Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
If there was the money (e.g. from a 0.25% or less levy on commercial projects), it could be continuously updated and reassessed on an online version - actually since it would significantly reduce the costs of producing DBAs it would easily pay for itself, but I've noticed British archaeology doesn't go for joined-up thinking so it'll never happen... :face-crying:
On a slightly different tack, there must be plenty of older gits like myself kicking around with vast knowledge of the archaeology of limited areas who are going to go our graves with it still in our heads cos no one's ever going to finance it actually getting written down - I've been upsetting the hell out of one of the independent consultants we work with by pointing out all the archaeology that got missed out in the ES for a major infrastructure project, he should have come and asked... }
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
wikiregional research designs anybody?.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
P Prentice Wrote:wikiregional research designs anybody?.
SCARF does that for Scotland- Anyone working in Scottish Archaeology OR with an Interest in Scottish archaeology OR just has something to add can edit the research framework.
http://www.scottishheritagehub.com/
I personally think its pretty cool.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
can't get on the site currently, think you started a rush...
I'd be more interested in a rather more detailed synthesis than research designs normally offer - and none of my current/ongoing research interests are covered by any of the existing research designs for any of the counties I work in [which is not unreasonable since they're my interests and I wasn't consulted], e.g. going back to the 'regional differences' or whatever-it-was-called thread, can't ever recall 'undated' pits ever getting a single line in any regional/national research agenda....research agendas unfortunately aren't well designed to cope with what actually comes out of the ground, oiks like me further down the food-chain spotting things in the data, or rarer-than-hens-teeth sites (which actually seem to pop-up quite often) which can only be viewed on a national/international scale and can't be agendad for...and then of course there's the unique ones, can't recall anything in any research agendas re. digging up English kings....
Sorry, I'm rambling, long day playing in the dust, want some RAIN!
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Doug Wrote:SCARF does that for Scotland- Anyone working in Scottish Archaeology OR with an Interest in Scottish archaeology OR just has something to add can edit the research framework.
http://www.scottishheritagehub.com/
I personally think its pretty cool.
Aha, cracked it! - yeah, that's cool! Like all the links :face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Dinosaur Wrote:Aha, cracked it! - yeah, that's cool! Like all the links :face-approve:
tis indeed pretty cool. maybe we will get regional versions if we put some pressure on?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Dinosaur Wrote:I'd be more interested in a rather more detailed synthesis than research designs normally offer - and none of my current/ongoing research interests are covered by any of the existing research designs for any of the counties I work in
.............. can't ever recall 'undated' pits ever getting a single line in any regional/national research agenda....research agendas unfortunately aren't well designed to cope with what actually comes out of the ground, oiks like me further down the food-chain spotting things in the data....
then why dont you write the detailed synthesis you want? as a contributor to regional research frameworks i can honestly say that by the time you have written a version and waited for the editors to produce the goods you could write a completetly different one using the newest data available. its bloody endless.......
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
P Prentice Wrote:then why dont you write the detailed synthesis you want?
Sadly too busy earning a crust currently - hence the suggestion that it should be costed into commercial specs, even a fraction of a percent could probably finance such an enterprise?
Some financing of publishing data that 'falls through the cracks' would be good too - think I've mentioned on here before we (unofficially) stuck together all the AP, geophysics, excavated etc multi-period data for the hinterland of a northern RB small town and came up with a whole that was considerably more than the sum of the parts - BUT its not part of any project and there's no funds to work it up to a publishable form or even licence some of the data we used...since most of the data isn't ours we can't even give the local HER a digital copy, not that it'd be easily compatible with their system anyway
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Dinosaur Wrote:Sadly too busy earning a crust currently - hence the suggestion that it should be costed into commercial specs, even a fraction of a percent could probably finance such an enterprise?
Some financing of publishing data that 'falls through the cracks' would be good too - think I've mentioned on here before we (unofficially) stuck together all the AP, geophysics, excavated etc multi-period data for the hinterland of a northern RB small town and came up with a whole that was considerably more than the sum of the parts - BUT its not part of any project and there's no funds to work it up to a publishable form or even licence some of the data we used...since most of the data isn't ours we can't even give the local HER a digital copy, not that it'd be easily compatible with their system anyway
if I am not mistaken EH gives out grants or at least use too- I know budget cuts took 1/3 of the money and maybe they will end it soon but
"Activities that strengthen the ability of the sector to reduce or avoid risk to the historic environment by understanding, managing and conserving" seems like what you are talking about would qualify. I could be wrong but there seems to be some money around for this sort of stuff.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/profe...ng/grants/
If anyone wants help writing proposals for such a project I would be on board.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2011
I can't see any reason for points 1-3. I think we should keep national bodies for each of the nations archaeology, but try and improve co-operation/communication. Moving from Scotland to England, after fifteen years north of the Border makes you realise how little each country knows of the other. 2) Local authorities are the best placed (however annoying) to take local planning decisions and most archaeology is the result of local planning, at least that restricts the inevitable bad practice to a small area. 3) Seems a little unfair on businesses that most people work for. I started in the days before commercial archaeology and it was pretty crap, professional well run profitable developer funded units have transformed the profession 4) Is good, 5) Some people don't like licences, only tv's, dogs, drivers and married people need licences. Professionals are well trained. 6) Education is good, but as I think Andrew Nevell said it never hurts to think about what your training people for. Everyone should get as much education as they can, only the English think too much education is a bad thing.
