First of all I would like to thank the organisers of this conference for inviting me to participate in the discussion concerning the contemporary and future situation of archaeology in Eastern Europe. I would like to present my observations and comments on this topic gathered in a very particular place that is when acting for over 20 years as the Head of Archaeological Heritage Protection Service for the Poznan Province (Mid-Western Poland - a region which over recent years has been flourishing with a development boom that includes the greatest undertakings of international range, among others - a section of the transeuropean gas pipeline runnung from the Yamal Peninsula (West Siberia) to Germany and France, and the A2 motorway section from Frankfurt/Oder through Poznan to Warsaw).

In recent years Polish archaeology, like so many other spheres of social activity in our country, has been undergoing drastic changes concerned with a general radical breakthrough, both political (transformation from communism to democracy) and economic (reshuffle from the socialist planning doctrine to the free market system). The results of these historical transformations, due to their range and pace, are today visible in various aspects of our discipline (e.g. manner of financing research projects: introduction of a grant system; the beginning of an independent policy of fund raising by the institutions financed so far exclusively from state budget e.g. museums, universities etc.). These previously unknown problems, are revealed most acutely in the sphere of protection of archaeological heritage.

(1) the position and role of the Archaeological Heritage Protection Service in the new political and administrative system,

(2) the manner of managing the archaeological heritage within a particular area,

(3) executing from developers the requirements of Historical Monuments Protection Service (based upon the act on the protection of cultural property); financing of rescue excavations and their execution,

(4) the issue of the copyright to the documentation from the archaeological research, the sudden appearance of numerous private archaeological companies and their place within the existing structure of archaeological institutions.

The main outcomes of doing away with past restrictions and inefficiencies in the Polish economic system include:

(1) rapid increase of building developments concerned with ground works that destroy archaeological sites; it covers the full spectrum of undertakings, from paltry and individual ones (dwelling and summer houses), through local and regional ones (industrial enterprises, housing estates, as well as road, gas, telephone and optical fibre infrastructures), to the great industrial and communal undertakings (transit gas pipelines, motorways). That process requires Archaeological Heritage Protection Service to intensify radically its control and imperative role, in order to enforce its requirements from investors in all well-founded cases, including - first of all - to finance rescue excavations and documentary works on endangered monuments, according to resolutions of the Law on the Protection of Cultural Property (announced in 1962, with several amendments), which leaves a broad range of possibilities in this area,

(2) a revival of the economic category of time, what decisively works in favour of archaeology; previously it had happened on numerous occasions that certain developers led never-ending negotiations with the Archaeological Heritage Protection Service about the legitimacy and range of the proposed rescue programme, while nowadays applying such an attitude is connected with exposure to substantial and severe financial loss (postponing investment realisation),

(3) separating economy from politics, particularly at the regional and local level, which freed representatives of Archaeological Heritage Protection Service to the considerable extent from the pressure from the local authorities, in order to liberalise demands to the archaeological monuments' favour; which naturally doesn't mean the complete obliteration of such attempts, particularly by local authorities. However, there still remains an activity field for the Archaeological Heritage Protection Service (e.g. with the use of media), which sometimes becomes successful (e.g. the change in the course of transeuropean gas pipeline in the Włocławek area - central Vistula region),

(4) general growth of social activity, which one can observe in Poland right now; the change of mentality in the direction of perfection of one's professional qualifications, the appearance of a particular fashion for initiative and innovatory activities, considerable facilitation of professional contacts including international ones (due to liquidation of passport and foreign currency restrictions, well known from the recent past, new means of communication: the Internet, e-mail, as well as general increase in wealth) - all these factors also enlivened the activities of the Archaeological Heritage Protection Service and professional archaeologsts in general.

At the same time we have to admit that with the solution to many old problems, several new ones have appeared. One of the more serious ones is - as impulsive as phenomena described previously - the process of emerging of a new category of institution, namely - private archaeological companies, whose activities are set for carrying out rescue excavations. This phenomenon is indeed known world-wide, but it is also an indisputable fact that in post-communist countries where market mechanisms were not present for dozens of years, it poses a more complex problem than in the countries of more stabilised market economy.

This new phenomenon was at the beginning approached with many different, sometimes extremely critical opinions. Nevertheless, luckily for Polish archaeology (and especially for archaeological heritage of our country), the Law on the Protection of Cultural Property mentioned previously, together with a range of other, lower rank legal acts, provides a nearly harmonious incorporation of these new organisms in the institutional entirety of our discipline.

