20th April 2009, 11:00 PM
"...allowing the destruction of the finite resource.."
The vast majority of archaeological assets that fall within the planning regime are destroyed. This is in clear contravention of the tenets of PPG 16.It is in fact the Curators if anyone-who "allow" this.Not archaeologists.
Vulpes (on another thread) was kind enough to point out that the PPGs may be in for an overhaul and in my opinion-this is way overdue and most welcome. In the context of contractors and the IFA, a new direction of emphases could reshape the working relationship between these two major players. I would like to see the IFA professional standards given a clear legislative mandate and that in itself would shake contractors lists to the core. Curators, if provided with an unambiguous legal frame of reference and the logistics to function, could make a world of difference.
Contractors have to have Professional indemnity in place before offering services to clients. I would argue that the almost total lack of claims against the indemnity of poor quality contractors is entirely due to the painful lack of clear legislation in commercial archaeology. With my cynical hat on, I would wager that we would see a more pro-active approach to professional standards if poor quality contractors lost a few million quid now and then. A cosy chat over tea and biccies with a voluntary body bereft of legislative standing has clearly had a minimal effect so far.
To stick to the frames of reference of this thread- I do believe that an overhaul of the legal standing of archaeology would provide much impetus in the evolution of the contractor/curator/IFA relationship. Bring it on!
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
The vast majority of archaeological assets that fall within the planning regime are destroyed. This is in clear contravention of the tenets of PPG 16.It is in fact the Curators if anyone-who "allow" this.Not archaeologists.
Vulpes (on another thread) was kind enough to point out that the PPGs may be in for an overhaul and in my opinion-this is way overdue and most welcome. In the context of contractors and the IFA, a new direction of emphases could reshape the working relationship between these two major players. I would like to see the IFA professional standards given a clear legislative mandate and that in itself would shake contractors lists to the core. Curators, if provided with an unambiguous legal frame of reference and the logistics to function, could make a world of difference.
Contractors have to have Professional indemnity in place before offering services to clients. I would argue that the almost total lack of claims against the indemnity of poor quality contractors is entirely due to the painful lack of clear legislation in commercial archaeology. With my cynical hat on, I would wager that we would see a more pro-active approach to professional standards if poor quality contractors lost a few million quid now and then. A cosy chat over tea and biccies with a voluntary body bereft of legislative standing has clearly had a minimal effect so far.
To stick to the frames of reference of this thread- I do believe that an overhaul of the legal standing of archaeology would provide much impetus in the evolution of the contractor/curator/IFA relationship. Bring it on!
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)