Climate Change

• Need for collaboration – avoid unnecessary duplication

• Share knowledge

• Archaeology with central role in explaining climate changes – how humans cope

with change

Digital Data (1)

• IPR: The issue of intellectual property rights needs to be addressed in relation to

all digital data at the beginning of any project.

• Metadata: There is a huge increase in the awareness of the need for and

importance of having relevant metadata for datasets. There is huge potential for

the development of agreed thesauri of monuments that would facilitate the ability

to search the datasets of NIEA, for Scotland (RCAHMS) and NMS Ireland. It was

agreed that contact would be maintained as RCAHMS had made considerable

progress in this area.

• Archiving/curation: There is a need to set up and maintain a central or core

group of repositories for digital data; in effect, replicating the current libraries for

print and manuscript materials.

• Accessibility: Data must be made available for use especially in the context of

open data policies being driven by EU and E-government requirements.

• Research: Data must be made available for use by multiple researchers and

cannot simply be contained with reference to a particular project.

Digital Data (2)

• As one participant aptly put it: we must think digital! Every project, no matter how

small, that involves the gathering of digital data must, at the outset, ensure

compliance with the issues outlined in the above headings.

• The sharing of information on digital data was highlighted as a significant

outcome for the parties in the discussion (NMS, NIEA, Scotland (RCAHMS /

Historic Scotland), Isle of Man) especially in the area of emerging and

developing digital recording (e.g. how the technologies used on the ‘Ogham in

3D project’ supported by NMS might feed into allied research programmes in

other jurisdictions).

• Open Access: Good idea in principle.

CPD / Skills / Succession• Integration with voluntary sector.

• Culture change – facilitation; supporting community need.

• Challenge of technical advance.

• Craft and vocational training.

• Apprentices/ internships.

• “Workforce Planning”

• EU policy and funding

• Open access (digital data)

• Thinking and planning digitally

• Using and questioning the digital

• ?Scot/ Irish dimension is?

World Heritage

For discussion/ collaboration/ networking:

• Irish royal sites trans-national nomination – support e.g. clarification with DCMS –

does Naven Fort need to be on UK tentative list?

• Marketing and promotion of WHS/ networks of WHS but carrying capacity issues.

• Developing better tourism strategies

Tourism research/ UNESCO sustainable tourism strategy?

• WH Networking group – S / NI / I

Identify common issues and possible solutions

• Education – building connections between communities

students (e.g. Orkney-Easter Island)

• Connections between universities – student exchanges

MAS in heritage management – building real life skills

• Potential for municipal, school twinning

• ? Language connections

• “Summer Universities” with research institutions on specific themes

• Potential for European support

Communication and Interpretation

Tension (between curator and originator – audience and archaeologist):

productive and negative

Know your audiences

• Best ways for them to hear and listen

• Digital opportunities

• Analogue media

Action point: Cross-territory mapping of digital engagement

Tensions: freedom of meanings

• Open up data

• Respect skills

• Skills to mediate data

* Benchmark and trial methods of delivery of on-site interpretation boards; including

QR codes

Site / Monument / Object / Landscape / Intangible

As the interpretation.

Partnerships & Community Archaeology (1)

• Discussion, collaboration: Streams of funding; Empowering groups/communities

Adopt a monument case study - different types of audiences

• What type of partnerships would be interesting?

Government policy to work with communities but with funding cuts this becomes

less of priority - need to get it; communities can sometimes be a different element

of the work; planning conditions stipulated community outreach; Example from

Highland Council - linking it to economic benefit and wider council policy

• Some commercial organisations actively encourage clients to consider

community outreach - over and above what is specified in briefs

• But not just with the archaeology.

How do we engage with wider partnerships - communities, with universities, cultural

tourism - works for other disciplines - why not for archaeology?

Sometimes archaeology can be seen as a constraints - shouldn't t it be a positive

DC work provides vast amounts of money but we don't do much with it

The need for community outreach is shifting and we need to embrace it and

develop strategies for it; value of archaeology - not just digging - active

engagement, creativity

We need case studies and we need compensation for thinking out the box,

engaging in a different ways

Partnerships & Community Archaeology (2)

• What is community archaeology?

Community archaeology is still mainly aspirational, still expert led

What levels of com arch do we have - common goals but different levels?

Don't have a code of practice for community arch

We can't be critical of the process because it effects our funding . Difficult to have a

frank conversations about what worked and didn't

• How are we measuring success?

