Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
13th March 2009, 04:19 PM
Data transfer would start by giving us (the HER) a clear indication of how many findspots, of what type and period were available in the area concerned - and verified indication of duplication - key so that we don't waste a lot of public money raking through info we already have, in a better, more standardised and higher quality framework from the PAS. Gary your figures run contrary to my understanding - a lot of people record with both you and the PAS - perhaps they aren't telling you?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
13th March 2009, 04:24 PM
It's inaccurate as a statement - you effectively said that finds don't point to sites - when they may well indicate a site, just as they may well not. Any HER worth it's salt is interested in findspots especially when they show up concentrations inidcating sites. Or was the rally by Water Newton just a coincidence of location? Wasn't intended as an insult,just my opinion. Got any more insights?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th March 2009, 04:27 PM
Quick search
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/ukdfddata/showcat...=20&sort=2
showed 60 records from Milton Keynes area
The recording of finds, if a finder records with PAS, they add that to the record. so these are hard figures.
I would ask if actually having this data on HERs is useful to DC? Would you use PAS data in determining a condition?
?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th March 2009, 04:34 PM
:0) insight two...
I fall fowl of grammer.. I should say
A find does not make a site, a concentration of finds might, but even then, it can be misleading (as you say), I would want to say this is definately a site - now of course a quantity of finds from the same location a good selection of pottery etc, would point to this, and which is why I want more recording, and recording to NGR level.. as it builds up a picture over time. However, even then, it would have to be a convincing site (or potential site first) - a few scattered roman coins would not get me searching for a villa. The Water Newton one did not find sites, it did find potential locations for sites. And I wish more would be done like that...
(actually if I found more than 3 roman coins in Scotland I might get searching for the site!)
I was a DC archaeologist myself, and i can't ever remember placing a condition based on a find spot.
?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
13th March 2009, 04:39 PM
Data is data David and if the data is of good quality and inidcates a possible site then yes, why not? Just one other predictive technique. Perhaps you do things differently up there, but down here we like to use all the information at our disposal, albeit critically. Plenty of RB sites have been picked up by metal detecting, thats why our MD chums love them so. I still can't get my head around why the data can't be passed on to the PAS as well though, but then it is Friday pm!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
13th March 2009, 04:46 PM
What?!
Quote:quote:i can't ever remember placing a condition based on a find spot
Did i flippin say I had? try reading before posting and not misrepresenting me. I mentioned concentrations and findspots!!! The again there could be an instance where a single find led to further investigation - if it were a typical grave good for example.
I can't think of an instance where I've required work solely on a findspot - but I would never rule it out. Besides the lowland zone is so well settled that you don't need any identified archaeological sites within an area to justify evaluation. Just because no one else has looked doesn't mean the site is empty.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
13th March 2009, 04:52 PM
Ooh, cover blown!!!
60 records from Milton Keynes area. Good, well I'm glad that the PAS and our dedicated FLO are doing such a marvellous job. Having just checked the HER, we have 531 individual records from the PAS and the work involved in transferring that info was minimal.
Not sure this UKDFD data represents good value for my paymasters. Perhaps you could convince me otherwise?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th March 2009, 05:04 PM
No I did not flippen say you did... I asked if you had used PAS data and also said I had not put conditions on a site based on a findspot... don't be so touchy vulpes. I too mention concentrations of findspots..
Listen Vulpes... give me a call and talk to me if you have a problem, it may be Friday, and we have all had tough weeks..
It is interesting that you found it minimal work to transfer the data, which will be heartening for some who don't. Thats good news. do you have HBSMR.
Where you are it is indeed easier... as the settlement density is higher. but like me, you would have had to justify the condition. I am not saying anything about the FLOs or the PAS.. my support for both is known, just as my frustration at people saying... RECORD RECORD you detectorist... then when they do the cry goes up... NOT THAT WAY... THIS WAY! At least in Scotland we have a simpler system, but in England and Wales, it must be remembered it is voluntary.. so perhaps a less aggressive approach?
?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
13th March 2009, 05:23 PM
If this is a pilot. For the sake of 60 records, I'd rather hang on at the mo and see what the victi... sorry, participants think. Or just send us a print out and a data licence and I'll add one a week for the next year. The PAS data is a doddle to add reallyas it is compliant with the necessary standards etc, we have a bespoke system running on MS Access, not a pricey one foisted on us by Exegesis - it's free to adapt and easily links to GIS. But I can't take much credit for it!! Goodnight and god bless
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
13th March 2009, 07:58 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by vulpes
Gary your figures run contrary to my understanding - a lot of people record with both you and the PAS - perhaps they aren't telling you?
Hi Vulpes.
Your jumping to conclusions again.
The people who record with UKDFD do so for a couple of reasons.
We have a faster turnaround of find ID's and they then give a copy of that to their FLO's. They also print out the record for their own personal records. Also detectorist like to share with others what they have found... they cant do that on the PAS database at the moment... but I hear its now being added to their new revamped database. Also remember UKDFD also take finds that PAS don't record.
The figures you have been given are correct figures.
Please explain to me your understanding of these figures and why you think they are wrong and I will try and answer them.
Many thanks
Gary
Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.
