Baldlygo
New Member
Posts:60
 | | 25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM | | | To help with the interpretation of archaeological data it is very important that the data/information is widely and freely available for internet search.
I am also keen on publishing all data with a reliability factor. Conventional publications naturally concentrate on intepretation of the most obvious features and discoveries and at the same time those unclear or unknown features are usually ignored. I think good GIS data could help explain some of these lesser known features but only if the full data is included in the source data sets. | | | |
|
danv
New Member
Posts:2
| | 25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM | | | Hi - here is my story and some reflections on the current situation with respect to GIS and UK field archaeology
I have many years of archaeological fieldwork experience in eastern England. Several years ago I left archaeology and took up a GIS post with the local authority. My intention was to gain GIS experience with a view to eventually returning to archaeology and applying my new skills. Now that I have a couple of years of good GIS experience and training under my belt I feel I am in a position to make some general observations of the current situation .
In my view the two key reasons for the minimal adoption of GIS by UK archaelogists are as follows:
The cost: the implementation of a GIS is a very costly undertaking both in terms of hardware/software startup costs and the initial and ongoing training of personel who will use the system.
Few of the field archaeologists that I know personally have a clear understanding of what a GIS could do for them both in terms of data management and analysis.
While the first obstacle is hard to tackle head-on, I feel that addressing the second is the route to making progress by persuading archaeologists to at least start thinking about GIS. I feel that what is needed now are some good small and medium sized exemplar projects that demonstrate how GIS technology could make the business of doing field archaeology more efficent and productive. Such exemplar projects would need to highlight:
The importance of Linking geographic and attribute data for the puposes of analysis; this is of course the essence of a GIS and the importance of this is something which I think many archaeologists have yet to grasp.
Efficent data handling and processing - e.g. rapid processing of GPS data; rapid production of graphics and illustrations for reports based on querys etc etc.
Of course there is a lot more to it than that - but these are the things that strike me as most important in the first instance.
It is my intention to get (a modestly sized) ball rolling in this direction by offering to assist my local unit with a small project. I will keep this forum informed of my progress.
Danny Voisey
Norfolk County Council | | | |
|
dianah
New Member
Posts:12
| | 25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM | | | Hi Danv
Don't Norfolk County Council have a UAD project (Urban Archaeological Database) in production? This is using GIS MapInfo. Perhaps the use of GIS is also not widely discussed because this whole topic is not understood and the thought is that people are not interested?
Diana
PS - great to see how this discussion strand has taken off! | | | |
|
danv
New Member
Posts:2
| | 25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM | | | Hi Diana
Yes Norwich does have a UAD - held at Gressenhall as part of the HER (historic environment record) and yes they do use MapInfo there. Regrettably the Norwich UAD project stalled some years ago, so while the facility was developed up to a point it is currently not being developed further. Hopefully this may change soon.
I think its fair to say that there are two distinct spheres in contemporary uk archaeology where GIS has a clear role to play - firstly in providing a framework for mantaining large archives namely Sites and Monuments Records or HER (historic environment records as they are now known).
Secondly in providing a framework for datamangement at the individual project level.
In Norfolk great progress has been made in the first sphere: for example the Norfolk HER is now maintained using MapInfo.
The point I was making was that (as far as I know) little progress has yet been made in deploying GIS as a framework for handling fildwork data as it is produced. In my view if archaelogcal graphic and attribute data: (plans and context sheets) where entered straight into a GIS then the big picture would become clearer faster, which would enable a more informed strategy to excavating the site. Also, this would enable an in depth analysis of the data that would greatly streamline the post-ex analysis phase of the project . Both these factors would have a major bearing on the efficiency and effectiveness of a contracting unit.
I quite agree with you that the likelyhood is that many people in the profession (particularly in fieldwork) are unaware of what benefits a GIS would offer compared to their current practices.
This is forgivable because GIS is a complex technology and requires a fairly indepth knowledge before one can fully appreciate its potential.
Danny
| | | |
|
AntArch
New Member
Posts:19
| | 25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM | | | Danny,
Some of these issues are being discussed in the 'GIS, data mining and archaeology' thread.
Ant | | | |
|
Snooks
New Member
Posts:7
| | 25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM | | | I am in a key IT position in one of the major contractors in the UK. not saying which....
I can tell you that I have not seen GIS used in commercial archaeology.
Too expensive and too time consuming.
In an educational environment I can see it being used, and they (universities, those who run courses etc..) probably make a big deal out of it as something you need to have.
We want jobs to come in fast and reports to go out fast. No time/money to waste on GIS analysis.
As a useful skill to have on your CV to get you a job in commercial archaeology.. I wouldn't worry about it.. Has no particular value. | | | |
|
AntArch
New Member
Posts:19
| | 25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM | | | Please read this to the sound of a hobby horse being ridden at break neck speed.......