Challenging public preconceptions of what archaeology is

Case study from NI - local group want to play that lead role but there is no

professional. Infrastructure to support this group to this. Issue with capacity

Need policies for best practice guidance - case studies to show that it can

work ACTION

• More inclusive community archaeology which helps fill gaps

Empowering communities vs top down approach

Community issue - sustainable communities not an archaeology issue

Legacy - we need to be there in the long term, sustainable community groups

Need for structure and wider strategy. There is a structure but the archaeology

sector isn't there

Need to be involved at earlier a stage

Partnerships & Community Archaeology (3)

• Linking the university sector to the local level

No advocacy at a local level for archaeology

Need to look at knowledge exchange

But we coming back to archaeology being a research process, but we haven't

thought about the longer term impacts that can address wider issues like climate

change, deprivation

Can depend on how different communities can be

Need an audit of community archaeology projects in regions

Silos

Results from community archaeology rarely make break new research ground

Outcomes

• Need to exchange our working models/case studies - shows what works and what

doesn't

• Need for structure - both for professional support and with the community group

itself to supports legacy and sustainability

• Need to think about how, why, what community archaeology is and what it can do

• Audit of what has been done in three juristictions

• Working group to work on application of best practice

Innovation

• Informal networks aid innovation – Ire/Scot – new energy – based on such

networks – does not cost much

• Teaching – Ireland/Scotland

Examples: Plantations; Catchments; Hillforts; Ogham

• Organic digital atlases

Moving themes – e.g. Scotland rural and urban past

• Re-energisation of public agencies – trans-national leverage

• Community projects – crowd science - collaboration

• Technology – network of practices

Research Frameworks (1)

Research Frameworks (2)

Research Frameworks (3)

Regulation / Protecting Archaeology in the

Development Process / Specification of Works

• Development control / infrastructure – doing the same thing – so need to get in

touch

• NI / Ireland / Scotland – doing the same thing

• Consistency….e.g. setting documents – from professional perspective

• Public benefits…..audience is the public

• Value of working group – e.g. Infrastructural projects – apply them to smaller

scale

• Don’t reinvent the wheel

Conservation / Protection of Monuments

Differences in legislation protection measures – but significant commonality of

issues/ problems and often past solutions.

Can be – proactive – regulation, good practice

– reactive – prosecution etc.

Broad spectrum – broad ranging national issues v. site specific issues.

Broad comments / themes:

• Funding of activities – can cause problems in longer term. Implications of actions

were not thought through.

• Importance of sustainability of measures that are put in place.

• Link with wider EU biodiversity policy.

• Conservation / protection – against what? – Natural processes

– Human intervention

• Climate change – presenting very challenging conservation issues.

• Largest owner of monuments is the farming community – money is not the

number one identified need – information is the greatest requirement. Face-to-

face engagement.

• Legal/ prosecution is becoming a more effective driver for good management.

Conservation / Protection of Monuments

(continued)

• Traditional bias as to what we see as monuments – we must value heritage more

in terms of cultural values, e.g. field boundaries, lime kilns, agricultural ephemera.

• New CAP does not have a heritage element – how do we deal with this?

Collaboration potentials – specific issues

• Collapse of structures – how do you deal with this and how do you prioritise?

Establish criteria to do this.

• Significant heritage remains that are in danger of coastal erosion.

• Exposure of human remains.

• Loss of professional capacity – e.g. through funding cuts/ loss of staff – how do

you deal with this?

• Local importance vs natural importance – differences of opinion in what should

be protected. Need more community engagement on this.

• Repair of damaged monuments.

Tourism & Tourist Trails

• Potential linkages and shared experience

• Burren Geopark Life project – as an example of best practice – coordinated and

collaborative

• What is the function of archaeology?

Do Tourist bodies understand

Do local communities understand

• Session on Archaeology and Tourism at EAA Glasgow 2015

Publication and Dissemination

A. Context

• Recognise and welcome move to digital publication.

• We welcome movement to “Open Access” publishing.

B. Issues

• Problems associated with accessibility of academic material.

• Issues surrounding responsibilities of commercial companies to publish in a

traditional “one size fits all” manner.

C. Good practice

• Examples of good practice – Society of Antiquaries’ graphic novel ‘Telling

Scotland’s Story’.

• Future plans for a display project in partnership with Stenaline.

• Potential to use and develop gaming technology / use of LiDAR to provide base

digital platforms.

Publication and Dissemination (continued)

D. Opportunities

• Encourage cross-publication in our respective regional journals/ magazines.

• Encourage existing publishers to develop a consortium.

• Potential to input information to Tourism Ireland/ VisitScotland.

• Challenge existing conventional and conventions of publication.

• Capacity building work in how we learn as archaeologists to disseminate

information.

• More inclusive approach to understanding and reaching our audiences. (Good

practice; Dig It! 2015)

• Potential collaborative opportunity in looking at online publication of reports.