>MODERN is especially poor as a term as it implies 'recent'. It is therefore
always
>moving as time passes, and therefore not suitable for use in records
>intended to have any duration.

As a slight outsider to this discussion I am inclined to agree with Ed about
MODERN. In fact I would go further than to say it implies 'recent', to me it
smacks of 'the present' and, for the sake of a thesaurus, it is not useful
to have a term that may be confusing to potential users.

Having said that, Medieval refers to 'middle ages'. This period is also
moving as time passes but we seem to be able to live with it.


Mike










*********************************
Dr Mike Pringle
Senior Software Developer (Virtual Reality)

English Heritage
NMRC, Kemble Drive, Swindon SN2 2GZ
Telephone: +44 (0) 1793 414841
Fax:+44 (0) 1793 414707
Email: [log in to unmask]
*********************************




-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Campling [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 11 May 2000 09:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: POST MEDIEVAL and MODERN


Dear Ed,

This is why I suggested the term "Early Modern" to begin to break the
post-medieval period into meaningful chunks.  If the term "Modernist" can
apply to cultural items/schools of thought which are now finished, surely
"Modern" as a pure term could apply to a period in history which is not
current or recent.  The medieval period lasted 7-900 years, with early, high
and late sub-divisions.  I think there are a couple of hundred years yet
before the current period requires a new term.  The scholars living in 1485
didn't think of their period as "medieval", and I don't think we should be
so presumptious to give our times a name before it's over. 

As a field archaeologist trained in the 70's, I was taught to treat all
deposits with respect to the potential value of their contained information,
not their period.  I think you have a bone to pick with the archaeologists
of the 80's !

Cheers, Neil    

>>> [log in to unmask] 10/05/2000 17:10:13 >>>
I'd like to support C.Maloneys comments about POST MEDIEVAL and MODERN. As a
field archaeologist trained in the 1980's, Post Medieval was essentially the
bit that you machined off to get at the archaeology, and 'Modern' would only
be recorded in the sense that "I thought this might be interesting at first
- but it turned out to be modern" e.g an interesting looking crop mark that
turned out to be 'only' a second world war searchlight battery.

Clearly these are not supportable opinions in this day and age, and we need
to have a debate about the value of keeping these terms, or at least whether
they should be non-preferred terms for something more useful. MODERN is
especially poor as a term as it implies 'recent'. It is therefore always
moving as time passes, and therefore not suitable for use in records
intended to have any duration. It is also a very loaded term, used in
different ways by different sectors (e.g. it has been interesting to hear
how the curators at the new Tate Modern have rethought the traditional
chronological order for their galleries, as 'modern art' is now over 100
years old, and to hang the pictures in chronological order would produce a
single exhibition that would be too long for most visitors to tolerate!)

One approach for MODERN, would be to simply abandon the term and use 20TH
CENTURY or one of its narrow terms instead. Any thoughts?

Edmund Lee
FISHEN Coordinator


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%