| Abstract: |
After the `Preface' by Hedley Swain (1--2) which explains the context of the day conference from which the papers originate, there are short statements from the two groups who organised the day, the `Introductory statement from SCAUM' from Philip Holdsworth (3--4) and the `Introductory statement by RESCUE' from Harvey Sheldon (5--6). These are followed by a paper on `Competitive tendering in archaeology: the curator's role' by Paul Chadwick (7--11), who outlines by means of flowcharts the steps which his local planning authority have developed to show when archaeological contracts can be required and thus when contract archaeology may occur, and how the archaeological safeguards/checks are fitted into this process to ensure fair and equal tendering. `Competition in archaeology: a pragmatic approach' is provided by Simon Buteux (13--19) who concludes that competition in field archaeology per se is a fact but that this will not necessarily lead to declining standards. He argues that the strict equation between competition and competitive tendering is a red herring, and that `research design competition' is a promising method for articulating competition in archaeology. In the long term archaeologists and organisations who realise their strengths and weaknesses, regulate themselves accordingly, respect the work of others and are mature enough to co-operate within a broad competitive framework will benefit both themselves and archaeology in general. Another organisation's thinking is described in `Competitive tendering and archaeological research: the development of a CBA view' by George Lambrick (21--9), although he states that this is not a policy statement. The essence of the CBA's evolving position is that the interests of archaeology as a discipline must be kept in the forefront of the debate. Competitive tendering is arguably not intrinsically incompatible with good research: but the profession must get its act together and not allow the interests of archaeology to be overwhelmed by internecine squabbles, or unregulated cowboy archaeology. It must set consistent standards that are academically sound, achievable and capable of being monitored. It must ensure that, where good research has been undertaken in the past, future arrangements continue to build on what has already been achieved. `The role of a code of practice in contract archaeology' by John Williams (31--4) argues that there should be general recognition, particularly by those with curatorial responsibilities, of the need for strong and effective territorially based units, and that both where a local organisational framework prevails and where there is competition we must all work for improved standards. This is one of the main roles of the Institute of Field Archaeologists and the `Institute of Field Archaeologists code of approved practice for the regulation of contractual arrangements in field archaeology' is reproduced in full (35--40). This provides guidance to archaeologists about professional conduct in situations where sponsored or commissioned archaeological work is undertaken on a contractual basis. The final paper is provided by Tim Schadla-Hall entitled `Competitive tendering in archaeology' (41--50). He suggests that competitive tendering might be good in some circumstances, and dangerous in others. From the perspective of the Society of Museum Archaeologists he is particularly concerned with the absence of mechanisms for costing long term storage and archive curation, as well as the absence of measures of competence and quality assurance in the current practice of competitive tendering. There are two appendices. Firstly, `Appendix 1. Competitive tendering for archaeology projects. A statement by English Heritage' (51--3), followed by `Appendix 2. A model specification on which to base a project design' by Paul Chadwick (55--6). MH |
