Right…  so let me recap..  just so I get this right.

 

 

Jan says

 

“As manager of a PAS team as well as working in the HER I have to say that data from UKDFD would be extremely low on any list of HER priorities here given the inadequate location information as well as the other data standards and duplication issues. I would also regard data about finds that had not been shown to the PAS as potentially unreliable at source.“

 

You seem to know more than me…  can you explain what the locational data is?  I think people might also be offended at the term potentially unreliable…  we all know of PAS howlers as well.    I take it that although the information is on offer..  you are refusing it…. 

 

Andrew seems to be the only one suggesting that we get off our data compliant high horse and take information that is offered, rather than dismiss it out of hand based on …  well…  what exactly?   How do you know what is available unless you ask? 

 

Let us not forget the start of the PAS, when a large percentage of data was Parish Only, it has increased..  but after time..  so would this, unless it is basically told by HERs…  no thanks… we don’t want it…   

 

Here are the percentages from PAS report 2000 of parish level data

Dorset and Somerset 17

Hampshire 49.7

Kent 9.9

Norfolk

North Lincolnshire 50.8

North West 31.4

Northamptonshire 29.1

Suffolk 7.8

Wales 57.1

West Midlands 59.9

Yorkshire 15.5

 

I asked earlier on what sort of data would be a minimum requirement :  NGRs  were important..  (I have explained that Parish data is of little use in development control, but for studies it is still useful – you don’t have to accept it..  but what did HERs do with PAS parish data?  Was that ignored too?)

 

The reply from Michael lewis is interesting as well..

 

“Only finds recorded on databases which are made available to HERs can be regarded as being responsibly recorded.”

 

By definition then UKDFD  who are offering the data to the HERs are responsible.

 

 

I am aware of universities and contacting archaeology units who use UKDFD as another research tool.

 

 

“The PAS believes that many finders who record with the UKDFD are also recording with the PAS anyway. In fact many finds recorded on the UKDFD are based on descriptions created by our Finds Liaison Officers (FLOs), sometimes with little acknowledgement. We have asked the UKDFD whether they can tell us how many finds are also recorded with the PAS, but they have been unable to provide this information.”

 

That is quite a accusation, which if true ,is quite worrying…  is it possible to point out some of those.  I know that UKDFD have helped PAS in a few misidentifications as well.   I expect this help has been credited. 

 

“The FLOs who use the PAS database are all trained to record in a consistent manner and adopt the highest recording standards. They are supported by a team of Finds Advisers (period specialists) who train them in finds identification and recording, and provide additional expertise.”

 

Very true, though most people are specialist in particular periods and types of finds…  just as many detectorists are.  Indeed, I have learned much about specific artefacts from detectorists, and their use as dating typologies. 

 

“The PAS database conforms with a variety of data standards: MIDAS XML which has been formulated by the Forum for Information Standards in Heritage; English Heritage/MDA object thesaurus; an internally formulated materials thesaurus; English Heritage period list; English Heritage building material thesaurus. The PAS database is currently being redeveloped and will provide access to webservices for easy integration with third parties.”

 

Then the PAS has to, being a governmental and govt funded organisation, with a large budget (fortunately rescued from a recent fate)  The UKDFD is unfunded – but still provides a service.  And I find it heartening that they are now wanting to offer the data to HERs. 

 

I myself am working on a system for more accurate recording, and then later obfuscation of locational data to 4 fig for ‘public consumption’  this is a process though, and like the PAS 10 years ago, is one that needs more support. 

 

The question stands, is there one HER that is willing to say, yes, we will accept this data, and make comment based on what we see, rather than what is guessed.

 

I cannot help but see assumption, and guesswork torpedoing an opportunity to gain more useful information. 

 

I have also asked for current records to be included once the technical details of the system have been worked out.

 

Crispen does ask for technical data for transfer, and is quite right to.   However, to expect an unfunded volunteer database to provide a dataset that is of a standard that most archaeological companies do not provide, is odd….    I see data on offer, and more coming…  better data, better locations, better cooperation, better relations… but it takes a step forward, not a closed door.  How else will they provide more data if teh door is slammed in the face? 

 

If the answer is a resounding NO..  to the information on offer, there surely any suggestion of being irresponsible can no longer be levelled at the UKDFD?  

 

Very interesting this.