Surely the point of labelling anything is to tell people something about it.
Legal terminologies (scheduled monument, monument in guardianship, protected
place, protected wreck, Treasure, etc.) inform us of the legal status of a
place or thing, but do not necessarily tell us anything more ('monument' is
also a broad term which tells un nothing about the form of an object). It
seems to me they need to be included in a system of terminolgy for this
purpose. But other terms (enclosure, hill-fort, barrow, church, etc.)
actually tell us something about the form of the object -- what it looks
like, for instance or what it contains or its purpose or several of these
things simultaneously. So a crashed aircraft is just that; but it may also
be a war grave or a protected place or (presumably) both. The trick is to
distinguish between the kinds of information conveyed by a particular term.
Using 'protected plsace on its own tells us little except the legal status:
but 'crashed aircraft, war grave, protected place' in six words tells us a
lot.
Inventing new non-legal terms for legal status will only confuse, it seems
to me.
John

--On 19 December 2001, 12:35 +0000 "Siddall, Jason"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> hmm ok
>
> THANKS
>
> well it seems that to answer one of the questions within this
>
> we will actually have to depart away from the legal terminology and devise
> our own ...
>
> DOES ANYONE Disagree?
>
> if we have to devise our own then any suggestions would be gratefully
> recieved
>
> cheers
> jason
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Evans [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:08 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Peer Review: Applying terminology A discussion piece
>
>
> I was thinking specificly about wrecks which are also war graves, not all
> war graves. Making them SAMS probably would not work. How about MMs
> (Maritime Mounuments)?
>
> Thank you
> David Evans
> Environment and Conservation
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 19/12/2001 11:34:11 >>>
> david
>
> thanks
>
> i cannot think of a more horrifying thought than all war graves being
> Scheduled Monuments... i think it would be not only impractical (in land
> ownership means) ... but have some major ramifications for Scheduled
> Monuments as a whole (it would quite possibly weaken the designation of
> Scheduled Monuments) ... just noting that the MPP seems to be very careful
> about what it schedules and the extent of scheduling.
>
> also i'm not so sure that all such sites will become Scheduled Monuments
> .... i'm do not think its on the cards.
>
> maybe some of our EH friends could add more to this?
>
> jason
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Evans [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Peer Review: Applying terminology A discussion piece
>
>
> Is this a short term (sic) problem which could be solved when EH take over
> responsibility for maritime archaeology, and then all "war graves and
> protected sites" would become SAMs?
>
> Thank you
> David Evans
> Environment and Conservation
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 19/12/2001 10:23:02 >>>
> hi everyone
>
> During this project a number of issues were raised that are worth
> considering as I promised I will be e-mailing around a number of issues
that
> are worth considering .... Both during this e-mail open forum and while
you
> are looking through the peer review packs.
>
> You will note in the Protection Grade / Status list is a term
>
> War Graves and
> Protected places
>
> Now these terms are based on Maritime status based on 1986 "protection of
> military remains act"
>
> There is a real problem here
>
> As a lookup term or on a printout from a system Protected Places etc means
> very little (it is not very clear)
>
> Now this begs a fundamental question in terms of how we develop our
> terminology
>
> Do we opt for accepted terms that may be difficult to understand for users
> of our systems - which risks mistakes in the indexing of a records or do
we
> depart from the legal terminology so we can ensure that we do not have
> instances of mis-understanding?
>
> what do you think
> Jason?
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it from South
> Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error
> please notify the South Gloucestershire Council postmaster
>  at the address below.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has
> been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> [log in to unmask]
> **********************************************************************
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it from South
> Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error
> please notify the South Gloucestershire Council postmaster
>  at the address below.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has
> been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> [log in to unmask]
> **********************************************************************



Dr John Carman
co-Director, 'Bloody Meadows' Project and
Affiliated Lecturer
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge
Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK
Tel:  +44 1223 333323
Fax: +44 1223 333503
Email: [log in to unmask]