21st February 2006, 12:11 AM
Evening tile-man. Yes archaeological data is very structured.I produce it for a living.
Then you agree with me that it is very hard to fake convincingly, and certainly more effort than its worth for someone on an archaeological wage.
On curators-can you provide evidence to the contrary? Are you seriously expecting me to believe that curators check context sheets, drawings or matrices? Are you telling me that curators are so embedded in the fieldwork of units that their perception of standards are accurate? Are you seriously expecting me to believe that curators stand and watch the work carried out by units?
There are a number of different issues here. This thread I think started out on the final product ? the report. This is getting on to how agreed standards are monitored and by whom which is a different matter and has been discussed previously at great length ? How a specific curatorial body will monitor work varies in my experience around the country, depending very much on the nature of local implementation and interpretation as well as the support a given curator receives from their local authority.
In terms of provision of evidence ? The nature of natural justice in the UK means that you are innocent until proven guilty ? that means the complainant should supply evidence of wrong doing ? which as ever means that if you have evidence of these serious allegations you keep making can you please provide it to the proper authorities?
In terms of my experience (which is not curatorial) I have been asked on site several times to explain sequences, show context sheets and demonstrate running matrices.(usually in situations where it was a units first piece of work in a given district). I am also aware of a number of curators (about 100% of my sample of places where I have worked and curators that I have known) who will happily require work to be resubmitted, because it has failed to reach the agreed standards.
At the most, I have only ever seen a curator spend two hours on site. By on-site I do mean a swift walkies with the director before lunch in the pub. References and evidence?
I think this has been answered before by actual curators, and I think the gist went something like ? given the time and financial constraints priority has to be given to certain situations, for which the unit with the dodgiest reputation working on your patch will receive the closest attention, and so if you are working for a unit on the side of the angels you may never see a curator- (before you say it this isn?t na?ve but the practical reality of making sure that budgets are spent as responsibly as possible). Are you saying that you are working for a complete untrustworthy shower and bunch of cowboys who you think should be monitored to death? I think the actual original answer is in the archives?
If the profession took IFA standards seriously enough, we would surely be rolling in references relating to the real current state of play. My big mouth got me into trouble some time ago when a particularly naff unit were named on here. My post at the very least prompted the local curator to question the competence of said unit working in his/her area. About time too I reckon.
So you hadn?t complained about this unit at the time of the alleged behaviour then? I can only repeat what has been said before ? it is the responsibility of anyone who is concerned with standards to report wrong behaviour to the relevant authorities.
Bajr is and, has been a forum where individuals can offer opinion and, insight into their own little worlds. I`m afraid Tile-man that not everyones perception is the same as yours.
And I don?t think many people share your negative experiences. I personally think that the structures that are in place in this country, if given proper support, funding and legislation could relatively easily provide answers to a lot of the problems all in the profession are struggling with ? and this is done on an individual level and collectively through the different groups which reflect the different experiences of archaeologists in this country,
I do however concur with your last paragraph.A question for you sir-as tax-paying members of the public, perhaps you would explain to us just how curators ensure standards in the field?
well I?m only a finds specialist these days, and can?t speak for curators (who can stand up for themselves!) but some of the consultation on standards for stewardship can be found here
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/conserve/stewardship/
Then you agree with me that it is very hard to fake convincingly, and certainly more effort than its worth for someone on an archaeological wage.
On curators-can you provide evidence to the contrary? Are you seriously expecting me to believe that curators check context sheets, drawings or matrices? Are you telling me that curators are so embedded in the fieldwork of units that their perception of standards are accurate? Are you seriously expecting me to believe that curators stand and watch the work carried out by units?
There are a number of different issues here. This thread I think started out on the final product ? the report. This is getting on to how agreed standards are monitored and by whom which is a different matter and has been discussed previously at great length ? How a specific curatorial body will monitor work varies in my experience around the country, depending very much on the nature of local implementation and interpretation as well as the support a given curator receives from their local authority.
In terms of provision of evidence ? The nature of natural justice in the UK means that you are innocent until proven guilty ? that means the complainant should supply evidence of wrong doing ? which as ever means that if you have evidence of these serious allegations you keep making can you please provide it to the proper authorities?
In terms of my experience (which is not curatorial) I have been asked on site several times to explain sequences, show context sheets and demonstrate running matrices.(usually in situations where it was a units first piece of work in a given district). I am also aware of a number of curators (about 100% of my sample of places where I have worked and curators that I have known) who will happily require work to be resubmitted, because it has failed to reach the agreed standards.
At the most, I have only ever seen a curator spend two hours on site. By on-site I do mean a swift walkies with the director before lunch in the pub. References and evidence?
I think this has been answered before by actual curators, and I think the gist went something like ? given the time and financial constraints priority has to be given to certain situations, for which the unit with the dodgiest reputation working on your patch will receive the closest attention, and so if you are working for a unit on the side of the angels you may never see a curator- (before you say it this isn?t na?ve but the practical reality of making sure that budgets are spent as responsibly as possible). Are you saying that you are working for a complete untrustworthy shower and bunch of cowboys who you think should be monitored to death? I think the actual original answer is in the archives?
If the profession took IFA standards seriously enough, we would surely be rolling in references relating to the real current state of play. My big mouth got me into trouble some time ago when a particularly naff unit were named on here. My post at the very least prompted the local curator to question the competence of said unit working in his/her area. About time too I reckon.
So you hadn?t complained about this unit at the time of the alleged behaviour then? I can only repeat what has been said before ? it is the responsibility of anyone who is concerned with standards to report wrong behaviour to the relevant authorities.
Bajr is and, has been a forum where individuals can offer opinion and, insight into their own little worlds. I`m afraid Tile-man that not everyones perception is the same as yours.
And I don?t think many people share your negative experiences. I personally think that the structures that are in place in this country, if given proper support, funding and legislation could relatively easily provide answers to a lot of the problems all in the profession are struggling with ? and this is done on an individual level and collectively through the different groups which reflect the different experiences of archaeologists in this country,
I do however concur with your last paragraph.A question for you sir-as tax-paying members of the public, perhaps you would explain to us just how curators ensure standards in the field?
well I?m only a finds specialist these days, and can?t speak for curators (who can stand up for themselves!) but some of the consultation on standards for stewardship can be found here
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/conserve/stewardship/