Hi Guys

I have stayed out of this discussion, but think Mr Evans has hit the
point here - the danger of using in a jargon sense a word that has an
everyday meaning which is less specific - in this case Event. Part of
the confusion in this discussion has been because people have tried to
use the normal meaning to explain the jargon meaning, which doesn't
actually help.

In that sense, it is worth noting that in HBSMR the relevant module is
called Events and Site Activities.

If Midas II is going to deal with all the different types of events,
then the sensible lesson to learn would be to try and call them
different things (eg Historical Happening(?!), Archaeological
Intervention/Investigation/Activity, whatever) - with thought given to
making them distinguishable in Jargon terms easily, but also making
sense in normal language to stop this sort of confusion in the future
(so that would mean not using the same word to mean more than one thing
if possible).

This may mean the whole EMA model needs renaming/recasting (but in
effect don't many people call the archive bit Sources anyway?).

And this should also apply to Monuments bit - having a discussion about
HBSMR when Monument can mean Record type (eg Building, Findspot or a
Record type of Monument!), Monument Type (eg Moat etc) or the Module
used to record all these things get very difficult. I can understand why
this developed, but recognising this issue and trying to deal with it
for MIDAS II might be timely. Especially if post MIDAS II there will be
a push to get more people to adopt the standard.

And before anyone suggests that renaming the EMA to something else may
cause confusion, I would just say Its too late guys, the worms are
already all over the shop

and finally, to all of you think this is all just navel gazing, and
can't be arsed, remember guys, just because you CAN record something,
doesn't mean you HAVE to... ; )


best wishes

Nick Boldrini
Historic Environment Record Officer
Heritage Section
Countryside Service
North Yorkshire County Council
County Hall
Northallerton
DL7 8AH
Direct Dial (01609) 532331

Conserving North Yorkshire's heritage - encouraging sustainable access
www.northyorks.gov.uk/archaeology 

This email is personal. It is not authorised by or sent on behalf of
North Yorkshire 
County Council, however, the Council has the right and does inspect
emails sent from 
and to its computer system. This email is the sole responsibility of
the sender

>>> [log in to unmask] 20/07/2006 14:45:12 >>>
While this is a good point, to play upon what both Roger and Brian have
said, while the Great Fire (meaning the burning episode of London) was
an Event in the broad sense of the word, it was not an Event in the
original SMR Jargon sense of the word - an observation, investigation,
recording event.  
 
This is, of course the problem with technical jargon, it is very
specific, but also changes in a very post-modern sense... as does all
language (case in point, the use of the word "quite" in Britain.  It has
the definition of "very" but the frequent sarcastic use of the word has
given it the opposite connotation).
 
What is more, the Great Fire of London could be seen as a Recording
Event (thus it's entry in the Event Table)... it is tied to both a large
number of monuments (most identified sites of London), it also begs the
question as to whether or not "London" is defined as a monument?  
 
This may seem a silly point, but is tied to the nature of Landscape
investigations... where does the concept of region, general area and
specific site begin and end... 
 
Are the different elements of the construction of the National Trust
property of White Horse Hill (Oxon) single events (not recording events)
within a unified site (obviously the landscape is related) or are they
individual sites tied together in a landscape?
 
Regardless, we still remain at a problem which is that many of us seem
to WANT to record Historic Events in the SMR, but that the present
tables structure does not have a proper field for it.... unless we
REDEFINE what the Event tables are meant to be...  
 
Something that, from this discussion seems to be going on anyways since
there is a very strong disagreement of the use of Events to mean Rec
Events, vs. the continuing argument that it should just be used as an
Event.
 
I still think we should add a separate category for Historic or
Interpretational Episodes...  but I suppose it begs the question of what
an SMR is for... where are the limits?  
 
Is it a full interpretational record of archaeological happenings, or
is it a simple gazetteer? 
 
What meaning does the SMR have without context of known historical
episodes (like the Great Fire)... how meaningful are the records if this
level of interpretation is not included? 
 
If I was researching the Great Fire of London, how would I query the
data to be able to find the archaeological records related to it?  
 
In contrast, if a single burning episode in a site is
interpretationally tied to the Great Fire, how much of a risk do we run
of that becoming a piece of defacto fact vs. its simple hypothetical
origins?
 
Personally, I feelt this ties deep to the heart of what HERs are all
about and probably needs to have an actual... dare I say it...
collective decision made regarding it, either at a Conference or
elsewhere....

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.