In general, the two datasets can be considered to have been derived ultimately from very similar sources, predominantly metal-detection, with the addition of varying amounts of finds from excavated and/or field-walked sites and a few other chance finds. As a result, many of the same finders report to both the PAS and EMC. Problems of data compatibility relating to the organisation of the two schemes have been noted (Section 3.1.1; Naylor and Richards 2005, 85-7), but this simple fact does mean that the two datasets are broadly comparable and compatible. The only area where potential problems existed was in the possible duplication of coinage records between the sources. However, the PAS Finds Advisor for Medieval and Post-Medieval Coinage currently reports to both the PAS and the EMC. This leads to a situation where the EMC should include all, or virtually all, PAS finds. Therefore, it was decided that the project's database could utilise only the EMC for coinage with confidence that very few, if any, finds would be lost.
The treatment of the data does vary between the PAS and EMC, leading to some potential problems in compatibility. The most important of these relate to the identification and precision of findspots. Sites can be identified by a range of labels, including specific names given to the site, which may vary between the PAS and EMC. However, parish name is given in most cases (Naylor and Richards 2005, 86-9), and this helps at least to group finds broadly, which is adequate for analysis on the scale used in Section 3. Identification of individual sites within a parish can be more problematic as sites may not be given distinctive names in every case, and it is not always possible to resolve the geographical spread of finds from the computerised records. The two organisations deal differently with this in electronic form. The PAS include all data in their database but restrict access to sensitive information, whereas the EMC only input four-figure grid references even where greater precision is available (including for excavated finds). As a result, distinguishing between sites at a parish level is only possible on the EMC where individual sites have been named as such, while on the PAS it may be possible in some cases to discern individual sites through GIS analysis. In order to deal with, and resolve, these issues so as to undertake the site-based analysis in Section 4 it was necessary to consult additional paper-based information held by the EMC.
© Internet Archaeology/Author(s)
URL: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue25/2/3.1.2.html
Last updated: Tues Apr 21 2009