28th April 2011, 12:39 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that a heavier touch approach from curators is essential (but sadly unlikely). Even if the IfA achieve chartered status and the the term "archaeologist" becomes a protected title (again, sadly unlikely I suspect) their role would be different from that of curators. A professional institute is concerned with "professional" matters, more generalized, if you will. Monitoring of specific contracts cannot be done by an institute, is not appropriate and isn't done in other professions. It is however entirely appropriate for the curatorial body to ensure that the required conditions have been fully discharged, including fully carrying out the work to the necessary standards. The closest analogy that springs to mind is building control officers, ensuring that Building Regulations are complied with by inspecting and passing "plans" and inspecting work on site. Of course building contractors will also have architects monitoring work for compliance with the contract (including standards) - it would be nice to think that archaeological consultants, the equivalent role, are and will performing that duty..... but yes I agree with Troll - more power - more resources - to the curators! (No I am not one!). Obviously I can't see this happening though, quite the reverse in fact.