The archaeological professional in the UK today is not like the Time Team at all. Sorry. The common mistake that some folk make is that we all work for the government or are  - I kid you not  - volunteers or University students having a jolly. Fair enough (well, not really, but you know what I mean). But whereas larger media exposure of archaeology has gone somewhat to bring the need for this profession to be understood and appreciated, where does this leave us with the people who actually pay for it? No, not you - the dreaded developers.

For the most part, the developer does. Whether that's Mr Barrat Homes building his 2,000 suburbian dwellings on a flood plain or John Smith who wants to extend his kitchen over a Roman road. This is a result of a new Planning Policy Guide which was introduced in the mid 1990s  - BAJR can say it best here in his Section 1. I have glossed over English Heritage and Historic Scotland here, who also provide grants for research work, and the Heritage Lottery Fund is also starting to go with some research excavations, mostly involving lots of community involvement and development. Just see the stuff about the Olivers Mound project on that one.

Quite often, however, developers are all surprised when an archaeological condition is placed on thier site (this means that they will not get their planning permission unless an archaeological investigation has taken place - be it a few test trenches or an historic buildings assessment) and have no idea what to do.

There are therefore a number of archaeological contractor firms that quote - much as a surveyor or demolition contractor would - to get that job done. Consider how many costs are involved in a new development, especially somewhere with some history to it - the bat people, the tree people, the environment people, the architect, the demolition contractor, the building conservationist, etc. Despite the complaints, the archaeological work is often a meagre expense. It is an annoyance to some developers because it is one they may not have been expecting. Why? Why were you not expecting it?

Yes, but not very much when you are first starting out, and even at the top it's pretty meagre. The average starting salary for a graduate archaeologist is the lowest starting salary for any profession in the country. Why? Well, in some respects, the archaeological profession has shot iself in the foot over pay and conditions. In the mid 1990s, when new planning guidelines came out focusing the payment for recording and processing the nation's heritage on the developer's wallet, many new contracting firms appeared which were, for the first time, competing against each other for the 'next' job. This created a lot of under-cutting and dare-I-say-it 'cowboy like' attitudes to getting archaeology done and this low tendering structure has meant that wages have always remained low.

A recent article in the latest IFA magagazine (Institute of Field Archaeologists) states that archaeology is actually more profitable than constriction with a 1% average profit for construction compared to a 3% profit for archaeological companies. However, the turnovers for archaeological compnaies are quite small, although it has stresssed that we could pay ourselves more, but have never had enough drive to push forward for better wages and condtions. When I graduated, I had to volunteer for at least 8-9 months before getting the odd job here and there. I eventually went to do a Masters degree with the aim of getting a better (or more importantly) a permanent job.

So why do developers never take archaeology seriously?