30th May 2005, 01:29 PM
I'm not a curator so I can't answer question one.
Question 2: well...generally not much really. I reckon they are too busy with other bigger projects, and probably overworked/underpaid as well. At least I hope they are. If not, then they have no excuse. I get ridiculous WSI's and mitigation by watching brief (see my rant about them elsewhere), occasional visits and advice, and sometimes annoying nitpicking about editing of reports, but very little of the stuff that is actually useful.
Question 3: By useful, I mean support for attempts at good field practice against A: my employer(sometimes) and more importantly B: the developer. Given a choice I will always favour what's least damaging for archaeology, or failing that what's best at getting a good record. This should ally me firmly with the curator in most cases. The curators on the other hand seem to view the contractor, ie. me, as an opponent.
Too often, there is no support at all. Recent examples include a development that has gone on with no notification to the archaeological contractor, in clear breach of the planning requirements. The curator has repeatedly been informed of this, to absolutely no effect. Too often we as contractors feel like the protectors of heritage, which is not our role at all. What are the curators doing?
Question 2: well...generally not much really. I reckon they are too busy with other bigger projects, and probably overworked/underpaid as well. At least I hope they are. If not, then they have no excuse. I get ridiculous WSI's and mitigation by watching brief (see my rant about them elsewhere), occasional visits and advice, and sometimes annoying nitpicking about editing of reports, but very little of the stuff that is actually useful.
Question 3: By useful, I mean support for attempts at good field practice against A: my employer(sometimes) and more importantly B: the developer. Given a choice I will always favour what's least damaging for archaeology, or failing that what's best at getting a good record. This should ally me firmly with the curator in most cases. The curators on the other hand seem to view the contractor, ie. me, as an opponent.
Too often, there is no support at all. Recent examples include a development that has gone on with no notification to the archaeological contractor, in clear breach of the planning requirements. The curator has repeatedly been informed of this, to absolutely no effect. Too often we as contractors feel like the protectors of heritage, which is not our role at all. What are the curators doing?