22nd April 2007, 02:56 AM
As you know, the point of archaeological work (from a developer's point of view) is to discharge planning conditions, not to discover the joys of the past. True, contracts will often cite the completion of a programme of works as outlined in document A, but the object of the exercise is to get on and build whatever it is. The point I was making is that the curator is the only impartial point of enforcement in this process and if the brief was not complied with in full, no one would do anything unless it impeded development work as there is no economic interest in doing so (unless of course one can persuade the contractor to do this for nothing). This is only likely to happen on the instruction of a curator....speaking generally, admittedly, I am sure there are plenty of anecdotal incidents where others have acted but we must deal in generalities....
Also it is not the same as other construction work because it is easier to check standards for construction than for archaeology (I've made this argument already, so I won't repeat it); checking archaeological work is a tricky and time consuming business; hence my arguments for more resources for curators etc....
don't panic!
Also it is not the same as other construction work because it is easier to check standards for construction than for archaeology (I've made this argument already, so I won't repeat it); checking archaeological work is a tricky and time consuming business; hence my arguments for more resources for curators etc....
don't panic!