I am delighted to hear that there will be a discussion at the next
SMR user meeting on recording finds. As previous correspondents
have pointed out the present database makes it very difficult
(impossible?) to record large assemblages of anything in a way
that can actually be achieved with limited staff time. As I still work
as a pottery specialist I am very aware of this lost opportunity. In
Worcestershire we have been thinking about what kind of data
about finds and environmental evidence should go into the SMR
and the best way to do this. We have already started work on the
pottery side of this.
I think this whole topic needs a big rethink and I am looking forward
to the meeting and hearing everyones views
Victoria
On 6 Mar 02, at 14:18, Newman, Martin wrote:
> It is planned to have the discussion session at the next SMR User Group on
> recording finds in SMRs. This has been suggested by several people and there
> is concern that there is a lack of consistency between SMRs.
> If anyone is interested in saying a few words to start things off and then
> chairing the discussion could they please get in touch.
>
> Thanks
>
> Martin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sarah Poppy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 06 March 2002 13:04
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Rephrased Question - Recording pottery in HBSMR
>
>
> Thanks Matthew, but I was more looking for how people indexed a body of
> material (e.g. pottery) whether further information was simply not
> available, or further indexing not required. Just happened to be thinking
> about pottery at the time!
>
> The various vessel part additions will be useful I'm sure.
>
> Best wishes
> Sarah
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stiff, Matthew [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 06 March 2002 11:41
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Recording pottery in HBSMR
>
>
> Dear Sarah,
>
> "Pottery" is excluded from the mda thesaurus because it is a material, not
> an object type. It will always be a pottery "something". If it is
> identifiable as a fragment from a vessel then use the term "vessel" or the
> specific type where known. If the type of object is unknown then use the
> term "unidentified object". In both cases record the material as "ceramic".
>
> The group has also included the term "sherd" (with "rim sherd", "body sherd"
> and "base sherd" as narrower terms). It has also added the terms "lip",
> "spout" and "handle". These should be double indexed as appropriate
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Matthew
>
> Dr Matthew Stiff
> Data Services Unit Manager
> National Monuments Record Centre
> Kemble Drive
> Swindon
> SN2 2GZ
>
> (t): 01793 414727
> (f): 01793 414770
> (m): 07939 151510
> (e): [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sarah Poppy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 05 March 2002 19:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Recording pottery in HBSMR
>
>
> Dear all,
> What is the consensus on how SMRs record pottery finds in HBSMR? I know that
> the MDA object thesaurus lacks a generic "pottery" term, and that indexing
> to vessel form and function would be possible where information and time
> existed, but what do people do otherwise as a workable solution? I recall
> in Hampshire we had a candidate term but such a term has obviously not made
> its way into the National thesaurus.
>
> Sarah
> ****************************************************
> Sarah Poppy
> exeGesIS SDM
> Great House Barn
> New Street
> Talgarth
> Brecon
> LD3 0AH
> Direct tel: 01874 712145
> Fax: 01874 711156
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Url: www.esdm.co.uk
> ****************************************************
Victoria Bryant
Information and Records Officer
Worcestershire Archaeological Service
Woodbury Hall
University College Worcester, WR2 6AJ
Tel: 01905 855494
Fax 01905 855035
|