Here, I would like to focus on some details and present the main directions of transformations which we have observed during the last few years:

1/ Polish archaeological enterprises are founded - undoubtedly in the same way as in all other countries - with inclusive responsibility of their founders and owners who should consider at that moment such phenomena as fluctuations in economic situation, exchange rates and so on. It may be assumed from the current observations that in the conditions of an open society, which Poland gradually approaches, an archaeologist who decides for such a step cannot demand from the state a full guarantee, long-term professional stabilisation, especially in such a 'non-market' discipline as ours. On the other hand, an archaeologist with a range of qualifications and specialisations can as a rule find a new work place.

2/ The rather strict requirements of the Polish legal acts, mentioned above, concern not only the developer, but also, on the other hand, the executor of works at a monument (in our case - an archaeologist). They require namely manager of planned excavation to apply each time for a permit for its conduct. It should be stressed here that this particular person - the excavation director who can only be a certified archaeologist and that who can prove at least one year of excavation practice and not a developer nor an owner of an archaeological company - is granted a permit for research and it is this person who commits himself to fulfilling the conditions on which the permit is granted, about which later.

Such permits are granted by the Head of a Provincial Branch of Historical Monuments Protection Service, after consulting the collaborator specialising in archaeology - the so called Conservator of Archaeological Heritage for a particular province (at the moment Poland consists of sixteen provinces; in every one of them there is a Conservator of Archaeological Heritage who is the branch manager of the Historical Monuments Protection Service, which concentrates a team of specialists of historical monuments of particular categories; one of them is the Conservator of Archaeological Heritage; in some of provinces large museum units such as an Archaeological Museums or Provincial Museums with Archaeological Departments have acquired this role). The permit comprises conditions which a person conducting research must fulfil, e.g.:
          a/ to restrict it to the area defined in the application,
          b/ to conduct the research according to the contemporary excavation methodology (according to the guidelines issued by the General Conservator of Historical Monuments in 1996),
          c/ to transfer within the specified period (usually two-three months) to the Conservator of Archaeological Heritage a set of documentation, consistent with the requirements included in the permit for research (the minimum documentation set was defined by Historical Monuments Documentation Centre in Warsaw; it includes a report, research log, inventory of assigned and mass materials as well as plans and photographs, site plan with location of trenches etc). In the case of financing the excavation by the Conservator of Archaeological Heritage the manager of the research is obliged to provide the originals of the above mentioned documentation, otherwise their copies are required,
          d/ to transfer the excavated archaeological materials, together with the adjacent documentation, to the museum specified by the Archaeological Conservator; here a serious problem of lack of free space and proper conditions for storing artefacts in most of Polish museums should be signalled.

The described procedure is obligatory to all kinds of institutions conducting archaeological excavation; therefore the appearing private companies automatically are subject to it as well. As long as the excavation is carried out, the Conservator has the right and duty to conduct inspections in order to check the correctness of the methods applied. In the case of particularly complex sites (multi-layered, multicultural) he may condition issuing the permit for research from appointing a consultant - an expert in a particular speciality. The Conservator may refuse to issue the permit if it is ascertained that the applicant does not have the proper professional qualifications or has not fulfilled the obligations concerning any previous projects. He may also halt excavation if it is carried out contrary to the permit or when blatant methodological mistakes occur.

As a result of using such a strict procedure, differences in opinions or even conflicts are inevitable among archaeologists who represent both sides: protection of archaeological heritage and commercial services in the field of archaeology. In order to settle them it is postulated to create the Archaeological Chamber (after the example of the Chamber of Physicians and Chamber of Lawyers), which would also aim to elaborate and comply with the code of professional ethics of the archaeologist. Also such archaeological associations as the Polish Scientific Association of Archaeologists (SNAP) or Poznan Prehistoric Association (PTP) are preparing themselves to adopt such a code based on standards resolved by European Association of Archaeologists in Ravenna in 1997.

