First published in Antiquity Vol 83 Issue 319 March 2009 at http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/aitchison/
Archaeology and the global financial crisis
Introduction
At the start of the twenty-first century, the industrialised world
experienced a prolonged episode of economic growth financed by
borrowing. This led to overstimulated housing markets, supported by
unsustainable bank lending. House prices in the United States began to
fall in 2005, and when, late in the summer of 2007, those falling
prices revealed the extent to which 'banks had been aggressively promoting loans to those who had previously been on the margins - subprime borrowers' (Turner 2008: 57), the process that was to lead to a global financial crisis was triggered.
On Friday 10 August 2007, the FTSE-100 index fell by 3.9 per cent,
its biggest single day loss for more than four years. This was the
onset of the credit crunch, leading to an ongoing period of financial
instability and volatility in the markets. Over the 15 months between
August 2007 and November 2008, there were a further nine days when the
London stock exchange suffered even greater losses (Guardian
2008a) - but over that same period there were six days when the markets
recorded some of the 20 biggest daily rises in the index's history (Guardian 2008b).
As this stock market volatility has been caused by issues relating
to inter-bank borrowing underpinned by mortgage lending, the direct
effect upon the housing market was immediate. The reduction in the
availability of mortgage funds led to falling housing prices. August
2007 was the high point of a UK property boom that had been ongoing
since 1991, with property prices falling in every subsequent month to
the time of writing in mid-November 2008 (Land Registry 2008).
The falling prices have directly led to a decline in the volume of
housing construction work. The value of new build residential
construction fell by 26.3 per cent in the year to September 2008
(Glenigan 2008) and the number of applications for planning permission
has fallen in each quarter since the end of June 2007 (DCLG 2008). The
reduction in housing construction has also led to a fall in the levels
of associated activities, including archaeology.
Archaeological practice in the UK
Archaeology in the United Kingdom in the early twenty-first century
is a very young industry; 40 years ago there was almost no concept of
any practice that could be recognised as commercial archaeology. It is
also a very small industry; the total workforce is in the order of 7000
people and employers are typically small-medium enterprises (Aitchison
& Edwards 2008).
The industry is currently a largely commercialised practice, with
work primarily generated and mediated through the democratic processes
of local government via the planning control system. Governments have
recognised archaeological remains as an environmental asset and policy
towards managing threats to this resource has established the framework
within which archaeological practice has developed.
Over time, the primary source of funding for commercial archaeology
has steadily shifted from central government to the private sector.
The principal threat to the archaeological resource is and has been
land use change through development, primarily for housing and
infrastructure (Darvill & Fulton 1998). This has meant that
commercial archaeology has become very closely linked - even dependent
upon - the construction industry throughout the economic cycle, as 58
per cent of archaeological posts are directly funded by income
generated by work related to development and the planning process
(Aitchison & Edwards 2008: 12; comparable data have also been
collected by Everill [2007 and 2008]).
Within commercial archaeology, unregulated growth associated with
the construction boom has resulted in a proliferation of small
companies which have been able to survive on the very edges of
viability and some of which operate at the extreme margins of good
practice. Competition has been embraced on a price-led rather than
quality basis and in this market 'archaeological contractors are
very under-capitalised, work on extremely small margins and frequently
yield annual surpluses of under 5%' (Darvill & Russell 2002: 73).
The volume of archaeological work
The current and previous Governments' overall economic policies are
highly reliant upon the strength of the property market (Cossons 2002).
The UK is almost unique in terms of high-levels of property ownership,
and the Government seeks to be able to support this through policies
aimed at maintaining high levels of private investment in property.
The 1991-2007 housing boom led to a great deal of development-led
archaeological work; present Government housing policy prioritises the
use of previously developed, 'brownfield' land (DCLG 2006). By the very
nature of having been previously occupied and used, these sites are
inherently more likely to be of archaeological significance. This
policy has also tended to lead to relatively small-scale, infill
development, and so it is relatively rare that brownfield development
results in sizable archaeological projects.
By 2006 there was more archaeological work being undertaken in the UK than at any previous time. The Archaeological Investigations Project (AIP pers. comm.
17 October 2008) considers that there were 4800 archaeological
fieldwork investigations in England in 2006, of which 4458 (93 per
cent) had been initiated through the planning process.
These factors combined to mean that, by late 2007, archaeological
contractors were typically working on relatively small scale projects
with narrow profit margins.
The value of archaeological work
The total value of the UK construction industry's output in 2004 was £104.2bn (DTI 2005).
A report by CgMs to the Corporation of London (Corporation of London
2001) estimated that the cost of archaeological assessment/evaluation
generally amounts to 0.1 per cent of total construction costs. The cost
of excavation and recording (when required) is likely to be between 1
per cent and 3 per cent of the total costs (Corporation of London 2001:
1).
However, these figures are difficult to use to calculate the value
of the archaeological work being undertaken. In Hinton and Jennings
(2007), this author provided an estimate of the amount of spending on
commercial archaeology that used calculations which were based on the
numbers of planning applications that had archaeological impact (to
determine growth) and reported staffing costs (as a base line from
which full income was extrapolated), to generate a figure of £144m
being provided by developers to archaeology in 2004 - equating to 0.14
per cent of the overall cost of construction in the country.
How archaeology has been affected by past times of financial crisis
The Great Depression of the 1930s, which followed the Wall Street
Crash of 1929, did not affect commercial archaeology as this did not
exist either in concept or practice anywhere in the world at that time.
However, as part of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which intended to
refloat the economy through state investment in capital projects, state
monies were used to finance archaeological work during the 1930s.
Jameson (2004) discusses the impact on archaeological practice of the
Tennessee Valley Authority's dam building programme, where extensive
excavations were funded ahead of the construction works and subsequent
flooding of valleys.
In the United Kingdom, the recession at the start of the 1980s was
tackled through the then Government's use of tight monetary and fiscal
controls in order to reduce inflation. Even following the period of
technical recession (when the economy shrank) in 1980-81, mass
unemployment continued through most of that decade. Through the
Community Programme of the Manpower Services Commission (MSC), a
governmental agency established to introduce unemployment relief
measures, a very significant number of archaeological projects were
funded. Participants on MSC projects had to be long-term unemployed and
the work that they undertook had to be seen to be providing community
benefits, into which some archaeological projects fell. The
archaeological projects supported tended to be excavation and
post-excavation processing, 'as this is a labour intensive activity which has high public visibility' (Crump 1987: 42).
This led to a situation where British archaeology actually came to
become significantly reliant upon MSC funding. The then Chief Inspector
of Ancient Monuments at English Heritage, Geoffrey Wainwright, stated
(in Sheldon 1986: 2) that '...if
the MSC pulled out it would have an absolutely catastrophic effect on
the ability to undertake excavations. The great bulk of labour costs is
now being met by MSC'. Numerically, this was certainly the case. In 1986-87, 2640 people were working in 'rescue archaeology' (Plouviez 1988: 8) of whom 1790 (68 per cent) were financed by the MSC (Crump 1987: 45).
The Manpower Services Commission ended its work at a time when
unemployment was falling as the level of economic activity, including
construction, was increasing rapidly. This was leading to increasing
amounts of money coming in to archaeology from developers - 'The loss of MSC funding to archaeology appears to have been cushioned by the massive growth in developer funding' (Spoerry 1992: 30). By 1990-91, 48 per cent of archaeological funding was being provided by developers (ibid. : 32); four years previously the equivalent figure had been 17 per cent (Plouviez 1988: 1).
This recognition that developers were prepared to fund
archaeological work, which had been going on for some time, although in
an unregulated and at times ad hoc way that was not mediated
through the planning system - coincided with a number of other factors,
foremost of which was the Government's concern that the increasing
costs of archaeological intervention should not fall on the public
purse. This led to policy being introduced as Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning (DOE 1990), abbreviated to PPG 16, formalised the position of developer-funding for archaeology.
PPG 16 was published in November 1990 and established archaeology's
place in the spatial planning system. However, this almost precisely
coincided with the onset of another period of recession which impacted
particularly hard on archaeology in London. The late 80s had seen a
remarkable amount of development in and around the City of London which
led to previously unprecedented amounts of archaeological work being
undertaken. Even pre-PPG 16 this was normally being funded by
developers and so the economic downturn in the autumn of 1990 then
impacted particularly heavily on the Museum of London, where
approximately 300 staff were made redundant (Young & O'Sullivan
1991).
