22nd May 2006, 12:48 AM
I have to say my take on the consultants role is very different to those being mentioned here. I suggest that simple statements such as acting in the best interests of the client, saving them money or looking after the archaeology are just too simplistic for what is a very complex dynamic which varies from client to client and job to job.
I donot accept however that we have an inadequate system - far from perfect yes - but inadequate no. I would suggest that we actually have a system on paper at least that is not only draconian but is almost a "zero tolerance" regime. For example do SMRs inform the owners of land that their land is now a site of archaeological interest?
The worst example I can think of is an evaluation undertaken without the land owners consent and I acting on behalf of the land owner was refused permission to copy the report on grounds of copyright.
Peter Wardle
I donot accept however that we have an inadequate system - far from perfect yes - but inadequate no. I would suggest that we actually have a system on paper at least that is not only draconian but is almost a "zero tolerance" regime. For example do SMRs inform the owners of land that their land is now a site of archaeological interest?
The worst example I can think of is an evaluation undertaken without the land owners consent and I acting on behalf of the land owner was refused permission to copy the report on grounds of copyright.
Peter Wardle