If the archaeological work needs to be commissioned by a state investor, e.g. Agency for Construction and Exploitation of Motorways, the appointment of an archaeological contractor must occur in the way of competitive tender. The interest of archaeology i.e. the proper scientific level of research is then protected by the use of at least two instruments that follow:
          a/ the choice of an executor of the above mentioned works is not done in a mechanical way i.e. on the basis of the offer of the lowest cost, but by taking into account such essential criteria as experience and acquired knowledge within a particular specialisation, research potential etc,
          b/ in order to avert reduction of indispensable research and documentation by a contractor offering the activities by an executor to lower costs, the Conservator of Archaeological Heritage by forming the general requirement for conducting research may supplement it with detailed requirements concerning the range of particular research and documentary works as well as their realisation depending on the character of the particular archaeological site.

In conclusion of the above statements we can repeat: Polish legislature provides efficient legal frames and mechanisms to secure proper function of all entities conducting excavation research, therefore also including representatives of private archaeological companies. One cannot deny, however, that such an activity requires from Archaeological Heritage Service firmness and consistence as well as the proper equipment e.g. modern computer equipment which:

(1) facilitates managing the archaeological heritage especially at the provincial level (the scope of the problem are thousands of archaeological sites, hundreds of development projects conducted, dozens of excavation research and conservative supervisions),

(2) introduces standard software e.g. for managing excavation documentation imposes a demand on all researchers to use modern, standardised documentation which provides comparability of its content among sites and regions. 

Fears of the initial free market period that market mechanisms would enter vigorously such a prone field as archaeological field research were not confirmed in such regions where the main archaeological institutions: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, archaeological institutes of universities, archaeological museums and the Archaeological Heritage Service itself took an active approach towards such a historic challenge. Representatives of the institutions mentioned, comprising many academics as uthorities of archaeological ethics, recognised the necessity to adapt our discipline to the new conditions and, at the same time, effectively fulfilled the role of 'guardians of values'. I believe that the most advantageous for the contemporary development stage of Polish archaeology is a mixed structure comprising elements of traditional big archaeological institutions with multilateral heritage and experience and therefore with high social prestige on one hand with elements of the 'new reality' i.e. private archaeological companies on the other; their advantages are: swift initiative in logistic and technical activities and better knowledge of contemporary market mechanisms.

I would like to illustrate this theoretical formula with a particular example from my region i.e. Wielkopolska (Greater Poland - Mid-Western part of the country), where four years ago a new archaeological institution of that kind - the Centre for Archaeological Research in Poznan - came into being, founded within the structure of Adam Mickiewicz University Foundation by four archaeological institutions: the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences - Poznan Branch, Institute of Prehistory of Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan Archaeological Museum and PKZ - Research and Conservation Centre (a private company). It conducts successfully numerous surface surveys and evaluation exercises as well as rescue excavations on dozens of sites endangered with destruction by the two largest investments in our region, already mentioned in the introduction, i.e. Yamal-Western Europe transeuropean gas pipeline and A2 motorway (Frankfurt/Oder - Poznan - Warsaw). When needed, the Centre, which is a kind of holding, hires further research teams of which many are founded on the basis of small private companies. Such a structure avoids treating archaeological research in purely commercial terms and excluding it from the control - also of the informal, social control - of scientific authorities. In turn, the more market-oriented participants take care of managing the positive financial result of the particular undertaking, while the representative of Archaeological Heritage Service overlooks the whole of the activities.

In such a situation it is a pity that not all circles comprising big and traditional archaeological institutions engage in the rescue and conservation work, instead, they continue 'purely scientific' research on sites which are not threatened by destruction. Such an attitude is followed, as it seems, by a range of negative consequences:
          a/ the expanding market of archaeological services is therefore developed only by private companies that lack everyday influence of authorities, research tradition, complex infrastructure etc.,
          b/ traditional archaeological institutions resign from possible additional profits from conducting the above mentioned works and still remain dependent either exclusively or to a large extent on state or municipal budget, which may sometimes undergo sudden and drastic reductions that pose threat to their stability,
          c/ scientific and research institutions do not profit from the favourable and successful strategy that consists of connecting rescue activities with research aims known as "the research oriented salvage archaeology" formula.

To summarise, we may pose the following thesis: private companies may become a problem where conservation services do not enforce on them all legal requirements (permit for research, complying with the rules of field research methodology, transferring archaeological materials to museum collections and documentation to a conservator, obeying tender procedure etc.) and the leading archaeological institutions do not connect their research activities with rescue works. Examples from Poland as well as general international trends prove unequivocally which of these two options should prevail in the future