However, from 1991, the economy began to recover. Construction
restarted and archaeological work, with PPG 16 firmly in place,
expanded rapidly. While some archaeological businesses did fail in the
mid-1990s, particularly inflexible business units within local
government structures, the place of these were always immediately
filled by new organisations, and the expansion of archaeological
practice, fuelled by the constantly increasing demand from developers,
continued until 2007.
Archaeology in the present crisis
It is very difficult to judge the impact the financial crisis has
had on archaeology to date. There is a paucity of solid statistical
data; the most recent labour market intelligence data was collected
immediately before the crisis had begun to impact.
Anecdotally, by the autumn of 2008, different companies were being
affected in different ways. There has been an overall reduction in the
volume of work available which has meant that organisations have been
taking on fewer temporary staff; before the crisis, approximately only
one third of archaeologists who undertook field investigation as their
primary working role were on temporary contracts (Aitchison &
Edwards 2008: 84) - but 71 per cent of those working in the most junior
of on-site roles, those of excavator or site assistant had short-term
contracts (ibid. : 183). In November 2008 more than one major
archaeological contractor was in formal discussions with staff about
job losses, with field staff apparently particularly at risk.
The reduction of work is not uniform, by organisation size,
specialised areas or location. But managers are reporting order books
that are far less full than they have been. There has been a sense that
pre-determination work (archaeological work that is undertaken in order
to support a planning application, such as evaluations and desk-based
assessments) is continuing to be undertaken, but there is much less
post-determination mitigation work (such as excavation of a site that
is to be developed, so fulfilling the conditions of planning
permission).
However, pre-determination work will not continue to be initiated at
the same rate, as builders are not expanding their 'land banks' of
ground where planning permission has already been granted and so is
ready for development.
In the summer of 2007, immediately before the crisis began to affect
the housing market, the Royal Town Planning Institute reported that
outstanding planning permissions for nearly 225 000 homes, which gave
the ten largest housebuilders in the UK 2.7 years of supply at the then
current rates of building (RTPI 2007: 3).
However, given that, under the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act,
planning permission only lasts for three years, the collapse of the
housing market may mean that builders are left with an oversupply of
land which they will not be able to use to its full economic potential
(RTPI 2007: 4). House builders have already written off nearly £1.8
billion from the value of their land banks (Whitten 2008).
The Archaeological Investigations Project tracks the number
of archaeological reports deposited with local planning authorities'
Historic Environment Records. It thus provides an indicator of the
amount of archaeological work undertaken. Provisional estimates,
extrapolated from both the (incomplete) material already gathered for
2007/08 and comparison between the past collected numbers of reports
and data from the Department of Communities and Local Government on the
number of planning applications made, suggest that the number of
reports (and hence the volume of work) will have dropped from the
2006-07 high of 4800 to 4474 reports for 07-08 (a drop of 7 per cent)
and 4158 for 08-09 (a projected drop of 13 per cent over two years)
(AIP pers. comm. 17 October 2008).
This suggests that commercial archaeology is undergoing a rapid
transformation, from an industry that had been growing at between 4 per
cent and 5 per cent per annum over the ten years to 2007-08 and was
looking bullishly to the future (Aitchison & Edwards 2008: 41-2,
124) to become one that may be contracting by 6-7 per cent each year.
The current absence of major infrastructure works with significant
archaeological requirements, such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link or
Heathrow Terminal 5, means that there are no super-projects to
compensate for this downturn. These projects have been of such a size
that they absorb so much of the archaeological workforce that there is
a knock-on effect, regionally and nationally of reduction in capacity
to deliver archaeological services which effectively allows those
companies that are not directly involved in the infrastructure projects
to remain highly active. The archaeological work on the Birmingham
North Relief Road (M6 Toll) between 2000 and 2003 had this effect
across the midlands and north of England, while the M74 Completion
project (a motorway running to the south of Glasgow) had the same
effect on Scottish archaeology between the summer of 2007 and the
spring of 2008.
