8th December 2005, 07:08 PM
If they were to represent the curator, then they are essentially curators working for nothing. This, I would suggest, is not a Good Thing. The suggestion does reinforce the point that the only party who can monitor a contract is the curator.
Certainly the consultant also should, as the agent of the employer. However, and I don't mean to offend consultants or suggest that this occurs, but it could be inferred that, as the employer's interest is in getting the archaeology (be it fieldwork or post-ex, whatever) done as quickly and inexpensively as possible, then it is in the interest of a consultant, employed by the employer, to side with a less than diligent contractor.
Contrast the position of the consultant with an architect administering a construction project. The architect is employed by the employer and like the archaeological consutant has a contractually neutral position, i.e. as arbitor. Usually, although not always, in practice his/her position is to protect the employer's interest, for example seeing that standards are maintained, dodgy brickwork is knocked down and so on. Sometimes decisions on contractual matters are made in favour of the contractor (builder) over the employer, but if you follow my drift, the "natural" tendency is is to look the the client's interest (to the extent that most people think that is what an architect does).
On top of that you have the Building Inspector, well, inspecting the building as it's built to see that it complies with the Building Regulations. (Planning is a different thing).
To go full circle, this is why I see the curator as the only party who can realistically act as monitor: he/she is the only party who really, truly, accountably and demonstrably wanted the work done at all.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Certainly the consultant also should, as the agent of the employer. However, and I don't mean to offend consultants or suggest that this occurs, but it could be inferred that, as the employer's interest is in getting the archaeology (be it fieldwork or post-ex, whatever) done as quickly and inexpensively as possible, then it is in the interest of a consultant, employed by the employer, to side with a less than diligent contractor.
Contrast the position of the consultant with an architect administering a construction project. The architect is employed by the employer and like the archaeological consutant has a contractually neutral position, i.e. as arbitor. Usually, although not always, in practice his/her position is to protect the employer's interest, for example seeing that standards are maintained, dodgy brickwork is knocked down and so on. Sometimes decisions on contractual matters are made in favour of the contractor (builder) over the employer, but if you follow my drift, the "natural" tendency is is to look the the client's interest (to the extent that most people think that is what an architect does).
On top of that you have the Building Inspector, well, inspecting the building as it's built to see that it complies with the Building Regulations. (Planning is a different thing).
To go full circle, this is why I see the curator as the only party who can realistically act as monitor: he/she is the only party who really, truly, accountably and demonstrably wanted the work done at all.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.