+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: IFA RO only as approved contractors (/showthread.php?tid=4146)
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Martin Locock - 12th December 2011
I would clarify that yes, I would expect contractors to set themselves high standards of accuracy and presentation as part of their commitment to professionalism, and I also believe that their clients or clients' consultants would be entitled to query a report which was poorly edited. I do not believe that this extends to the curators and the planning process - the report is a planning tool and as long as it provides a valid summary of the archaeological resource then that is enough, warts and all.
Incidentally it should be remembered that grey literature reports used to be much lighter on the detailed data, but curators raised the bar by requesting the inclusion of full content catalogues and stratigraphic accounts so they could check the validity of the conclusions. This seemed like madness at the time, and even more so now, when any field evaluation's entire site records could be included as databases on a flash drive in the back of a report.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Dinosaur - 12th December 2011
You think you've got problems, an old boss of mine once almost sent off an article to a journal talking all the way through about poppadoms, Microsoft's then favoured alternative to 'oppida'....... :0
- spell-checkers are the work of the devil, unless of course you are American.... :face-kiss:
A mate of mine years back managed to get into Uni the hard way, no A-levels so he had to do all the essays etc they wanted to even be allowed to apply, DESPITE having really bad dyslexia (hence the lack of any school qualifications) - was well impressed by that, so respect :face-approve:
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Jack - 13th December 2011
Martin Locock Wrote:I would clarify that yes, I would expect contractors to set themselves high standards of accuracy and presentation as part of their commitment to professionalism, and I also believe that their clients or clients' consultants would be entitled to query a report which was poorly edited. I do not believe that this extends to the curators and the planning process - the report is a planning tool and as long as it provides a valid summary of the archaeological resource then that is enough, warts and all.
Incidentally it should be remembered that grey literature reports used to be much lighter on the detailed data, but curators raised the bar by requesting the inclusion of full content catalogues and stratigraphic accounts so they could check the validity of the conclusions. This seemed like madness at the time, and even more so now, when any field evaluation's entire site records could be included as databases on a flash drive in the back of a report.
The 'grey literature' report is often the final product of the archaeological process. Why shouldn't it be of the highest quality?
Any final report should be capable of being critically assessed by the archaeological community without having to dig out what remains of the archive from the ever-decreasing storage space.
Conclusions and interpretations should always be backed by evidence, which in archaeology is usually a photo, section drawing and/or plan etc.
The accuracy and presentation of reports should ABSOLUTELY be in the remit of the curators..........I have seen what happens when it is not. All the 'public' (and the industry) get as a final report is some wishy-washy non-referenced made up rubbish with little relevance to the excavated material and an apparently well-packaged archive that turns out to be a few scraps of paper and poorly drawn plans, which is meant to be mitigation of the development impact upon a rapidly dwindling resource.
Not good enough!
Although I do like the idea of all final reports having a digital copy of the site archive stuck to the back. That would be a great equaliser across the industry, with everyone's primary records being open for easy review and criticism!
IFA RO only as approved contractors - BAJR - 14th December 2011
I am not sure if you could hear my standing ovation from down there.
I also have to say that I would love a standard document system and presentation standards.
Three thumbs up from here! :face-approve::face-approve::face-approve:
Now... better check my archives !
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Martin Locock - 15th December 2011
If Jack has found instances when the site records in an archive are deficient or missing, perhaps curators should be checking them as part of the fieldwork monitoring?
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Sith - 15th December 2011
Martin Locock Wrote:If Jack has found instances when the site records in an archive are deficient or missing, perhaps curators should be checking them as part of the fieldwork monitoring?
Checking the records before they've left the site! What nonsense is this?
:face-stir:
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Marcus Brody - 15th December 2011
Martin Locock Wrote:If Jack has found instances when the site records in an archive are deficient or missing, perhaps curators should be checking them as part of the fieldwork monitoring?
I'd say that it's the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the archive and report are of a suitable standard. There's been a lot of stuff on this thread about whether curators should correct errors in reports, and while I believe that they should, I'd also say that I think that if individual contractors took a bit more care, the incidence of such correction would be massively reduced. Similarly, on the thread about an archaeological police force, people have suggested that the IfA should act as an enforcer of standards. Again, there may be an argument for this, but if each contractor worked to a professional level (which is what we all claim to do), then the need for this would be limited. I'd draw an analogy with a football team that's not doing well - often, the response is to sack the manager, but ultimately it's the players on the pitch who aren't performing. People operating as professional archaeologists should be able to keep adequate records and compile a decent report without needing to be forced to do so by an external body, whether this is the curator or the IfA.
On the basis that I'm sounding a bit like a 1980s American High School movie, I'd just like to sign off by encouraging everyone to be the best you can be!
IFA RO only as approved contractors - P Prentice - 15th December 2011
no marcus - but i will be professional
IFA RO only as approved contractors - vulpes - 15th December 2011
Quote:Three thumbs up from here! :face-approve::face-approve::face-approve:
Three thumbs?! Have you been surfing off Dounreay again?
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Dinosaur - 15th December 2011
Martin Locock Wrote:If Jack has found instances when the site records in an archive are deficient or missing, perhaps curators should be checking them as part of the fieldwork monitoring?
As I think I've commented on here before, the current bane of my life is archives where the museums seem to have 'mislaid' large chunks even when we know they were deposited.....but yes, some archives even when received direct from other units are sometimes not what I personally would describe as complete - where's all the correspondence etc, for instance, and often photo catalogues etc are sadly deficient, 'view of site' can often fail to convey what the photographer was originally trying to capture (in one case I can think of that I came across in an archive it was clearly a group of pits carefully depicted in relation to a roundhouse, although I never figured out which pits and which roundhouse)