Keynesian spending
Given archaeology's relationship with construction and development,
it would appear that the only prospect of an improvement in the
industry's situation will be through a revival of that sector. Until
market conditions favour the renewal of housebuilding and associated
infrastructural development, the private sector is unlikely to provide
the catalyst for this.
The Government considers that capital spending could be the way to restart the economy. In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph (Hennessey 2008), the Chancellor of the Exchequer Alastair Darling has indicated that, as 'This is a time when you have to support the economy',
he is in favour of bringing forward and using public spending on big
construction projects such as the 2012 London Olympics and the
Crossrail train link in London to generate employment and release
capital into the economy. By doing so, the Chancellor will be following
the economic philosophy of John Maynard Keynes, the advocate of
government intervention at times of depression and whose A General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
(1936) provided the theoretical foundations for Roosevelt's New Deal.
At the time of writing, the details of the Government's plans were due
to be released in the Chancellor's forthcoming Pre-Budget Report.
Although it will be slow to come fully on stream, capital spending
on infrastructure will without doubt support archaeology. These are big
plans that the Government was always intending to carry out, and so to
bring them forward will be politically expedient.
The other huge potential driver will be the Thames Gateway. Under the
Sustainable Communities Plan
of 2003 (ODPM 2003), the Government has identified that one of the
principal routes through which it aims to actively support new housing
development will be by 'focusing growth in four areas in the wider
South East (Thames Gateway, London-Stansted-Cambridge corridor,
Ashford, and Milton Keynes-South Midlands) ' (HM Treasury &
ODPM 2005: 40), with the intention of building 200 000 new homes over
and above previous development plan intentions over the next 20 years.
80 per cent of this work will be in the Thames Gateway area to the east
of London. This work has yet to begin on the ground, and will be
undertaken over a long time period, but it has the latent capacity to
potentially generate huge amounts of archaeological work. However, this
was planned at a time when lack of housing supply was seen as a key
issue, leading to overheating of the housing market and rising house
prices making it increasingly difficult for new entrants to buy houses;
with prices falling, it will be more difficult for the Government to
incentivise house builders to commit to work in this area, but the lack
of supply remains a critical issue.
As noted above, capital spending on infrastructure was supporting
archaeology as long ago as the 1930s through the New Deal. In Greek
archaeology, the scale of construction projects associated with the
2004 Athens Olympic Games meant that there was a significant (although
temporary) growth in the number of archaeologists working in Greece,
both in fieldwork (during the construction and pre-construction phases)
and post-excavation, continuing for up to three years following the
games (Pantos et al. 2008: 12). Ironically, one of the
alternative sources of funding that UK archaeology has been able to
access, the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is having to reduce its direct
commitments to grant aid projects, as monies are diverted to contribute
towards the costs of the 2012 London Olympics (HLF 2008: 3-4). This
will not help to sustain archaeological practice as the archaeological
fieldwork phase of the Olympic development was largely undertaken in
2006 and 2007 and is now essentially complete. Previously, the HLF
supported archaeological projects with a total of £90m from 1994-95 to
2004-05 (HLF 2006), an average of £9m per annum.
Conclusions
Archaeological practice, as the interpretation and management of the
historic environment, is undertaken for the public benefit but is
funded by private enterprise.
If development does not take place, then the archaeological resource
is not damaged. Some will actually see a reduction in the amount of
archaeological work being undertaken as a good thing - discussing
conservation in general and archaeology in particular, Oliver Rackham
wrote that 'Too much money has done more damage than too little.
"The recession came just in time to save Barchester", as an
archaeologist with Barsertshire County Council remarked to me'
(Rackham 2003: 208). But this is a short-termist fallacy. The economy
works in cycles; the recovery will come, just as it did after the
recessions of the early 1980s and 1990s, construction will start anew
and there will be demand for archaeologists to work ahead of and
alongside development. However, if archaeologists are losing their jobs
and dropping out of the already under-rewarded sector, then there will
be a shortfall of skilled, experienced practitioners when the upswing
returns.
