7th December 2011, 08:46 PM
the invisible man Wrote:Building Control officers visit sites and inspect work at the appropriate stages. They inspect 'plans' submitted before work ever starts on site. They do not however have anything to do with 'quality' - if it complies with the regs then that is the end of their remit. Compliiance withe the contract is for someone else - typically the architect, and hence the ananolgy that I draw.
Following this analogy, the curator would be equivalent to the building control officer rather than the architect, as their only concern should be that the archaelogical work is carried out to a suitable standard. As the building control officer inspects the submitted plans before work starts, so the curator will inspect the project design in advance of archaeological work commencing, to ensure that it adequately addresses the issues, and they should also visit sites to inspect fieldwork in progress.
Any contractual problems such as cost, working hours or payment for travel, overtime or accomodation would be purely between the developer and the contractor, and would be sorted out between them, or by the developer's consultant (if one was involved). I realise that it's not an exact match, as the building control officer has direct powers in the planning system, whereas the curator usually has to act through the planning enforcement officer, but I'd say that their role is probably closer to building control than the architect's is.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum