Dear all
If we end up in the position where we refer to the Great Fire of London
as a 'monument', it may (possibly) make sense to us, but it's sure as
hell going to confuse the general public to whom we are supposed to be
more 'friendly' these days. In practice, I suspect if we do start using
language in this rather distorted way, we will also end up confusing
ourselves.
A separate record for 'historic events' (as Brian Giggins suggests)
seems a much better idea.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Neil Campling
Sent: 10 July 2006 08:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fires, Sources and Monuments
Dear all,
Surely interpreted historical events such as the Great Fire of London
or similar fires in most provincial towns should be identified in HERs
as "Monuments", i.e. as interpretations, just as Battlefields are so
identified. Several different interpretations of the same event would
thus be different Monuments.
Evidence of such Monuments, i.e. burned deposits, would be recorded
separately, as part of a archaeological recording event. Historical
records of such fires would be recorded as Sources.
Cheers
Neil
WARNING
This E-mail and any attachments may contain information that is
confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the
view of the Council.
North Yorkshire County Council.
|