Hello folks

Having been on the periphery of this working group I have not been
privy to all the discussion. However, I am assuming that this data has
been set up with the advice of the relevant specialists and I assume
would suit their purposes. Another issue is whether the SMR/HER
community would like to see any other data included in Dominique's
proposed list, to suit their aims.

The only one I can think of might be something like " Assessment of
importance" - how key an assemblage is this in local, regional, national
terms. This might be something that changes over time, but would be
useful in helping to focus attention on key data

any thoughts?



best wishes

Nick Boldrini
Historic Environment Record Officer
Heritage Section
Countryside Service
North Yorkshire County Council
Direct Dial (01609) 532331

North Yorkshire County Council has the right
and does inspect E-Government mails sent
from and to its computer system.

>>> [log in to unmask] 17/01/2005 11:00:10 >>>
e-conference on Archaeological Science Data and the SMR/HER

Findings and potential recommendations of the workgroup:

For this discussion, we shall assume that adding archaeological
science
data to the SMR/HER is desirable for a variety of reasons (see file
store:
Jacqui Huntley's background document and VB main text for two good
arguments). I am well aware from past experience that the whole
discussion
could become swamped in individuals' views as to whether the data are
wanted in the SMR. The workgroup agreed early on that including more
archaeological science data on the SMR is not only desirable but
necessary.
Here I am presenting the findings and potential recommendations of the
work
group regarding the entry of archaeological science data in the
SMR/HER.

The potential recommendations relate to four main areas: where on the
SMR
database should the data be entered, the level of details of the data,
the
mechanism for ensuring that the information reaches the SMR officer and
the
implementation of these recommendations.

1. We agreed that the data should be entered in the event area or its
equivalent under a general field called object type (artefact/ecofact).
The
terms (e.g. pot, mammal remains etc...) in this field are crucial of
course
and have been the subject of most of the workgroup's discussions. They
have
been based as far as possible on existing lists of terms and are
discussed
by subsequent key contributors (see: Victoria Bryant, Gill Campbell and
Ian
Panter's contributions).

2. The level of details: a number of fields have been identified which
are
suitable for all the object types. These are

Material,
State (modification of state) e.g. preservation,
Assemblage size,
Period
Investigative technique
Recovery method
Storage location
Reference
Notes

For very preliminary examples of how this is going to be used, see arch
sci
DdM table 1-05 in the file store:
<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/FISH/>http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/FISH/

Some of these fields are also discussed in greater details by
subsequent
key contributors.

3.  Mechanism for ensuring that the information reaches the SMR
officer.
Three steps were identified for the information to get from the field
to
the SMR:

    * the curator's brief or specifications (or the standards document
referred to for specifications) will include a line requiring that
specialists fill the fields identified above.
    * the contractor commissions specialists as usual including this
requirement which becomes part of the specialist's report. Then the
contractor includes the specialist's report in the site report and
send
this to the SMR as usual.
    * the SMR officer is able to enter the data fairly swiftly.

4. Implementation:
The recommendations above including the thesauri and lists of terms to
be
used will be included in the next edition of the SMR/HER manual
Informing
the future of the past and MIDAS 2. They will also be advertised at a
future HER forum and other meetings.

Other topics have been discussed and will be dealt with by subsequent
key
contributors: the appropriate terms and their definition and the
thorny
question of the backlog.  The addition of fields and/or modules on
individual SMRs has been considered but was deemed to be a topic that
can
be dealt with once the basic premises have been established.

What do you think?
Dominique




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominique de Moulins (Dr.)
English Heritage Archaeological Science Advisor for the South-East
Institute of Archaeology
31-34 Gordon Square
London WCIH OPY
tel: 020 7679 1539
mobile: 07970541897

WARNING

This E-mail and any attachments may contain information that is confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the view of the Council.

North Yorkshire County Council.