8th December 2005, 07:24 PM
I agree with bits of what 'the Invisible Man' says - in particular that the curator is the right person to monitor in terms of standards, WSI etc.
On consultants, I think that while his comments sound superficially reasonable, they also sound inexperienced.
Once a spec has been agreed with the curator, and a price has been obtained for doing the specified work, the client's interest (and that of the consultant) is in making sure that the work is done to the standard specified. If it isn't, that just causes trouble with the curator; and if it done badly at evaluation stage, leading to missed/underestimated archaeology, that introduces risk of unexpected discoveries during actual construction.
If you have unexpected discoveries at that stage, during a watching brief, the client risks construction delay - and that costs lots more than doing the evaluation right in the first place.
Any consultant worth their salt will therefore monitor strongly - but they can and will only enforce what is in the spec/contract.
In my experience, curators' resources are so stretched that in many counties lots of projects get no curator monitoring at all, so the consultant is the only person actually doing it. While this is often me, I do think it is wrong - I often find myself badgering the curator to come out, often unsuccessfully. I wouldn't be doing that if I, as a consultant, wanted to hide anything from the curator.
On a related point - even where the curator does actively monitor, they will rarely be able to do so as intensively as the consultant.
Overall - there is a central role for the curator in monitoring, and a different/complementary one for consultants. Anyone thinking that a consultants' real interest lies in minimising the archaeology doesn't really understand the consultants viewpoint.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
On consultants, I think that while his comments sound superficially reasonable, they also sound inexperienced.
Once a spec has been agreed with the curator, and a price has been obtained for doing the specified work, the client's interest (and that of the consultant) is in making sure that the work is done to the standard specified. If it isn't, that just causes trouble with the curator; and if it done badly at evaluation stage, leading to missed/underestimated archaeology, that introduces risk of unexpected discoveries during actual construction.
If you have unexpected discoveries at that stage, during a watching brief, the client risks construction delay - and that costs lots more than doing the evaluation right in the first place.
Any consultant worth their salt will therefore monitor strongly - but they can and will only enforce what is in the spec/contract.
In my experience, curators' resources are so stretched that in many counties lots of projects get no curator monitoring at all, so the consultant is the only person actually doing it. While this is often me, I do think it is wrong - I often find myself badgering the curator to come out, often unsuccessfully. I wouldn't be doing that if I, as a consultant, wanted to hide anything from the curator.
On a related point - even where the curator does actively monitor, they will rarely be able to do so as intensively as the consultant.
Overall - there is a central role for the curator in monitoring, and a different/complementary one for consultants. Anyone thinking that a consultants' real interest lies in minimising the archaeology doesn't really understand the consultants viewpoint.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished