6th April 2011, 03:35 PM
Just to clarify my position, I'm not having a go at Council curatorial services with attached field units per se, I just think that there needs to be a clear division between bodies undertaking commercial fieldwork and bodies monitoring the standard of that fieldwork on behalf of the Council. I think that differentcolourmud makes a valid point about Councils operating as both curators and contractors taking great care to ensure a clear business separation because of the potential for people to complain, and because as public bodies they're open to Freedom of Information requests. In fact, it's probably precisely because organisations such as this are subject to public oversight of this type that it hasn't been an issue in the past. I'd probably be more concerned about commercial companies taking over curatorial functions while continuing to act as contractors or consultants, as they would not be publically accountable to the same extent, and I'm not sure whether they'd be subject to FOI, even if acting as subcontractors to a Council.
My preferred model for conducting commercial archaeology would be for each Council to have its own unit and undertake work only in that area, allowing detailed local knowledge to develop. Given that we're unlikely to get this system, however, due to the commercial model that's been in place for the last 20 years, I'd settle for one where there is a curatorial body / individual whose sole function is to advise the Council on the need for archaeological work and to scrutinise the quality of work done by commercial contractors. Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer that this role wasn't undertaken by someone who'll be tendering against me for work in the future. It's not a matter of financial advantage or undercutting, it's more a question transparency.
My preferred model for conducting commercial archaeology would be for each Council to have its own unit and undertake work only in that area, allowing detailed local knowledge to develop. Given that we're unlikely to get this system, however, due to the commercial model that's been in place for the last 20 years, I'd settle for one where there is a curatorial body / individual whose sole function is to advise the Council on the need for archaeological work and to scrutinise the quality of work done by commercial contractors. Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer that this role wasn't undertaken by someone who'll be tendering against me for work in the future. It's not a matter of financial advantage or undercutting, it's more a question transparency.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum