15th November 2005, 01:52 PM
We do seem to have strayed a long way from the original topic, but an interesting discussion just the same.
Personally, I would see monitoring the building contractor to ensure compliance after the end of the WB as part of a curator's role in principle, but as they are usually too under-resourced to monitor ongoing archaeological fieldwork properly I know they couldn't do it.
An alternative would be to cover it in WB specs, by including an ongoing liaison role after the end of the WB itself, involving (say) a weekly site meeting/inspection until after all ground-disturbing works are complete. That way, any design changes or unauthorised work could be identified and the developer/construction firm would know they were under continuing oversight.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Personally, I would see monitoring the building contractor to ensure compliance after the end of the WB as part of a curator's role in principle, but as they are usually too under-resourced to monitor ongoing archaeological fieldwork properly I know they couldn't do it.
An alternative would be to cover it in WB specs, by including an ongoing liaison role after the end of the WB itself, involving (say) a weekly site meeting/inspection until after all ground-disturbing works are complete. That way, any design changes or unauthorised work could be identified and the developer/construction firm would know they were under continuing oversight.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished