22nd January 2006, 02:46 PM
Overall the responsibility for enforcing standards lies with the DOEHLG and the NMI. They issue the licence afterall. The DOEHLG also has archaeologists responsible for counties (more often 2 or 3 counties). These archaeologists will do monitoring (in the UK sense) usually on larger excavations. Both DOEHLG and NMI review reports and requirements for post excavation and make recommendations.
In the past archaeologist have been asked for ?explanations? with regard to poor practice (perceived or otherwise) or have had restrictions place on their licence (usually for non publication). Have heard hearsay (not the band) about licences being revoked.
While I agree that standards vary (and they most certainly do - mainly for the reasons outlined by Illuminated) applied properly (twice a day until the itch dies down as my old MO used to say) a licensing procedure offers a system where standards can be enforced and, if necessary sanctions taken. In the UK licence are needed certain kinds of wildlife/ecological work why not archaeology?
In the past archaeologist have been asked for ?explanations? with regard to poor practice (perceived or otherwise) or have had restrictions place on their licence (usually for non publication). Have heard hearsay (not the band) about licences being revoked.
While I agree that standards vary (and they most certainly do - mainly for the reasons outlined by Illuminated) applied properly (twice a day until the itch dies down as my old MO used to say) a licensing procedure offers a system where standards can be enforced and, if necessary sanctions taken. In the UK licence are needed certain kinds of wildlife/ecological work why not archaeology?