28th June 2009, 04:43 PM
Ah I see, thank you for explaining and I apologize for my mistake, Unit.
I confess I'm not sure I understand your concerns though. Naturally commercial archaeology is related (in fact I would say part of) the construction industry in the wider sense: it would not otherwise exist. I see nothing sinister or dominating about the ICE CoC - it is simply a standard form of contract basaed on a universally used model from civil engineering. Building construction (as opposed to civils) uses a range of very similar forms, the JCT standard forms which I (possibly alone in the world) think might have been a better model, but the gist of them of very similar.
There is no compulsion to use the ICE CoC, and any one or more clauses can be amended for a particular contract if deemed necessary, but there are huge advantages in everyone using standard forms: it is crazy not to. No-one in construction thinks twice about it. The fact that they are based on an existing model is neither here nor there: commercial archaeology is ostensibly modelled on the construction industry (hence the terminology) and it makes perfect sense to utilise such a prototype.
I have long been a supporter (if that's the word) of Michael Heaton's views and have in the past referred BAJRites to his piece in TA on proper measurement of archaeological works. His other views that are given in his presentation piece you linked to make equal sense to me. I suspect that a lot of woes would be improved - pay, conditions, respect etc - if archaeology got its act together and operated as a part of construction rather than the slighlty woolly, misunderstood heroic stance it seems to adopt.
I confess I'm not sure I understand your concerns though. Naturally commercial archaeology is related (in fact I would say part of) the construction industry in the wider sense: it would not otherwise exist. I see nothing sinister or dominating about the ICE CoC - it is simply a standard form of contract basaed on a universally used model from civil engineering. Building construction (as opposed to civils) uses a range of very similar forms, the JCT standard forms which I (possibly alone in the world) think might have been a better model, but the gist of them of very similar.
There is no compulsion to use the ICE CoC, and any one or more clauses can be amended for a particular contract if deemed necessary, but there are huge advantages in everyone using standard forms: it is crazy not to. No-one in construction thinks twice about it. The fact that they are based on an existing model is neither here nor there: commercial archaeology is ostensibly modelled on the construction industry (hence the terminology) and it makes perfect sense to utilise such a prototype.
I have long been a supporter (if that's the word) of Michael Heaton's views and have in the past referred BAJRites to his piece in TA on proper measurement of archaeological works. His other views that are given in his presentation piece you linked to make equal sense to me. I suspect that a lot of woes would be improved - pay, conditions, respect etc - if archaeology got its act together and operated as a part of construction rather than the slighlty woolly, misunderstood heroic stance it seems to adopt.