I'm dismayed that an employee of a major UK contractor can come out with statements like this. Even more so when that person works in the heritage IT sector
I have seen, used and implemented GIS in commercial archaeology. I only stopped using it in commercial archaeology because I left. However, one needs to distinguish between GIS data collection and GIS analysis. I do not feel that commercial units should undertake GIS analysis as routine. However, I do feel that commercial units should collect GIS analysable data (as part of a high quality product that can be used to inform the management of our cultural resource and as a research tool).
Importantly the bubble needs bursting: GIS need not be expensive and GIS need not be time consuming. I’ve gone over some of these things in an earlier thread and on other forums and will not go over them again here.
However, the expense and the time taken to create a quality GIS dataset are side issues. Just because GIS is perceived to be time consuming/expensive should not mean that it should not be employed in commercial archaeology. In some respects this hits at the heart of contract archaeology..... Why do we do it? Is contract archaeology part of the planning process? Is it a money making venture (which I assume from your comments you think it is "We want jobs to come in fast and reports to go out fast. No time/money to waste on GIS analysis".)? Or is it there to help us gain a better understanding of the past?
My view is that it is a mix of these elements. The recipients of the output of contract archaeology are: the client (ticking of the planning requirements), the cultural heritage sector (jobs, money), the archaeological record (more data) and those people who use this data (professional or not). If one views that the data collection exercise should have an emphasis on data re-use (to improve archaeological understanding) then GIS and digital recording should become an essential component of all field archaeology. If, however, one views that the data collection exercise is part of a report writing process (synthesis moving away from the primary record) so that the client can continue with their development then GIS and digital recording will probably not occur in contract archaeology. I know where I'd rather be working.
If your comments are there to reflect the current state of play in contract archaeology (and by proxy the feelings of the IFA, the county curatorial authorities and the clients) then it is a deeply sad situation. However, I am aware that the IFA and EH (particularly with their revelation project) view it somewhat differently.
Dismounting now and hopefully putting the stallion out to grass.
| | | |
|
Snooks
New Member
Posts:7
| | 25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM | | | This heifer will trot a while. …..
I largely agree with your statement commercial units should collect GIS analysable data, and be more involved with new technologies, techniques etc..
Your statement saying: “However, the expense and the time taken to create a quality GIS dataset are side issues. Just because GIS is perceived to be time consuming/expensive should not mean that it should not be employed in commercial archaeology.”
But they are not side issues. Time is money and is the difference between winning a job and loosing a job. This is a big deal for a commercial company. Not such an acute problem for say an educational establishment.
Should we be collecting GIS data – yes it’s a good idea. But for reasons above its not going to happen.
bubble needs bursting – yes it does, a whole lot of bubbles need bursting. (topic in its own right).
“Is it a money making venture (which I assume from your comments you think it is "We want jobs to come in fast and reports to go out fast. No time/money to waste on GIS analysis".)? Or is it there to help us gain a better understanding of the past?”
Whether you like it or not it is that a money making venture. A commercial company is there to make money that is why it exists. This can only be its primary goal.
“Or is it there to help us gain a better understanding of the past?” – well you’d like to think so, accept that the commercial and the Academic are in conflict. A commercial company tries to be Academic or seen to Academic but it is inherently unable to do so, as the commercial side has to win otherwise the Academic side will no longer exist.
If you like it is the relationship between theory and practise in archaeology.
“If your comments are there to reflect the current state of play in contract archaeology”
It would be presumptuous to state that they are. So I can only say from my experience and my experience suggests that I am not alone in thinking this way.
PPG16 has a lot to answer..
| | | |
|
AntArch
New Member
Posts:19
| | 25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM | | | Okey dokey… then mounting again.
I agree, time is money and implementing a GIS data collection strategy can be fraught with dangers and expense. However, upon what basis are expense and time the major issues for not implementing GIS. Collecting GIS analyzable data does not need to be expensive or time consuming but it does have a time and financial cost. Too often I have seen the phrase ‘GIS is costly and time consuming’ but with no evidence to support this claim. I would say that imperfect implementation or outright failure are more important issues. Hence, I can understand why someone would be concerned about implementing GIS within an organisation or on a project. However, just because something may be difficult does not mean that it should be discounted out of hand. The benefits of having a corpus of high quality GIS analyzable data should speak for itself.
I never said that making money was not part of commercial archaeology; I merely pointed out that making money is only one component of the archaeological product. Also to play devils advocate if making money is the primary goal of commercial archaeology then why are so many large archaeological units classed as educational charities: charities are not established to make money (hmmm cake and eating it me thinks……). Surely archaeological units have responsibilities to the client, their staff, their board of directors and to the archaeological record. Further, professional units should act professionally (this is where we could get into the statutory and regulatory issues of professional bodies and how woeful the IFA is… but we wont). A moral responsibility to not just preserving the archaeological record but making it inherently re-useable should be part of professional practice (I’m sure something pertaining to the first section is in the IFA handbook). Just because archaeological standards are poorly defined does not mean to say that we should not aspire to improve them.
