The following sequence of events is "hypothetical" and couldn't possibly =
occur in the real world, or could they...
 
There are two hypothetical actors in the sequence of events, one called =
"PI" and another called "Supervisor."
 
1. January: PI is told by Supervisor to send an archaeological tech. to =
do a historic resources survey for a proposed road realignment.  A =
thirty to forty resource historic district is anticipated.  PI balks, =
but tech is sent anyway.  Tech shoots a almost a dozen rolls of film on =
an autofocus fixed lense camera -- to compensate for tall buildings, the =
camera is rotated. No useful shots are returned and survey forms are =
incompletely filled-out. PI goes out on 18 degree winter day to redo =
entire survey.  Supervisor's response: It all worked out in the end.
 
2. June: PI does some background work for a Phase I/II project bid at a =
known prehistoric site.  Although PI technically is the firm's =
historical archaeologist, PI has successfully done prehistoric work, =
too.  See, PI is an archaeologist, not just a historical archaeologist.  =
PI requests to handle project if awarded because other PIs in company =
are swamped.  Supervisor's response: "I don't want to make the project a =
guinea pig for your first prehistoric work here."
 
3. July: Field director enters PI's office and asks, "Where do you want =
us to dig?"  The project: Phase II testing of an historical =
archaeological site.  One year earlier, PI wrote a Phase II workplan =
detailing research (deeds, taxes, etc.) to determine type of site before =
additional testing.  PI is told crew must go out immediately, despite =
Supervisor's knowledge for several weeks of impending work and no prior =
notification to PI.  Supervisor's response: It all worked out.
 
4. September: PI writes a Phase II report covering work at a historical =
urban farmstead.  What is written is that a stone foundation excavated =
appears to predate the known 1870 to 1930 occupation of the site.  What =
goes out to client: "The foundation may represent a... barn... The =
presence of black fill in the vicinity of the wall lends credence to the =
interpretation that it is a remnant of a barn that burned down."  =
"Hypothetical" fact 1: the foundation is skewed at an angle different =
from all other contemporaneous cultural features (1870-1930 house ruins, =
roads, etc.).  Hypothetical fact 2: the purported burned barn was =
located ca. 20 feet from the house that remained occupied since 1870.  A =
newspaper clipping does note a barn burned on the property in the 1890s, =
however, the property covers 4 acres and has evidence of agricultural =
outbuildings far to the west of the house.  PI's hypothetical state of =
mind: confused.  Supervisor's reply: The newspaper article said there =
was a barn, so there was a barn.
 
5. September: PI writes a Phase I/II report for a rural historical =
archaeological site.  Turns report over to Supervisor and leaves to take =
care of some critical work for dissertation.  PI returns to find a bound =
copy of the report.  Funny, it's not the same report PI wrote.  All of =
the technical references to "historical" and "historical archaeology" =
have been changed to "historic." An entire section of background =
historical archaeology (previous work in region, significance of similar =
sites) has been cut.  The hypothetical 18 page prehistoric background, =
however, remains intact despite the fact the survey identified no =
prehistoric sites.
 
I'm just curious to learn what the responses from other people out there =
would be if they were confronted by the hypothetical sequence of events =
(and perhaps, more) illustrated above.  Now we all know that this =
couldn't possibly happen in the real world, but if it did...