Dear all,

Not sure why an assessment of importance "could not be
usefully expressed here".  If Victoria is already putting it into her
database, and HBSMR set up a tab under Events with fields for standard
info, then why not include assessment of importance?  We all deal with
interpretation fields (Monument type for one), and the sequence of
changes in interpretation can be important in assessing the site or its
management.  Anyway, many (perhaps most) arch sci data are from single
collection events with no other chance to recover additional information
(other than re-analysis), so after a period of time, their assessment of
importance becomes more or less fixed.

cheers,
Neil


>>> [log in to unmask] 17/01/2005 14:57:41 >>>
Yes all relevant specialists have been involved and have been notified
of
this e-conference (details of participants to the workshops in the
file
store in notes on archaeological science workshops).

Assessment of importance: We debated this point long and hard and
decided
that the potential, because of its changeable character, could not be
usefully expressed here. Instead we would rely on assemblage size (see
table, scale 1-3) although it was fully realised that size is not the
answer to that question but simply a pointer.

Dominique



At 14:15 17/01/2005, you wrote:
>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.

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.