29th January 2012, 10:23 AM
I have of course for some time waved this in the air. it is not perfect... but it does say... here is a definition.
One more time...
Dutch Archaeology Quality Standard
http://www.sikb.nl/upload/documents/archeo/knauk.pdf
Now, back in the day when I was curatorial... and to exsure people knew what exactly to do... I created this along with Biddy Simpson. Simple Clear and transferable. (but sadly, like so many, implemented in a patchy way! )
http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/downloads/...ruary_2006
Now... ALGAO should / could get to grips with itself. but it never did. and random curation was the result. From good to confusing, from strict to more fluid... from helpful to obstructive.
One curatorial body does this the next door does that... one wants this in a report, the other does not mind. etc.
The question is, is this really document about "applying explicit and quite demanding standards to curators" or is it about applying explicit and quite demanding standards to contractors based on membership of the ifa.?
I am afraid that Curators are being asked to become ROs. (as are community groups and University departments) This baffles me... but then it baffles some of teh curators who I have talked with.
A clear explanation about what this document is actually trying to achieve would be good. so far seen three plausible explanations or is it all three?
One more time...
Dutch Archaeology Quality Standard
http://www.sikb.nl/upload/documents/archeo/knauk.pdf
Now, back in the day when I was curatorial... and to exsure people knew what exactly to do... I created this along with Biddy Simpson. Simple Clear and transferable. (but sadly, like so many, implemented in a patchy way! )
http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/downloads/...ruary_2006
Now... ALGAO should / could get to grips with itself. but it never did. and random curation was the result. From good to confusing, from strict to more fluid... from helpful to obstructive.
One curatorial body does this the next door does that... one wants this in a report, the other does not mind. etc.
The question is, is this really document about "applying explicit and quite demanding standards to curators" or is it about applying explicit and quite demanding standards to contractors based on membership of the ifa.?
I am afraid that Curators are being asked to become ROs. (as are community groups and University departments) This baffles me... but then it baffles some of teh curators who I have talked with.
A clear explanation about what this document is actually trying to achieve would be good. so far seen three plausible explanations or is it all three?