I'm glad that Phil and I agree on fires, but we may disagree on
battlefields!
Unless there is physical evidence (defences, musket balls, whatever, it
is the historical record of a battle which changes our perception of the
field, not the fact of the battle itself. There may be (probably are)
lots of battles which we know nothing about (e.g. ones that may have
occurred in prehistoric times) and the places where those occurred are
still just fields (or whatever) to us. So it's the documentary record,
not the historical event itself, which results in the definition. Which
is why a separate table for that kind seems sensible.
This has cropped up with UADs. There's a world of difference between
saying 'there is historical evidence for a tenement on this site in the
14th cent' and 'there are the remains of a 14th cent tenement on this
site'. The chains of evidence and reasoning which lead to those two
statements are completely different from each other. Not recognising
that difference can lead one into problems.
(I think the problem with battlefields is that, because we have a
Register of them, we feel we need to put them in HERs along with SAMs,
LBs etc. But I don't think they're the same!).
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CARLISLE, Phil
Sent: 13 July 2006 09:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fires, Sources and Monuments
I must agree with Roger on this. I think that an 'associated historic
events' record which could be linked to one or more monuments makes more
sense than misleading the public into believing that 'Great fire of
London' is a monument. Indeed if we look at the Monument in London which
commemorates the Great Fire, this would have a record with Monument Type
- 'Commemorative Monument' and Associated Historical Event - Great Fire
of London.
If the house in pudding lane was still around this too could be linked
to the same event.
I think Battlefields are slightly different to fires inasmuch as they
are Monument Type - field before the battle but during it and ever
after they become monument type - battlefield. The field itself may not
have changed drastically but the event changed our perception of what it
is.
With a fire the monument types are buildings beforehand but afterwards
may just be a layer of burnt earth or ash or if we're lucky
'Fire-damaged Buildings'. This is a drastic change but fire-damaged
buildings don't stay fire-damaged for long as they are either restored
to their former glory or demolished so to have a term such as
fire-damaged building or burnt deposits, as a monument type, is to my
mind wrong.
Burnt deposits are 'evidence' of a fire event not monuments.
I'm rambling now so I think I'll shut up
Phil Carlisle
Data Standards Supervisor
National Monuments Record Centre
Kemble Drive
Swindon
SN2 2GZ
+44 (0)1793 414824
The information contained within this e-mail is confidential and may be
privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you have received
the e-mail in error, please inform the sender and delete it from your
system. The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed to anyone else
or copied without the sender's consent.
Any views and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of English Heritage. English
Heritage will not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of THOMAS, Roger M
Sent: 13 July 2006 09:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fires, Sources and Monuments
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.
|