Hello all,
Can I just pick up a couple of points that Bea referred to last week...
Bea wrote
>>>>
As we move towards bringing our SMRs up to MIDAS standard with its
nationally agreed list of site types, are we perhaps steering the local
archaeological record further away from what people value in their own
region/community and ending up with a collection of stereotyped examples of
what we as archaeologists collectively have deemed important?
Of course we can add local terms to our individual SMRs, but let's face it,
if a monument is not considered of outstanding local or national importance,
then it has little hope of statutory protection.
>>>>
Just to make it clear first of all, MIDAS is a standard for 'what sort of
things to record' not the actual terminology to use. Thus MIDAS recommends
that the notion of 'Monument Type' should be recorded, and recommends (but
does not require) use of the Thesaurus of Monument Types.
The thesaurus is designed to constantly grow in response to what people out
there want to record. As long as it is a type of monument, then it can be
considered for inclusion in the thesaurus. The Data Standards Unit is always
open to candidate terms.
Furthermore, just because a term isn't in the thesaurus it doesn't mean that
monuments of this type are not important, either to individuals, locally or
nationally. We must not let the tools that we use dictate what objectives we
can aim for, especially in an open-ended consultation such as the Review.
Personally, I have a bet on with my colleagues at the DSU that 'ley line'
will be in the thesaurus within two years...
Edmund Lee
English Heritage Data Standards unit
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|