Would it not be sensible, as far as possible, to use terms that as many
people as possible understand?
As has been stated, for historians Early Modern means c1500-1750 or
c1550-1800. If archaeologists started using the term to mean18th-19th
century it would be even harder for the professions to understand each
other. I'm not trying to impose historians' methods (almost as bad as
using English terminology for Scotand?) but if you have not already got
a consensus it would seem silly to use terms that were foreign to
related professions?
Best wishes
Rosemary Hayes
Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts
>Nigel Pratt wrote
> <<I would not be in favour of relegating POST MEDIEVAL and MODERN to
>non-preferred status. When dealing with, for example, an earthwork, it
is
>not always possible to pin down a date to a particular century. Wide
terms
>such as these are therefore applied in the same way as PREHISTORIC,
ROMAN or
>MEDIEVAL would be. It is often the closest you can get in the absence
of
>more precise dating evidence. >>
>
>I know, I sympathise. But part of my original point was that both
these terms are used far too loosely, often because these are the most
recent periods and so many archaeologists dismiss them, assuming no one
is, or ever going to be, interested in them, which is very far from the
case. These ar also the periods which can be very precisely dated,
especially with the availability of documentary evidence and standing
buildings.
>
>Andrew Millard suggested Early Modern for the period 1500-1800 but that covers what archaeologists are used to calling post medieval. But could we use EARLY MODERN to describe say 18th-19th century and MODERN to describe the 20th and 21st centuries, if we need these handy terms? Otherwise jus
use 18th century/19th century or whatever when one can't be specific.
>Cath Maloney
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|