In Japan, archaeological practice is also mediated through the
planning system. By 1995, there were approximately 7000 people working
as archaeologists in Japan (Okamura 2008), and investment in Japanese
archaeology reached a peak in 1997 of 132 billion yen ($1.14bn US). By
2005 this had fallen to 76 billion yen (Mizunoe 2007: 31, quoted in
Okamura & Matsuda forthcoming). This was due to the ongoing effects
of a stock market crash in 1990 and subsequent collapse of the housing
market (Turner 2008); in Osaka City in 2004, development was taking
place at only one third of its mid 90s peak (Okamura & Matsuda
forthcoming). This has not led to archaeological practice collapsing -
but it has, rather than sharply contracting, stagnated. There have been
some job losses, but more frequently archaeological employers have
frozen new employment, some not having taken on new staff for over ten
years (Okamura & Matsuda forthcoming).
In Ireland, there was a remarkable level of employment in
archaeology in 2007 where approximately 1700 archaeologists were
working, an increase of 263 per cent over five years previously
(McDermott & La Piscopia 2008: 5), meaning that there was one
archaeologist for every 2340 people in the country - 0.04 per cent of
the population. By comparison, there was 1 archaeologist for every 8740
people in the United Kingdom and 1 archaeologist for every 46 700
people in Germany (Aitchison in prep). Of those archaeologists working
in Ireland, a remarkable 45 per cent were non-nationals, archaeologists
who had moved from other countries to Ireland to work. Such was the
level of demand that it could be economically advantageous for a team
of Polish archaeologists, working on a major road scheme, to undertake
all of their recording in Polish and have their reports translated
subsequently (Margaret Gowen pers. comm. ). Anecdotally, the
situation in Ireland has changed. The end of the building boom came to
Ireland earlier in 2007 than it did to the United Kingdom, and it is
believed that considerably less archaeological work is now being done
and that far fewer non-Irish archaeologists are involved.
Retrospectively, the size of the archaeological workforce in Ireland
and the possibly apocryphal stories about foreign workers makes it
clear that the business of Irish archaeology was overheated. But it
does show that transnational mobility within archaeology is real.
Skilled, competent fieldworkers can move from country to country to
find work when it is available. In countries where commercialised
archaeology is the norm, as is the case in both Ireland and the United
Kingdom, the sector benefits from having a flexible workforce, with
employers well positioned to be able to take on employees on a
project-by-project basis. This is not always to the benefit of
individual archaeologists, who have to cope as best they can with a
shrinking or (as in Japan) a standstill working environment, neither of
which present many new opportunities.
Individual archaeologists will have to adopt an entrepreneurial
attitude to ensure that they are as employable as possible, looking to
enhance their skills and to demonstrate their professional commitment
in order to be as attractive to prospective employers as possible.
The longer the financial crisis continues to reduce the amount of
development work undertaken, the deeper its impact on archaeological
practice. It will almost certainly lead to businesses closing; but it
may also lead to new, commercial developments. After the redundancies
at the Museum of London in 1990-91, several new companies were started
by former employees. The same happened after Leicestershire County
Council Archaeology Unit, the Milton Keynes Archaeology Unit and the
South Yorkshire Archaeology Field and Research Unit all closed in the
mid-1990s. There will be an inevitable period of fissuring and
consolidation, as new businesses emerge and others combine or are taken
over. CAM ARC, the Cambridgeshire County Council archaeological field
unit became part of the much larger Oxford Archaeology on 1 July 2008
(Cambridgeshire County Council 2008) and this is unlikely to be the
last merger in the sector.
Postscript
'Property prices have been falling in the UK for just
one year now, but have fallen in the US for three years. More
disturbingly, prices in Japan are still falling, fully 18 years after
Japan's credit bubble burst in 1990'
(Pettifor 2008: 28)
The global financial crisis is having, and will continue to have, a
significant adverse affect on archaeology in the United Kingdom. The
subsector that will bear the brunt of this is the commercial practices
that undertake fieldwork, producing the primary data upon which all
other archaeological employment and research ultimately relies.
