I have to agree with Nick. I have no problem in principle with putting such
detailed information on the HER but I cannot see how in the near future I
would ever have the resources to document finds in such detail. I can just
about see how I can fund and index. For me this is the nub of the whole
conference. The horrid truth is that as specialists (with my other hat on I
am a medieval pottery specialist) we have to demonstrate that any time and
money spent on entering data will benefit enough HER users to make a
business case. Index level information can be used by schoolchildren but
because it tells you where to find out further infomation it is also of use
to specialists. It is true they will have to do some reading of reports but
no database (unless you set it up for yourself with a particular question in
mind) will ever tell you exactly what you want to know, no matter how
detailed it is.

Victoria Bryant MA MIFA
Historic Environment Record Manager
Worcestershire County Council Historic Environment and Archaeology Service
Woodbury Hall
University College Worcester
Henwick Grove
Worcester
WR2 6AJ
01905 855494



-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Boldrini [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH] e-conference - conservation


hello Ian

I am not sure I am following this correctly, but are you proposing
another unit of information to record this data about Investigative
conservation?

IF so I am wary. We have never had anyone ask for anything like this
type of information from any SMR/HER I have worked in. With that in mind
I would not favour adding this as an extra unit of record. It would be
extra work for no obvious need.

Now I realise there is a chicken and the egg issue here - no one asks
the question because we don't have the data, but we don't have the data
because no one asks the questions.

However, I am wary of recording stuff just because someone might like
to know it. In my view, the proposals so far suggest to me that this
could be dealt with by hanging a source off the Science data which
details the report info (assuming they get written) and that would do at
this stage. This could be searchable if eg the THReD standard for Source
types included a Science data report type (I have just made that up, it
would need to be thought through a bit more before actually being
implemented), though this assumes a report on the artefacts
investigation by this means gets back to the HER.

The other potential issues is the problem of eg finds indexing. As I
understand guidance on indexing, if you find 6 torcs you index one. But
to be able to record the data as I think you are suggesting, you would
need to create separate examples for each, if for example, some were
examined in this way and some weren't.

just some thoughts

best wishes

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

This email is personal. It is not authorised by or sent on behalf of
North Yorkshire
County Council, however, the Council has the right and does inspect
emails sent from
and to its computer system. This email is the sole responsibility of
the sender

>>> [log in to unmask] 26/01/2005 14:18:56 >>>
I am forwarding Ian Panter's message minus the heading because he is
out of
his office at meetings etc... until Friday.
D.


>Dear All,
>Gill Campbell has introduced the subject of developing thesauri and
>definitions relating to environmental work. I now want to turn the
debate
>to archaeological conservation.
>In some respects conservation is still viewed by many as a process
>concerned with the long term stabilisation of artefacts in order that
they
>can be stored or displayed within a museum environment. This is but
one
>aim of conservation, and what I want to focus on is what we can term
as
>"investigative conservation" - that is, a process that gathers
data about
>an artefact (what material/s were used, how it was manufactured,
possible
>reuses, etc. - in effect work that compliments and augments the work
of
>the artefact researcher) and the overall state of preservation of the

>artefact. In fact, given the requirements of PPG16 archaeology and the

>desire to rebury or preserve sites in situ, then the latter aspect is
of
>paramount importance. The layers of corrosion that obscure most metal

>artefacts may be of more importance than the artefact itself,
providing
>hints about past and current burial conditions, as well as data that
>should be considered if mitigation involves in situ preservation.
Angela
>Monckton has already alluded to the importance of characterising
>preservation in planning control using environmental evidence - to
this I
>would add artefactual evidence in order to obtain a more holistic
view.
>
>Therefore any artefact recording system needs to address a number of
>questions, and in developing the current standard, we have chosen to
>incorporate environmental and artefactual data in one unit, attempting
to
>find commonality between terms. I would be very interested to hear
from
>colleagues whether this approach is the right one, or whether we
should be
>looking at separating the two.
>Material definitions are covered by the British Museum materials
thesaurus
>which can be found at:
><http://www.mda.org.uk/bmmat/matintro.htm>www.mda.org.uk/bmmat/matintro.htm

>
>This thesaurus encompasses more terms than we would ever need for
>archaeological purposes, however, it does include broad terms such as

>copper alloy and iron for example.  Gill has already referred to
possible
>problems with the terms mineral-replaced or mineral preserved, which
are
>terms that we will need to incorporate into the thesaurus. Another
issue
>is with residues which may be found associated with pottery sherds and

>other artefacts. I don't think the current thesaurus covers this
>adequately and will need further consideration.
>
>The Midas unit "analytical  technique" can easily encompass both
>conservation and environmental archaeology - X-radiography is
included,
>and multi - elemental analysis would cover X-ray Fluorescence analyses

>(routinely used by conservators to identify surface decoration). These

>would be useful terms for researchers to search under.
>One category that isn't included is "stabilisation" - i.e
whether the
>artefact has been intentionally stabilised to ensure long term
stability.
>This unit would include freeze-drying, use of inhibitors for copper
>alloys, application of consolidants.  Therefore a separate Midas unit

>would need to be developed to encompass this.
>
>Finally I think more work will be necessary to develop an adequate
system
>to encompass state of preservation. - our categories don't rest
easily
>with what has been proposed already. However, I would like feedback on

>this and questions raised.
>
>Ian Panter
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
>Ian Panter
>Regional Advisor for Archaeological Science (Yorkshire)
>English Heritage
>37 Tanner Row
>York
>YO1 6WP
>Tel. 01904 601983
>Mob. 07967 706869
>Fax. 01904 601999
>email:[log in to unmask]
>

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.


**********************************************************************
Privileged/Confidential information and/or Copyright Material
may be contained in this email.  The information and Material
is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only.

If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for
delivering it to the intended addressee(s), you may not copy or
deliver it to anyone else or use it in any unauthorised manner.
To do so is prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you receive this
email by mistake, advise the sender immediately by using the
reply facility in your email software.

Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Worcestershire County
Council.

Although this email and attachments are believed to be free of any
virus or other defects which might affect any computer or IT systems
into which they are received, no responsibility is accepted by
Worcestershire County Council for any loss or damage arising in any
way from the receipt or use thereof.

**********************************************************************