Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Quote:quote:Machining by the developer is usually substandard, whether under archaeological supervision or not.
This is a wholly unsupportable statement Mercenary and conflicts entirely with my own personal experience. At the end of the day all machining is or should be done under archaeological supervision and if it is substandard it is only the supervising archaeologist who is to blame.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Vulpes,
I stand by it regardless. In this particular case Troll has said that the topsoil removal was largely unsupervised.
In my experience machine drivers supplied by the developer quite often acquire the negative attitude towards archs that their bosses may have. This makes supervising them a diplomatic balancing act. A simple request like "could you re-scrape that area because we haven't gone deep enough" can become a direct affront to their ability to operate a machine, in a way that it seldom does when supervising a hired in driver, who just does whatever you ask, and will probably be used to working with you.
Also, and more importantly, employees of the developer may be operating under guidelines that conflict with archaeological practice. The best example of this would be where topsoil is stockpiled for re-use (as was probably occurring on Troll's quarry site) and the drivers are under orders to not mix it with the underlying b-horizon. This invariably results in a site that is undermachined, with a thin band of topsoil left to obscure much of the archaeology. Or they have been told to finish a strip in a day when good work would require two. This occurs whether under archaeological supervision or not, for the previously mentioned diplomatic reasons.
There are exceptions, and I have managed to get good machining done on a quarry site, so I'm not completely un-diplomatic, but in general hired in drivers who you know, who don't have conflicting instructions, or negative feelings about the archs, and who will do exactly what you ask no matter how absurd by their standards, do a better job than developer supplied ones.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Vulpes,
Afraid I have to agree with Merc on this one regarding developer supplied machines. I don't think you can put the blame only on the supervising Arch - as soon as the bucket of the machine touches the ground only the driver has control, the very nature of stripping means that it is very easy to dip or raise the bucket during the strip. If you don't have a driver that you can trust then you at best end up with a choppy topsoil covered strip which makes cleaning up sooooo much more difficult, at worst you get islands of arch surviving amoungst craters. In my experience a reaonably large percentage of developer supplied drivers & machines just cant do the job - whither this is down to attitude or ability os open to debate. I personally think that often operators dont have a delicate enough touch - I have sent several off of jobs as they could just not do it.
This said I have worked with some really good drivers supplied by the developer, but this is usually where the developer is nominally interested.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
This is exactly my point Mole and Merc. The machining is your responsibility. So, if the driver isn't doing it right you have a word. On quarry jobs you usually don't get a choice of hiring in plant - as this makes no sense when the work is being paid for by a developer who probably has plant coming out of their ears as well as drivers who need the work. I've found that these drivers are often the best as they are more used to grading as opposed to digging footings. For, as you point out they have to keep topsoil clean for sale or reinstatement. Yes you get a few bad uns but generally I've found that drivers are usually quite interested (and therefore careful) to be doing something a little less mundane than they're used to. I'm sorry you're experience has been to the contrary.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
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?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Vulpes wrote: Quote:quote:The machining is your responsibility
Of course it is. But you constantly have to make balanced decisions based on how much you will piss off the driver if you ask him to re-machine areas, or whether it is better to accept a bit of machining that is not quite up to your preferred standards. We are not talking about David's obvious example of a toothed bucket vs a ditching bucket (the archs involved with that were clearly negligent), but much greyer areas.
The working relationship between the driver and the supervising arch is critical and you don't lightly jeapardize that by complaining to a manager in marginal cases. So you end up compromising, because in all liklihood you will end up with the same driver in a much worse mood.
I also have found quarry drivers to be very skilled, but that is the least important of the variables compared to their willingness to help you, and the orders they have been given by others that may be contradictory to yours. As usual in field archaeology it's responsibility with limited real power.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
At the risk of repeating myself, it is your responsibility. If your machining looks bad, you look bad, end of. If you are happy to sacrifice the quality of your work for a quiet life, fair play. But better that you address poor machnining then and there at the risk of confrontation than you have a consultant or curator come out after the event and ask for it to be remachined. Blaming the driver wouldn't cut any ice with me I'm afraid, or your managers if you hadn't bothered them with the problem. You would just end up looking incompetent, and the financial implications of redoing it would do little for your standing either.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:quote:Machining by the developer is usually substandard, whether under archaeological supervision or not.
My experience is that the quality of machining depends on the attitude and skill of the driver, which varies just as much when hired by the unit as when supplied by the developer.
On the issue of B-horizons and keeping material separate, that is a reasonable requirement and environmentally friendly as well (mixed material may have to be disposed of to landfill, while unmixed can be re-used, which is far more sustainable). However, the problem is real - but it can be anticipated and provisions put in place before the start for two-stage stripping if needed. I do this regularly, and I regard it as a key part of a consultant's job to anticipate these kinds of problems and address them.
True, the developer doesn't like it - but they can plan for it if warned in advance.
Posted by Mercenary: Quote:quote:Of course it is. But you constantly have to make balanced decisions based on how much you will piss off the driver if you ask him to re-machine areas, or whether it is better to accept a bit of machining that is not quite up to your preferred standards.
If you are making compromises based on how pissed off the driver will be, then any consequent effects on the quality of the archaeological job are your responsibility, not his or the developer's. Be ready to piss people off if that is what is needed. If the driver won't cooperate, tell the developer to replace him. The foreman will be pissed off too, but he will have to do it.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Interesting how some whose online demeanour is all compromise and reasonableness come over all dogmatic to have a good argument.  I love the way a general point about the benefits of developer provided drivers vs hired in drivers quickly becomes personal.[?]
Seriously though, as I've never taken flack about my standards of machining but have been criticised for wanting it to be too clean I'm not going to worry too much about 1mans and Vulpes claims that I'm ducking my responsibility and sacrificing standards. And Vulpes, given a choice between an easy life and doing what's best for the archaeology I ALWAYS do the latter. I would have thought that clear from the stuff I rant about.
I have by the way complained about drivers about 3 times. Only one was removed, and then only to another part of the site, where another arch had to deal with him. The other 2 I had to continue with, under a very dark cloud where it was like pulling teeth to get them to do anything to my standards. It doesn't take a genius to work out that unless the archeaology was being thoroughly trashed it was counter productive to try to get the driver replaced. With hired in drivers on the other hand you can choose individual drivers with whom you have a rapport, and where the balance of power is firmly in your favour.
ps. I really look forward to the day when I am criticised on site by Vulpes or 1man for either compromising standards or not taking responsibility for my actions.} 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Fine. Good to hear it. :face-approve: However, this seems a bit at odds with your earlier statement which started me off. :face-huh: Anyway, although I'm sure I won't have the last word. These are nonetheless mine on this thread. Nuff said.
|
sloppy,unprofessional and contrived?
