We have recently been identifying "Religious or historical associations" (as
we have called them) in our SMR, for the purposes of reviewing historic
landscape character, and found the process quite interesting. I agree with
those who believe that these should be included in SMRs, (though not all of
my colleagues agree!), and we have had our fingers burned when failing to
recognize or address these issues in casework contexts. Amazing how much
more people sometimes care about a local legend attached to a landscape
feature than about some tangibly significant archaeology that they didn't
know about before. Lots of lessons and caveats here!
I think "Religious or historical associations" are grossly
under-represented in the SMR (reflecting OS collection policy primarily),
but I'll leave it to someone else to design the data collection project
design!
Crispin
WoSAS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee, Edmund" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: Natural features
> Peter,
>
> From the point of view of technically recording these features, bear in
mind
> that the EH Thesaurus of Monument Types does include the term 'NON
> ANTIQUITY' with the scope note "Use to identify a feature, previously
> thought to be a monument but now disproved, or to avoid erroneous
> identification as a monument in future. Where a feature is regarded as an
> antiquity, but is unclassified, use SITE."
>
> Of course, just because our thesaurus includes a term doesn't mean that
> everyone should record the particular monument type, but from the
> philosophical point of view I agree with Mary's comment, and your
> suggestion, that these features are worth recording even if only to avoid
> future confusion.
>
> Edmund Lee
> English Heritage
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tees Archaeology [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 19 September 2000 20:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Natural features
>
>
> Hello Forum Users
>
> Do any of you record natural or unusual landscape features on your
> SMR's? I am particularly thinking of ones where there is no known
> archaeology but strong local traditions or names given to natural
> features such as 'Druids Hill', 'Saxon Mound' etc. We have a particular
> case up here which is the double of Silbury Hill but completely
> natural. People are usually devastated, humiliated or just don't
> believe me when I tell them this and I thought provision of an official
> record of the non-archaeological nature of the hill would alleviate this
> slightly.
>
> Peter Rowe
> Tees Archaeology.
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> The contents of this email are confidential and are intended
> for the use of the individual to whom they are addressed.
>
> This footnote confirms that this email message has successfully
> been virus scanned.
>
> Any problems, please contact [log in to unmask]
> **********************************************************************
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|