commercial excavations found it to have been restricted to ‘a little pot-washing’ rather than any more active engagement. However, one organisation reported that where it had arranged for local participation it was overwhelmed by demand and had to introduce a rationing system; another mentioned a possible charge of £40 per day.
Other excavation opportunities are provided by local societies, universities (see Darvill and Russell 2002, 65, although fairly few in number and largely intended for their own students), continuing education departments, and other training organisations, but it was clear from the responses that there were still insufficient opportunities to satisfy the demand. Where excavation opportunities were available, there was quite often a charge, particularly where such excavations were billed as training excavations. In some cases the charges were seen as prohibitive. The resultant absence of a developed local archaeological field expertise, respondents suggested, has had a knock-on effect on the health and value of local societies.
It was commonly regretted also that there is no natural fieldwork follow-on to the enthusiasms generated amongst the under-sixteens by the CBA’s Young Archaeologists’ Club.
