Page 93 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 13(1) (2025)

contract archaeology was practiced in Namibia institutions to enable them to produce archae-
was in heritage impact assessment, contract ar- ologists for the nation. It demanded a para-
chaeology was considered to be a strong compo- digm shift from focusing on the archaeologi-
nent of cultural resources management. How- cal artefact to an archaeology that interrogated
ever, contract archaeology was commercialised the nexus between societal development and the
by the demand that a developer paid for the im- discipline.
pact assessments. Therefore, there was a need for Contract archaeology as practiced by uni-
guidelines for the practice and evaluation of ar- versity-based companies, such as the UCT-based
chaeological specialist reports so that the reports Archaeology Contracts Office (later, ACO As-
were standardised. sociates cc), provided an opportunity for field ex-
Developer-funded archaeological assess- perience for students. In this case, contract ar-
ments stimulated the rise of private consultants chaeology was part of the development of careers
offering archaeological services mainly because for archaeologists. Private consultants usually 93
it would be unethical for government archaeolo- do not train archaeologists. Contract archaeol-
gists to offer consulting services. Archaeologists ogy, by its nature of being a short-term project,
who were employed at the National Museum did not establish structures for training or skills
of Namibia and the National Heritage Coun- transfer. Nonetheless, as Kinahan (2013, 2) has
cil were responsible for evaluating the specialist aptly argued, involving contract archaeologists
reports. However, at the beginning of contract as research fellows in university departments
archaeology in Namibia there were no official could result in professional training of graduates.
and published policies, guidelines, or local mini- Whether or not the practice of contract ar-
mum standards for archaeological impact assess- chaeology in Namibia should be administered,
ments that guided the evaluation process. This regulated and controlled by heritage authorities
prompted conscientious institutions such as the is a matter of debate. Some contract archaeolo-
Chamber of Mines to contract archaeologist gists argue that the primary and sole role of the History and Practice of Contract Archaeology in Namibia
John Kinahan to develop guidelines and make heritage authorities is to regulate the practice.
them public in the hope that other archaeolog- Before the development of the guidelines, the
ical consultants would uphold good ethics and responsibility of the National Heritage Coun-
standards in the absence of control or monitor- cil was limited to enforcing compliance with the
ing by the National Heritage Council (Kinahan heritage law. It issued permits and determined
2012, 3). the appropriateness and sufficiency of the meas-
Contract archaeology has the potential to ures that were proposed by contractors who were
develop local capacity; however, this potential engaged by developers. Contract archaeology
has not been thoroughly explored. For instance, was practiced as an agreement between devel-
contract archaeology did not develop structures opers and professional archaeologists in compli-
for professionalising archaeologists. The geo- ance with the National Heritage Act. Develop-
politics of archaeology in southern Africa and ers were required to apply for an environmental
the structure of knowledge production had not clearance certificate from the Environmental
changed significantly since the introduction Commissioner. It was the prerogative of the En-
of the discipline through colonialism. Archae- vironmental Commissioner to refer the herit-
ology still mirrored the hierarchical power re- age component to the National Heritage Coun-
lations, which, as Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2012, 48) cil for determination of sufficiency of mitigation
contended, ‘hampers the formulation of possi- measures.
bilities for decolonised, democratic and inclusive Technically this meant that there was a pos-
development in Africa’. A decolonised archaeol- sibility of the archaeology and heritage compo-
ogy in Namibia required the resourcing of local nent being ignored since this did not constitute