 |
 |
I agree with much of what Paul says but actually SMRs are not free standing units - they are (mostly) part of local authorities which ought to behave responsibly in the interests of their local communities. For me, neither "publish and be damned" nor excesive secrecy meet this criteria. As a CAO with responsibilities both for the SMR and planning/conservation I am interested in the potential for our HLF bid promoting community interest in conservation and linking to our countyside management projects. As Paul says it is almost inevitable that damage will occur somewhere, sometime - this is why the situation needs monitoring and the positive benefits measuring as well as the damage cases. How many irresponsible detectorists will be put off by landowners who now want to protect "their" site because their children have learnt about it in a school project? My big concern is that without a nationally agreed policy the first serious case to reach the press/Chief Execs Office will lead to the removal of this data from the web before we can garner the positive benefits. Sandy Kidd Senior Archaeological Officer (Bucks CC) Tel:01296-382927 > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Cuming [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 15:27 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: site protection vs. access to information > > As Martin says, the issue of whether to put information on the web is one > of > information publication, not information accessibility. No-one is obliged > to > put data on the web and we are all free to choose whether to do so at 4,6 > or > 8 figs as we wish. For me a major issue is whether or not SMRs want to be > isolated even among other archaeologists by publishing information that > they > believe likely to endanger sites. Certainly our objectives are not the > same > as those of contractors and consultants but they are also not the same as > other curators even within our own organisations. SMR officers have an > implicit duty not only to make information available, but also to actively > promote it, development control archaeologists do not. Therefore > conceivably > we could be opposed by every other archaeologist in a region and yet still > publish our information in the knowledge that we are doing our job in a > perfectly responsible way. But who would be brave enough? It is true that > much of this information is available elsewhere but we are bringing it > together, repackaging it so that anyone can understand it, delivering it > to > every would-be vandal's home and advertising the fact. To me it seems > almost > certain that if SMRs go on the internet with accurate location data then > sites WILL be damaged that would not otherwise have been. We should > acknowledge this and as Sandy suggests we should prepare our defence in > advance and make our case. I don't think that just claiming that the info > is > out there anyway will really cut much ice in the aftermath of a savaged > SAM > or two. > > Paul > > -----Original Message----- > From: Newman, Martin [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 14 June 2002 14:39 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: site protection vs. access to information > > > There is a difference between what you choose to disseminate (say by > making > an SMR available over the web) and what you have to divulge if asked for, > Paul's presentation to the user group next week may cover some of this > area. > > > Martin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Sydes [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 13 June 2002 16:03 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: site protection vs. access to information > > > > That's a bit hLocal Government covered by access to information > legislation. > > End of debate. arsh David! > ;-( > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Evans [ mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ] > Sent: 13 June 2002 14:41 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: site protection vs. access to information > > > > > Most SMRs are local Government > > > Thank you > David Evans > Environment and Conservation > > >>> [log in to unmask] 13/06/2002 14:10:27 >>> > As this topic is causing some concern perhaps there ought to be an agreed > ALGAO position (ideally with EH backing) which would help individual SMRs > defend their position? Something for the ALGAO SMR Committee? > > Sandy Kidd > Senior Archaeological Officer (Bucks CC) > Tel:01296-382927 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Wood [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:39 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: site protection vs. access to information > > > > I have followed this discussion with a slight sense of disbelief. This > was > > very topical 10 or more years ago but the world has simply moved on - or > I > > > thought it had! > > > > This genie was out of the bottle long ago. People who want to find > > archaeological sites and monuments have no difficulty doing so. Many of > > them have been marked on OS maps for many years. Or they can get the > > information easily from the NMRs or SMRs. With the modern requirements > for > > freedom of information, I don't think that we could justify withholding > > information. The NMRS is about to back its online records, which offer > full > > information, with online mapping. I hope we will follow suit in due > course. > > > > > > In Humberside, in the early 1980s, I remember there was the full listing > of > > sites published by Loughlin and Miller. I also remember metal > detectorists > > telling me that they believed the grid references had been deliberately > > messed up to confuse them! This was not actually the case. > > > > No, the only answer is public education and raised awareness of they > should > > not damage sites, and why sites are of value to everyone, not just > > archaeologists. > > > > John Wood > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > John Wood > > Inverness > > > > This is a personal, not an official communication, and any opinions > > expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer. It is > > confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) > > only. You should not disclose its contents to any other person. If you > > are not the intended recipient please notify the sender named above > > immediately. > > > **** Buckinghamshire County Council E-mail Disclaimer **** > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential > and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity > to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended > recipient, the use of the information by disclosure, copying > or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have > received this email in error please notify the system manager > at [log in to unmask] > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been > swept by MailSweeper for the presence of computer viruses. > > **** End of Disclaimer ********************************************* > > > > ********************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it from South > Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. If you have received this email in error > please notify the South Gloucestershire Council > Postmaster at the address below. > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has > been swept for the presence of computer viruses. > > [log in to unmask] > ********************************************************************** > > > ********************************************************************** > The views and comments expressed in this email are confidential to the > recipients > and should not be passed on to others without permission. This email > message > does > not necessarily express the views of Bath & North East Somerset Council > and > should > be considered personal unless there is a specific statement to the > contrary. > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for > all > > known viruses by the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. > > Making Bath & North East Somerset a better place to Live, Work and Visit. > ********************************************************************** **** Buckinghamshire County Council E-mail Disclaimer **** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, the use of the information by disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager at [log in to unmask] This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MailSweeper for the presence of computer viruses. **** End of Disclaimer *********************************************