I have been working here in the Republic of Georgia as a Cultural Heritage
Field Co-ordinator on a major pipeline project since 2002 ( a job that was
originally posted on Britarch, as it happens). As a small team of 3 expats
and six Georgian archaeologists and the Georgian State Archaeology and
Monuments Departments we have been responsible for ensuring minimal impacts
on known archaeological and monuments sites and developing mitigation
measures where late finds have occurred during construction.
One dimension of the work is "capacity building", or assisting the State
Archaeology and Monuments Departments, largely starved of funding over the
last 10 years, to begin to adopt standards of International Best Practice.
To this end I have proposed initiating an embryonic GIS-based SMR to be
further developed by the two bodies, hopefully based on the model widely
used across the UK by local government and archaeological trusts. (I should
add that I have a bit of experience in this field, having worked in this
capacity over the last 5 years in UK Local Government and an academic
institution). This would clearly have to be adapted to suit the
requirements of the governments bodies here.
I would be grateful if other subscribers (particularly SMR officers) could
provide advice re. current best practice in database structure (ie number
and type of fields deemed neccesary or minimally appropriate) or let me
know if there are any EH guidelines on SMR structure - or any other
thoughts on the matter.