Hello all,
Taking this off in a slightly different direction, remember that MIDAS
currently (i.e. the 1st edition in 1998) 'Recommends' *both* Period term
and Minimum and Maximum Dates. This reflects the generally
archaeological focus of SMRs in the 1990s. Period terms are used in
archaeology as more precise dates are often unknown e.g. we use 'BRONZE
AGE' although we know that a site could be more specifically dated and
indexed as such if we had the information.
But the standards are there to serve the needs of the community. How
would it be if we altered the standard in the forthcoming 2nd edition so
that *either* a period date *or* a date range were required, with
preference for a more precise date span where this is available?
The VICTORIAN issue then, to some extent, goes away. If a building dates
to 1848, then just say that in the Minimum Date unit. Use of the term
(or POST MEDIEVAL etc) would be there for indexing the less well dated
sites.
We can then focus on the more complex problem of what we actually mean
by a dated / period indexed phase. Is it just when we know a site was
extant from our best (only?) source, or the date of assumed
construction, or a 'phase' in the architectural sense i.e. a period of
development, extension or restoration etc etc. We probably need to be
more proscriptive about separating these.
Best wishes
Ed
MIDAS 2nd edition Project Manager
_______________________________________________________________________________
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.
|