The growth of commercial archaeology occurred in a very reactive way
without much thought being given to, or responsibility taken for, the
industry's development needs. It is likely that any contraction, or
even stagnation, of the industry in the immediate future will happen in
the same way and this might seriously impact on the industry's ability
to react to the economic upturn when it eventually comes.
There is no easy way out of this. No-one, not individual
archaeologists, not managers, not the professional association knows
how hard the bad times will be or how long they will last. There are
straightforward things that everyone can try do - it may be trite, but
it is fundamentally true to say that we have to look to find new
sources of revenue, cut costs, repay debts if at all possible,
individually and corporately self-promote on the basis of competence
and professionalism, and to simply just try harder.
However, this may yet be an opportunity for the industry. The
quantity of archaeological work undertaken over the last two decades
has been driven by the mantra of 'preservation by record'. This has
meant that as sites have been excavated, the archaeological resource
has been transformed into data. We may be able to treat the reduction
in the amount of fieldwork being undertaken as an opportunity to take
stock of the data that we have accumulated and to think synthetically
and strategically about converting that data into better understanding
of human lives in the past.
Archaeology came out of the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s
transformed and stronger each time. By the end of this period of
uncertainty, we can expect to have seen the publication of PPG 16's
replacement, Planning Policy Statement 15: Planning for the historic environment,
and potentially a Heritage Protection Bill (for England and Wales) as
well. Our world is changing around us, and commercial archaeology will
have to continue to demonstrate flexibility and adaptability to cope
with and ultimately to profit from the new circumstances that we will
find ourselves in.
Acknowledgements
Kenneth Aitchison, Head of Projects and Professional Development at
the Institute for Archaeologists writes here in a personal capacity and
wishes to thank many colleagues with whom he has discussed this issue
and article, including Duncan Brown, Paul Everill, Kate Geary, Peter
Hinton, Melanie Johnson, Ehren Milner, Ronan Toolis and Kathryn
Whittington.
References
- AITCHISON, K. In prep. Discovering the archaeologists of Europe: transnational report.
- AITCHISON, K. & R. EDWARDS. 2008. Archaeology labour market intelligence: profiling the profession 2007-08. Reading: Institute of Field Archaeologists.
- CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL. 2008. CAM ARC becomes Oxford Archaeology East!
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/leisure/archaeology/afu/ accessed 10 November 2008.
- CORPORATION OF LONDON. 2001. The impact of archaeology on property developments in the City of London. London: Corporation of London.
- COSSONS,
N. 2002. Shared outlooks and common ground. Paper presented at Planning
and the Historic Environment 2002: an agenda for the 21st century,
OUDCE, Oxford, 17 May 2002.
http://www.ihbc.co.uk/recent_papers/docs/PATHE2002/cussons/2-CussonsKeynote.PDF accessed 11 November 2008.
- CRUMP, T. 1987. The role of MSC funding in British archaeology, in H. Mytum & K. Waugh (ed.) Rescue archaeology - what’s next? : 41-6. York: Department of Archaeology, University of York/RESCUE.
- DARVILL, T. & A. FULTON. 1998. MARS: the Monuments at Risk Survey of England, 1995: main report. Bournemouth & London: Bournemouth University & English Heritage.
- DARVILL, T.C. & B. RUSSELL. 2002. Archaeology after PPG16: archaeological investigations in England 1990-1999. Bournemouth: Bournemouth University.
- DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government). 2006. Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3).
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/planningpolicystatement3.pdf accessed 11 November 2008.
- 2008. Planning applications: April 2008-June 2008, England.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/planningapplicationsQ22008 accessed 9 November 2008.
- DoE (Department of the Environment). 1990. Planning Policy Guidance note 16: Archaeology and Planning. London: HMSO.
- DTI (Department of Trade and Industry). 2005. Construction Sector Unit Annual Report 2004-05.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file11434.pdf accessed 11 November 2008.
- EVERILL,
P. 2007. British commercial archaeology: antiquarians and labourers;
developers and diggers, in Y. Hamilakis & P. Duke (ed.) Archaeology and capitalism: from ethics to politics (One World Archaeology Series 54): 119-36.Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.
- 2008. The invisible diggers: a study of British commercial archaeology (Heritage Marketing and Publications Research Series 1). King’s Lynn: Heritage Marketing and Publications.
