7th December 2011, 01:50 PM
the invisible man Wrote:And yet, in a parallel universe, architects perform the 'equivalent' role to the consultant: even though paid by the Employer (i.e. client/developer) they are independent and administer the contract in a fair and impartial manner, and yes sometimes the employer does try to stitch up the contractor, as well as t'other way round. As I droned on about before, cover a lot more than the Building Control (or Planning) officers. In principle there is no reason why the archaeological consultant cannot act in a similar manner. However, the big difference is that the Employer/client actually wants a building built, often (but not always) to the best possible quality (but usually for the lowest possibe price). Generally the employer does not particularly want any archaeolgical work done.
In building control its the insurance companies that enforce standards by proxy, because of the potential lawsuits if the building falls down.
No one but the curators enforces archaeology.