The document discusses the crucial need for collaboration in archaeology to address climate change, sharing digital data, and the importance of metadata and accessibility. It highlights the necessity for community engagement, defining community archaeology, and the integration of academia with local initiatives while addressing the challenges posed by funding cuts. Furthermore, it emphasizes the need for sustainable practices in conservation and the significance of open access publishing in disseminating archaeological knowledge.

1. Climate Change
• Need for collaboration – avoid unnecessary duplication
• Share knowledge
• Archaeology with central role in explaining climate changes – how humans cope
with change

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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?

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Research Frameworks (1)

12. Research Frameworks (2)

13. Research Frameworks (3)

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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.