21st June 2006, 11:18 AM
Just a quick note in here.. AUP has been stretched, however.. not broken.
As it stands (and is often the case) the knowledge of what is expected - what happens and what has been agreed can vary. With my curatorial hat on, it is often difficult to get as good a deal as possible, (due to the fact that I only give advice... which can be ignored) and as a Consultant, I am there to advise on the most cost effective examination of the archaeology without compromising the final record. (ie.... if I feel I can justify a methedology which will in the end produce similar results.... then thats the way I will play it) While on site, I (as a contractor) may feel that the method is not how I would do it.... I have to realise that this may be the best that could be got out of the present system.
Only when curatorial power is just that... proper statutory power -- and there is a requirement for minimum standards, rather than just a request for these standards... then this is how it stands. I personally have no problem with developer machining - if properly supervised... insert arguement for archaeolgists being of at least high G3 level, better to be G4 - As vulpes says, if you are onsite and machining is taking place... it becomes your responsibility to ensure it is done properly.... if you are ordered to do otherwise, or you feel the machining is being done improperly, even after a request from you... then contact your manager... I have been on a site where a toothed bucket was stripping the site... when I turned up and saw it.. I stopped it immediatly.. until a flat bladed bucket was used... the on-site archaeologists did not think it was up to them to say anything... however I pointed out it was and they should have contacted their manager or me....
It is best to steer away from specific cases, (at least on a public forum, where it can be easy to work out who is who )
many thanks...B)
Another day another WSI?
As it stands (and is often the case) the knowledge of what is expected - what happens and what has been agreed can vary. With my curatorial hat on, it is often difficult to get as good a deal as possible, (due to the fact that I only give advice... which can be ignored) and as a Consultant, I am there to advise on the most cost effective examination of the archaeology without compromising the final record. (ie.... if I feel I can justify a methedology which will in the end produce similar results.... then thats the way I will play it) While on site, I (as a contractor) may feel that the method is not how I would do it.... I have to realise that this may be the best that could be got out of the present system.
Only when curatorial power is just that... proper statutory power -- and there is a requirement for minimum standards, rather than just a request for these standards... then this is how it stands. I personally have no problem with developer machining - if properly supervised... insert arguement for archaeolgists being of at least high G3 level, better to be G4 - As vulpes says, if you are onsite and machining is taking place... it becomes your responsibility to ensure it is done properly.... if you are ordered to do otherwise, or you feel the machining is being done improperly, even after a request from you... then contact your manager... I have been on a site where a toothed bucket was stripping the site... when I turned up and saw it.. I stopped it immediatly.. until a flat bladed bucket was used... the on-site archaeologists did not think it was up to them to say anything... however I pointed out it was and they should have contacted their manager or me....
It is best to steer away from specific cases, (at least on a public forum, where it can be easy to work out who is who )
many thanks...B)
Another day another WSI?