19th June 2014, 11:55 AM
I am still none the wiser as to who the archaeological Clark of works is clerking for.
I don't think that it is shares in ppe factors more it is a visible sign that archaeologists have been contracted by the "construction industry" rather than by the landowner. I speculate that the construction firm will be paid to manage the archaeologists-possibly on a bonus if they get the archaeology in on or under budget.
Obviously you have agreements to excavate with all those who have rights to the land
Does anybody have an example of what one of these permissions look like? The ifa use it as an example of a potential disciplinary issue
http://www.archaeologists.net/regulation/complaints
I dont know why they bother as i can't imagine that anybody could fall foul of it.
I don't think that it is shares in ppe factors more it is a visible sign that archaeologists have been contracted by the "construction industry" rather than by the landowner. I speculate that the construction firm will be paid to manage the archaeologists-possibly on a bonus if they get the archaeology in on or under budget.
Obviously you have agreements to excavate with all those who have rights to the land
Quote: ‘clause 25 of the Code of approved practices for the regulation of contractual arrangements in archaeology – a member embarking upon fieldwork will secure the permission of the landowner and tenant as appropriate, and of any others with rights or responsibilities for the land and its safekeeping’.
Does anybody have an example of what one of these permissions look like? The ifa use it as an example of a potential disciplinary issue
http://www.archaeologists.net/regulation/complaints
I dont know why they bother as i can't imagine that anybody could fall foul of it.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist