Martin

I am sending you the first part of my comments on this document but I have some more. I have not had time to type them all up today so I shall send them to you on Monday. I thought I had better let you see what is ready now.

Mark Bennet

I have the following comments on this document.

The Contents Page
The page numbers on the content pages for Sections, Figures and tables did not correspond to the correct pages of the document on the copy that I printed out. This may be because of the conversion of the document from the format it was received into MSWord ver.6.0a.

2.1 Background
I note that there is some discussion of the Lord Renfrew's proposed amendment to the Culture and Recreation Bill here. The survey is of English SMRs. Is it worth adding a paragraph to talk about the SMRs in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland which presumably be affected by any government legislation but are not included in this survey? To what extent would they affect these figures? How many SMRs are there? Is it appropriate in this document to suggest that they might wish to conduct their own surveys?

3.1 Distribution and return
In para 2 it says that 'numbers of SMR replying to each question can be found in Appendix 6.' This is not true, these figures are not explicitly given although it is possible to work them out in some cases. It would be useful if these figures were given.

3.2 SMR Content
Line 2 'therefor' should be 'therefore'.

Fig.4
I have a general comment on the graphs. They do sometimes lose part of the text on the x axis and sometimes the text becomes squashed into the space allotted to it (for example, Figs 8, 10, and titles missing on Fig.18).

3.2.1.2.1
'Statues' should read 'Statuses' in title.

The results state that 11% of SMRs record Protected Wreck status (NB in appendix 6 this is recorded as 10%), and that this is 60% of those SMRs with Protected Wrecks off their coastline. If you check the figures in Appendix 6 it states that 11 SMRs record Protected Wreck status out of 15 SMRs with protected wrecks in their area. This is 73.3% not 60%. This needs correcting.

Fig.7
The titles on the x any y axes have been transposed so that the graph makes no sense in its present format.

3.2.1.2.2
'Statues' should read 'Statuses' in title.

Table 4
Note 2 states that the 5% of SMRs that record Protected Wreck Status on GIS is ' 67% of those SMRs with protected Wrecks off their coastline'. This is an error. Again by checking appendix 6 it can be seen that the correct figure is 5 out of 15 SMRs or 33.3%.

Fig.9
'Heald' should read 'Held'.

3.3.1 Database
HBSMR. Fig.11
The record as shown is of a monument within the Unitary Authority of Rhossili, Swansea which is, at the same time, also within the District of Daventry, Northamptonshire. While the description in the monument record may explain this anomaly (although I am not sure how) it might be better to use, as an illustration, a record which has no such anomaly. It is not a very good advert for the accuracy of the NMR as it stands.

In the concluding paragraph of this section it is stated that 'Access 2 and earlier versions are no longer supported by Access'. This should read '. . . no longer supported by MicroSoft'.

The same paragraph continues 'Between 7% and 15% of SMRs are possibly using obsolete software.' This sentence has been expanded in the Conclusions (1.1) to say that these SMRs are using unsupported versions of database packages. I would take issue with this statement. Just because the manufacturer of a software product is no longer providing support you cannot make the assumption that within the SMR the software is unsupported. The SMR may get in-house support for the software. I think this statement needs clarifying.

3.3.3 Collections Management
CALM. 'it is used by 10 are museums in the UK' should read 'it is used by 10 museums in the UK'.

4.1.1
'Comparisons can be made of the type' should read 'Comparisons can be made between the type'.

4.1.1.1
Table 6
'Outsorced' should read 'outsourced'.
'Change since 1994' should read 'Change since 1998'. The change for National Bodies since 1998 should be +2 not +1.

Fig.18
Some x axis titles missing, also National Bodies would be better than National Bobies.

The statement that 'There has been a 41% increase over the last 4 years, on the 81 SMRs identified by the Barker report.' is incorrect it is 24.7%! from 81 to 101.

4.1.1.2 Type of Record
Fig.19
The figure has the same title as Fig.18. The graph is a disaster, it should derive from table 7 but it does not. It needs redoing. National Bobies reappear here too.

4.1.2 Types of Monument recorded
The statement that 'direct parallels can be drawn' with the Baker report is true only for some of the monument types. The wording of the relevant questions in the two questionnaires is subtly different. Baker asked 'Do you record data on the following topics/subjects (in practice)?'; this present questionnaire asked 'Other than traditional archaeology, which of the following does the SMR hold records for?'. Thus for place-name it would be perfectly possible to answer yes to Baker's question and no in the present questionnaire, if (for example) an SMR recorded place-name evidence in their monument records but did not record specific place-name records. I am sure that the 35% drop in SMRs recording place-name between 1998 and 2002 is due, in part, to this.

In addition, in this section the reliance on percentages may lead to a false interpretation. If you look at the actual numbers of SMRs that are recording these monument types in 1998 and 2002 there are some anomalies. For place-name (again) the numbers are 63 SMRs recording them in 1998 and 46 SMRs in 2002 (numbers taken from appendix 6 and the Baker report). I realise that it is possible that not all the SMRs that responded in 1998 also responded in 2002 but surely the vast majority of them did. So this is a drop of 17 SMRs despite the larger number of returns in 2002. Does this mean that 17 SMRs are not only no longer recording place-name but have also purged their SMR of all records of place-name held in 1998? To me it suggests that it is not possible to draw parallels between the two questionnaires at least for place-name.

There are also drops in the actual numbers of SMRs recording Industrial Archaeology (from 73 to 64 a drop of 9 SMRs), Maritime Archaeology (from 32 to 24 a drop of 8 SMRs) and Historic Landscape (from 44 to 39 a drop of 5 SMRs). These monument types too should be treated with some circumspection when comparing the results in 1998 and 2002.

TO BE CONTINUED


********************************************************************************
Note: We are a Microsoft Office site. Our base version is 4.3. Please make sure
that files you send can be read in this format.

Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure,
modification, distribution and/or publication of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited save unless expressly authorised by the sender.

The information contained in this message is intended for the named
recipients only. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you
are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee,
you may not copy, distribute or take action in reliance on it.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender(s)
immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete as soon as possible
the message from your computer.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************