- GLENIGAN. 2008. The Glenigan Index October 2008.
http://www.glenigan.com/index08/oct.html accessed 9 November 2008.
- GUARDIAN. 2008a. Worst daily performances for the FTSE 100.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/table/2008/sep/19/ftse100.worst.days accessed 10 November 2008.
- 2008b. FTSE 100’s best daily performances.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/table/2008/sep/19/ftse100.best.days accessed 10 November 2008.
- HENNESSEY, P. 2008. Alistair Darling turns to Keynes as he looks to spend his way out of recession. Sunday Telegraph 19 October 2008.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/article3223224.ece accessed 9 November 2008.
- HINTON,
P. & D. JENNINGS. 2007. Quality management of archaeology in Great
Britain: present practice and future challenges, in W. Willems & M.
Van den Dries (ed.) Quality management in archaeology: 100-112. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
- HLF (Heritage Lottery Fund). 2006. Memorandum by the Heritage Lottery Fund.
http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/251208.pdf accessed 11 November 2008.
- 2008. Heritage Lottery Fund National Heritage Memorial Fund Lottery Distribution Account for the year ended 31 March 2008. London: The Stationery Office.
- HM TREASURY & ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister). 2005. Housing policy: an overview. Norwich: HMSO.
- JAMESON, J. 2004. Public archaeology in the United States, in N. Merriman (ed.) Public archaeology: 21-58. London & New York: Routledge.
- KEYNES, J.M. 1936. A general theory of employment, interest, and money. London: Macmillan.
- LAND REGISTRY. 2008. House Price Index September 2008.
http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/251208.pdf accessed 9 November 2008.
- MCDERMOTT, C. & P. LA PISCOPIA. 2008. Discovering the archaeologists of Ireland. Dublin: Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland.
- MIZUNOE,
K. 2007. Maizou Bunkazai Kankei Toukei Shiryou No Kaisetsu To Bunseki:
Heisei 18 Nendo Ban [Statistical data on buried cultural properties in
2006: commentary and analysis]. Gekkan Bunkazai 523: 28-33.
- ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister). 2003. Sustainable communities: building for the future.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/146289.pdf accessed 10 November 2008.
- OKAMURA,
K. 2008. Archaeological heritage management at the crossroads: a case
from Japan. Paper presented at the World Archaeological Congress 6,
Dublin, 30 June 2008.
- OKAMURA, K. & A. MATSUDA.
Forthcoming. Archaeological heritage management in Japan, in G.S. Smith
& P.E. Messenger (ed.) Cultural heritage management: policies, and issues in global perspective. Boca Raton (FL): University Press of Florida.
- PANTOS, P., A. PAPADIMITRIOU & A. KOSSYVA. 2008. Discovering the archaeologists of Europe: Greece. Athens: Syllogos Ellinon Archaiologon.
- PETTIFOR, A. 2008. A debt spiral we could have avoided. New Statesman 27 October 2008: 28.
- PLOUVIEZ, J. 1988. Current funding and structure in British archaeology: a preliminary report. RESCUE News 44: 1, 8.
- RACKHAM, O. 2003. The illustrated history of the countryside. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
- RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute). 2007. Opening up the debate: exploring housing land supply myths.
http://www.rtpi.org.uk/download/1708/Opening-up-the-debate-June-2007.pdf accessed 11 November 2008.
- SHELDON, H. 1986. The Wainwright interview. RESCUE News 39: 2.
- SPOERRY, P. 1992. The structure and funding of British archaeology: the RESCUE questionnaire 1990-91. RESCUE: Hertford.
- TURNER, G. 2008. The credit crunch: housing bubbles, globalisation and the worldwide economic crisis. London: Pluto Press.
- WHITTEN, N. 2008. Land banks to drop by another £1.3bn. Cnplus.co.uk.
http://www.cnplus.co.uk/News/2008/10/land_banks_to_drop_by_another_13bn.html accessed 10 November 2008.
- YOUNG, R. & D. O’SULLIVAN. 1991. Archaeology in London... both ends burning? RESCUE News 52: 6.
Author
B
