Dear all
I agree that a two tier indexing system is probably better, using centuries is the baseline and other descriptive terms defined against that. After all, why use the term "mediaeval pottery" when you know it is 14th century in date, or "mediaeval church" when you know it is 12th century Romanesque? Broader terms like post-mediaeval or mediaeval are useful where one cannot be more specific but would these be better off alongside terms such as Georgian or Perpendicular or WW2 and defined in relation to a chronological framework based on centuries?
If studying post-mediaeval settlement in parts of this county, you see three different post-mediaeval phenomenon that impact the archaeological record: drainage, industrialisation and emigration, being 17th century, 18th century and 19th century respectively. You wouldn't use a description of 'English Civil War drainage, late Georgian industrialisation and mid-late Victorian emigration', or would you? Another complication is we have Georgian style architecture built after 1830: is this Georgian or Victorian?
I think it comes down to the fact that in historical periods you are dealing with different period terms from each discipline whose input is being sought. These need a baseline or reference point, and to me it makes sense to stick to centuries as a standard to define other terms against. Our systems should reflect that.
Question for a Friday: will future generations see WW1 & WW2 as the same thing in the same way we use the term 100 Years War, or 30 Years War?
regards
Quinton
Cambs HER
PS - Sarah: you are on holiday!!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Sites & Monuments Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Poppy Sarah
Sent: 25 August 2005 18:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: R: Use of Periods
Dear Martin et al
Sorry if this is yesterdays discussion but here is my pennies worth...
I would agree with Julia, and say I prefer for indexing by century for the medieval and post-medieval periods (plus using WWI and WWII accordingly), which seem much less value laden, whilst using Medieval and Post-Medieval where remains can be less closely dated. However, do we need to opt for one or the other? An information retrieval system should be able to handle both together - so while 19th century may be more appropriate for archaeological remains, and Victorian would be more appropriate for built heritage, a query searching for heritage information relating to the period 1800-1900 would retrieve both as being of potential relevance, without losing the ability to query only Victorian etc.
I do agree with abandoning Modern in favour of 20th and 21st century.
All the best
Sarah
________________________________
Da: Issues related to Sites & Monuments Records per conto di NEWMAN, Martin
Inviato: mar 23/08/2005 13.20
A: [log in to unmask]
Oggetto: Use of Periods
The DSU has recently made some changes to the PERIODS hierarchy used by the NMRs AMIE system (see below). We are now consulting with system users here before making changes to records. We would also like to consult other users of the PERIODS hierarchy especially HERs using our reference data (e.g. those using HBSMR). If your PERIOD list is brought into line with that at the NMR then the issues we are consulting NMR users over will be of equal relevance.
Regards
Martin
----------------------------------------------
Martin Newman
Datasets Development Manager
AMIE Period Change
Recent changes to AMIE have seen the replacement of the MODERN period with the two periods 20TH CENTURY and 21ST CENTURY.
Additional regal periods of TUDOR, ELIZABETHAN, STUART, JACOBEAN, HANOVERIAN, GEORGIAN and VICTORIAN have also been added (or in the case of VICTORIAN been in existence for some time but not used).
DSU would welcome comments on how periods should be used/are being used to record POST MEDIEVAL dates.
For instance there are c.173000 records in AMIE which are currently identified as being POST MEDIEVAL in date. Of those over 36,000 have min/max dates falling within the VICTORIAN period.
Where a monument is known to have been built after 1837 but before 1901 does it make sense to record this as VICTORIAN?
A similar number of records exist for the GEORGIAN period between 1714 and 1830.
Two questions need answering:
1. Are users happy with using 20th and 21st Century instead of MODERN?
2. Should POST MEDIEVAL records be updated to VICTORIAN/GEORGIAN etc. where the phase is a construction/alteration/repair phase?
________________________________
English Heritage is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
All information held by the organisation will be accessible in
response to a Freedom of Information request, unless one of
the exemptions in the Act applies.
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you receive this email by mistake please notify the sender and delete it immediately. Opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Cambridgeshire County Council. All sent and received email from Cambridgeshire County Council is automatically scanned for the presence of computer viruses and security issues.
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you receive this email by mistake please notify the sender and delete it immediately. Opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Cambridgeshire County Council. All sent and received email from Cambridgeshire County Council is automatically scanned for the presence of computer viruses and security issues.
|