 |
 |
Thanks to Rebecca, Tom, Anne and Jason for your responses. I guess the matter comes down to how prepared SMRs are to be left out on a limb. If we publish good site locations and a site is damaged I would certainly feel rather exposed if the local organisations were able to say 'we warned the SMR against this but they ignored us'. On the other hand their perspective is not the same as ours as they have a lesser obligation to make information available. I'm sure I'm not alone in recognising that when I give talks to local groups, Young Archaeologists Club etc, the point at which they light up is when you invite them to look at the laptop to see what archaeology is in the vicinity of where they live. I think it would be a tragedy if that sense of excitement was lost because we're over worried about a few irresponsible people damaging sites. Secrecy is pretty endemic in this country at the best of times, must we always move at the pace of the slowest? depressed of Maidstone. -----Original Message----- From: Roseff, Rebecca [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 11 June 2002 08:59 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: site protection vv access to information Prior to our HLF bid we held three Focus Group sessions with professionals, general public and the education sector. The issue of security of sites was discussed in great detail in all three meetings - there were those for and those against, equally weighted on each side with valid arguments. My own feeling coming out of this is that it is unresolvable. If you publish, sites are at risk, if you dont publish information is exclusive and against the spirit of freedom of information and access for everyone. We are going to put the SMR on line, but Roman sites and cropmark sites will have less exact grid references than others, and there will be a 'health warning' running along each page - along the lines of "these sites are on private land and not open to the general public unless otherwise stated". Rebecca Herefordshire SMR > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Cuming [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 10 June 2002 14:57 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: site protection vv access to information > > Dear all, > > like many of you we are in the process of designing a HLF bid to expand > access to the Kent SMR. Clearly 'accessibility' has various different > aspects relating to physical and intellectual access to the information. I > know that many SMRs are creating interpretive layers, parish summaries, > educational modules etc to help interpret SMR information for a > non-specialist audience but it has always seemed to me that this still > involves 'professionals' getting between the public and SMR information. > To > an extent this is certainly necessary to help the non-specialist audience > understand the often technical and unwieldy content of the average SMR and > receive that information in a useful format and we will also be doing > this. > To provide truly expanded access to the SMR, however, I believe it is > really > necessary to permit users to access the full database, even if it only > contains core fields possibly cleaned to aid understanding. Inevitably > this > also involves permitting the website users to access the grid references > of > sites even if only given to the nearest, say 100m. In recent discussions, > however, several of our local archaeologists, both professional and > amateur, > have expressed concern regarding the threat to archaeological sites posed > by > releasing grid references. My own philosophy tends toward 'publish and be > damned' but I would like to ask what approach other SMRs who may have be > considering putting the database on the web intend to take. I don't > believe > that releasing information located to the nearest km is really permitting > access to the SMR. > > During the period that HLF have made funds available to SMRs I haven't > really heard this fairly fundamental debate take place and yet presumably > we > are the ones who will get the flak when sites get raided/ploughed > following > the release of their location on the web or through other means. SMRs with > Portable Antiquities information have additional problems but the issue is > clearly more general than that. I think that releasing the SMR on the > internet with the avowed hope that Joe Public will use it is not the same > as > permitting the comparatively few researchers who may be aware of its > existince to come and view it in the office. Publishing and marketing the > SMR in the global arena of the internet is certainly taking us into a new > era and it this step that gives many archaeologists real cause for > concern. > > Has anyone else had discussions on this with their local units/consultants > etc and what conclusions were reached? > > regards, > > Paul Cuming > Kent County Council