To answer one of Andrew Millard's questions no the current
standards of Periodisation are not satisfactory. Leaving aside
the problems with Prehistoric periods. There has been a great
debate between the users (there are over 15 databases and 20
users) of the National Trust SMR for some time now on how
poor the period selection is. This has mainly centred around the
roman and post roman periods. In the past we (as a profession)
seem to have felt it was acceptable to split the prehistoric
periods up into "bite size chunks". However the periods from
Roman onwards seem to be under represented. Our period
specific information (thanks to research and documentation) is
far better for these periods than for the prehistoric. Yet these
periods seem to receive as much attention as a foot note. 

This is evidently wrong the periods from Medieval onwards
represent a huge record which is just as important as prehistoric
sites. Our period specific information is far better for sites in the
medieval, post medieval and modern ECT.

The periods from the medieval represent a huge time of
dynamic change both in the landscape and culturally as yet the
current Exegesis SMR and the Midas document does not really
reflect the medieval, post medieval, industrial and modern
periods complexity. Our current definition suffices but is lazy we
can describe things far better, and more explicitly especially to
the public who seem to have great problems understanding how
we (as a profession) have fitted this together.

for example recently I was asked "well where does Industrial fit
in with the SMR is it  modern?" this shows a fundamental
mis-understanding of the way the period definitions are set out.
For many of the public these sites reflect a closer resonance and
often mean more to them than humps and bumps in the ground.

If we seek to make our information available to all, as we should
we must all ensure that we have not set our definitions fairly and
logically. 

Question.

If we recognise (as we have with the DoB Project database) that
WWII sites are of importance and as such sites as Quarry Bank
Mill in Greater Manchester pull in huge numbers of visitors. Why
is it we place little importance on the recording and describing of
sites that we have far more period specific information on?
Should we not at least try to describe the post mediaeval,
modern and industrial with as much care as the prehistoric?
maybe we should split the medieval, post medieval and modern
up in descriptive or functional sub sets? 

ie 

16th century
18th century

or 
Early Norman
Elizabethan
Industrial

Jason A. Siddall
Acting SMR Manager  






 


































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