In response to Charles, Daphne and Lee, Edmund
Yes I agree totally there must be a constant dialogue and
discussion between peers. We must always remember that data
must be accessable for it to be worth recording.
Trying to set a "standard" list of dates is incredably useful and
important. The problem comes when the list becomes inflexable
or does not reflect the Users needs (this is in its self a problem
as you can never please everyone).
Evidently our Periods are set by current research and
knowledge, which is fine. Our period system is indeed very
specialised (as Brown, Duncan said) my gut reaction would be
that we must either go one of two ways broaden our descriptions
in the field splitting them into sub sections (or even hierachal)
i.e
Medieval
Early Norman
Middle Norman
Late Norman
Post Mediaval
Elizabethan
Jacobean
Stuart
Industrial
Early Victorian
Middle Victorian
Late Victorian
or even use centuries
11th century
12th century
13th century
ect
or be very restrictive (as we are now)
medieval
Post Medieval
Modern
what ever the decision in the end we must consider the most
important thing which is the need to retrieve data for use by
archaeologist and non archaeologist.
Jason Siddall
Acting SMR Manager
or
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|