I can't do congealed, but I can perhaps condense - and perhaps bring
this one to a halt for now.

(i) There is still confusion over the use of evidence terms, both in
theory and practice, with no 'right' answer existing beyond conventions
that have been adopted in various systems of working/thesauri.  I need
to re-read the various document sets.

(ii) The pragmatic answer to the original query was to use multiple
index terms.  In my case perhaps Cemetery/Post
medieval/Pre-1914/Structure and Cemetery/Post
medieval/Pre-1914/Subsurface deposit together were the most appropriate.

(iii) I'll have a Cider please.


Yours,


Peter D Iles
Specialist Advisor (Archaeology)
Lancashire County Council Environment Directorate
PO Box 9
Guild House
Cross Street
Preston
Lancashire
PR1 8RD
 
t. 01772 531550
f. 01772 533423
e. [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kirkham, Andy (DSD)
Sent: 09 April 2010 11:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Friday Afternoon Question

Well done Sarah for pointing out the duality of the Historic Environment
Record officers role as both record keeper and archaeologist. I think
it's a tough place to be sometimes, in terms of information management
and keeping the correct perspective on terminology. But above all,
thanks for "conflated" an excellent word not used often enough, although
there was a point earlier in the week where "congealed" may have become
more appropriate! Surely someone can add more to this thread and make
into a true Friday afternoon question?

Cheers - Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sarah Poppy
Sent: 08 April 2010 14:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Friday Afternoon Question

Sylvina is right in that there are two uses for evidence that have
perhaps got conflated.  Evidence for how the monument came to be
identified and included in the HER, and evidence for the form the
monument now takes, and HERs tend to do the former (and probably to a
lesser extent the latter).  However evidence is absolutely essential for
doing sifts on the HER to identify selections of sites that may meet
other requirements or criteria E.g. sites that are candidates for
inclusion in the SHINE dataset (just in case anyone was in need of
reminding...)

I can't say I am overly familiar with what IFP has to say on evidence?

Cheers
Sarah

-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sylvina Tilbury
Sent: 08 April 2010 14:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Friday Afternoon Question

I agree. But then what if you create a record for a building that is
extant at the time but is then subsequently demolished? I would leave
the evidence type(s) alone once entered as I see it as the evidence upon
which the creation of the monument record was originally based. I would
record the fact that the building was now demolished elsewhere in the
monument record. But that means that my filter for extant/demolished
buildings isn't reflecting the situation here and now. (Of course I am
being wildly optimistic that we would know about this in the majority of
cases!)

Sylvina


Sylvina Tilbury | HER Officer | Planning & Development Service |
Highland Council

Glenurquhart Road, Inverness, IV3 5NX | T: 01463 702503 | F: 01463
702298

Highland HER: http://her.highland.gov.uk 


-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sarah Orr
Sent: 08 April 2010 14:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Friday Afternoon Question

I would say that evidence types were a useful category of information
for sorting monuments - eg into sites known as cropmarks/earthworks, or
into extant/demolished buildings.  Of course it all adds up to more data
to enter and I agree that there is some duplication, but what would
reduce the confusion would be ensuring that the terms for evidence
weren't identical to ones that are already used as monument types, HLC
types, etc.  This is most problematic in Physical Evidence if you're not
indexing to narrow levels - eg you could theoretically enter a monument
type 'building' with evidence 'building' but you'd be much better off
with 'church' and 'extant building', etc.  Same with 'earthwork'... So
should all evidence terms be modified so they aren't the same words as
those in other thesauri - or perhaps we shouldn't use 'building' at all
but only its narrower terms?

Re using more than one evidence term I must admit I hadn't noticed the
distinction for documentary evidence as 'known only from primary sources
etc' as I have been using it along with other physical terms - seemed
useful to know both existed.  For landscape parks etc I've generally
been using botanical feature, structure, earthwork etc as appropriate,
though I can see that something on a larger scale might perhaps be
useful for these and cemeteries ...landscape unit/landscape feature may
be?