I think this is probably our real point of departure. PPG16 is wooly, IFA standards are poorly enforced, no-one sees the need to create GIS analyzable data-sets (there is an argument that financial benefits could ensue leading to a commercial advantage…..but that’s a different story) and the statutory bodies do not expect people to deliver digital products. The whole professional structure is not geared up to represent the basic archaeological commodity: data and its interpretation. Rather, and very cynically, we are inconveniences to construction firms and adjuncts to planning departments.
If your argument is…. Why should we collect this data if:
A. nobody demands it
B. we don’t find this data useful in our work
C. nobody forces us to collect this data
D. it costs us money to do this
Then I can understand where you are coming from.
Once again Dobin has proven to be a trusty steed
| | | |
|
Snooks
New Member
Posts:7
| | 25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM | | | Ok so in Commercial archaeology we essentiallyget our income from the client/developer. Obviously we have to tender for a contract. And in that tender there will be costs spelled out, how we are going to do the job etc. I don’t need to explain this further.
Ok so we implement a GIS collection strategy on certain sites and these are going to go down on the tenders. They have to be paid for somewhere.
Now the clients going to say.. er now wait a minute what’s this GIS business, I’m not going to pay for that. These other tenders from ABC companies mention nothing about this. I don’t think I’m going to give the job to you… This is a likely scenario.
Ah but if it is a requirement of the tender, then that is different. GIS could happen then.
“Why are so many large archaeological units classed as educational charities: charities are not established to make money (hmmm cake and eating it me thinks……).”
Now this charity phenomenon is a bit of an odd one. How is it that so many are charities and so many are businesses all going for the same goal. I’d be on dangerous ground if I were to pursue this line of argument further.
“Surely archaeological units have responsibilities to the client, their staff, their board of directors and to the archaeological record. Further, professional units should act professionally (this is where we could get into the statutory and regulatory issues of professional bodies and how woeful the IFA is… but we wont). “
yes this is true what does that actually mean in real terms. As in what should happen and what actually happens.
“A moral responsibility to not just preserving the archaeological record but making it inherently re-useable should be part of professional practice (I’m sure something pertaining to the first section is in the IFA handbook). Just because archaeological standards are poorly defined does not mean to say that we should not aspire to improve them.
I think this is probably our real point of departure. PPG16 is wooly, IFA standards are poorly enforced, no-one sees the need to create GIS analyzable data-sets (there is an argument that financial benefits could ensue leading to a commercial advantage…..but that’s a different story) and the statutory bodies do not expect people to deliver digital products. The whole professional structure is not geared up to represent the basic archaeological commodity: data and its interpretation. Rather, and very cynically, we are inconveniences to construction firms and adjuncts to planning departments. “
Quite agree and well put.
”If your argument is…. Why should we collect this data if:
A. nobody demands it
B. we don’t find this data useful in our work
C. nobody forces us to collect this data
D. it costs us money to do this
Then I can understand where you are coming from.
Of course I agree that we should be collecting this data. But in the current climate its not really going to happen. So if you haven’t got much experience in GIS don’t worry it won’t be a deciding factor in getting a job. (contractual).
| | | |
|
AntArch
New Member
Posts:19
| | 25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM | | | Yes.... but it does mean that GIS is undervalued in archaeology.
Improving data collection and deposition standards would change everything: while we have a free-for-all in data collection techniques I don't see how anything can improve.
Thanks for the discussion I've really enjoyed it.
| | | |
|
SteveW
Advanced Member
Posts:662
| | 25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM | | |
9 months have gone by since this was originally posted. Has anything changed?
| | | |
|
Snooks
New Member
Posts:7
| | 25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM | | quote:
I'm in a key archaeological position with one of the major consultancies and I probably use GIS on every project I work on. It's no more time consuming to analyse your data with GIS than using any of the other methods, and as AntArch said, the software doesn't have to cost the earth either.
I'm not sure why people get such a bee in their bonnet over the relative costs of using GIS in archaeology, when many units are willing to fork out tons of money in software and training costs for AutoCAD, so that someone can spend hours putting dots on a map.
Wowbagger
Soft, strong and infinitely prolonged
Long time no chat.
I think I can say with some certainty that we may now be in a minority on the GIS front, which is a real pity. We have the potential to have some incredible data sets.
The AutoCAD software is something that is forced on us by the Industry. We have to use it, and gosh its expensive. I know about us and some other units and I don't think everyone's using the latest version!
I've been to several consultancy offices, and you can just tell that you guys/gals are on a whole different level to anything we have.
Training is another issue best discussed in another forum topic.
| | | |
|