Best wishes
 
Sarah Orr
Historic Environment Record Officer
Archaeology Service
West Berkshire Council
West Street House
West Street
Newbury
RG14 1BD
 
Tel 01635 519805
Fax 01635 519811
 
[log in to unmask]
www.westberks.gov.uk/archaeology
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sylvina Tilbury
Sent: 08 April 2010 11:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Friday Afternoon Question

For that matter, why do we actually need evidence types at all? Really.
It causes no end of confusion with data entry. Does the evidence type
actually tell us anything at all that can't be gleaned from source and
event records and condition/survival scores? I always enter one or more
evidence types because MIDAS says I should, but I do sometimes wonder
why I'm doing it.

In Scotland we recently tried to agree a list of evidence types to
include in ASPIRE. The non-HBSMR users were generally baffled by the
Inscription list and were using "evidence" in an entirely different way.

Thoughts?

Sylvina


Sylvina Tilbury | HER Officer | Planning & Development Service |
Highland Council

Glenurquhart Road, Inverness, IV3 5NX | T: 01463 702503 | F: 01463
702298

Highland HER: http://her.highland.gov.uk 


-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Winfield, Hugh
Sent: 08 April 2010 11:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Friday Afternoon Question

I'm not sure that I understand one of the main principles of this
dialog; why can you not have more than one evidence term for a monument?
I would record a cemetery as being a Sub-Surface Deposit and a Structure
if it has standing grave markers. 
Although the scope term for SSDs refers to excavated evidence and
geophysics etc, this is not really needed in a cemetery with standing
grave markers where we can be 100% certain that there are
deposits/burials/stratigraphy below the ground surface. 
Questioning whether there are sub-surface deposits within a known
graveyard seems worryingly close to the Schrodinger debacle.

Also, Vernacular monuments can be (and often are) deliberately designed
by an architect, it just means the local trend or fashion. I presume
that by Vernacular you mean that the monument has not been deliberately
planned, but formed in more of an ad-hoc basis or built to a
pre-conceived idea with no "blue-print".


Hugh Winfield
Archaeologist
Development Management
Regeneration Department
North East Lincolnshire Council
Origin Two, Origin Way
Europarc, Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN37 9TZ
Tel: (01472) 32 3586 Fax: (01472) 32 4216 

______________________________________________        
This email has been scanned by Netintelligence        
http://www.netintelligence.com/email



Unless related to the business of The Highland Council, the views or
opinions expressed within this email are those of the sender and do not
necessarily reflect those of The Highland Council, or associated bodies,
nor does this email form part of any contract unless so stated.




Emails sent to and from this organisation will be monitored in
accordance 
with the law to ensure compliance with policies and to minimise any 
security risks.
The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may
be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of
the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive
this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using
the reply facility in your email software.

Disclaimer

This e-mail (including any attachments) is only for the person or
organisation it is addressed to.  If you are not the intended recipient
you must let me know immediately and then delete this e-mail.  If you
use this e-mail without permission, or if you allow anyone else to see,
copy or distribute the e-mail, or if you do, or don't do something
because you have read this e-mail, you may be breaking the law.  

Liability cannot be accepted for any loss or damage arising from this
e-mail (or any attachments) or from incompatible scripts or any virus
transmitted.  

E-mails and attachments sent to or received from staff and elected
Members may be monitored and read and the right is reserved to reject or
return or delete any which are considered to be inappropriate or
unsuitable.

Do you really need to print this email?  It will use paper, add to your
waste disposal costs and harm the environment.

********************
This e-mail contains information intended for the addressee only.
It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or professional privilege. 
If you are not the addressee you are not authorised to disseminate, distribute, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment to it
The content may be personal or contain personal opinions and unless specifically stated or followed up in writing, the content cannot be taken to form a contract or to be an expression of the County Council's position.
Lancashire County Council reserves the right to monitor all incoming and outgoing email
Lancashire County Council has taken reasonable steps to ensure that outgoing communications do not contain malicious software and it is your responsibility to carry out any checks on this email before accepting the email and opening attachments.
********************
Lancashire, a place where everyone matters
********************