-----Original Message-----
From: Evans, Mike 
Sent: 12 May 2000 15:20
To: Sheldrick, Gillian
Subject: FW: POST MEDIEVAL and MODERN




-----Original Message-----
From: Evans, Mike 
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 2:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: POST MEDIEVAL and MODERN


Surely the relationship, at least in common usage, between EARLY MODERN and
MODERN is different from that between EARLY IRON AGE and IRON AGE. The
former terms refer to different periods, and are not nested as in the latter
case. It may not be consistent, but using modern as a wider term could cause
yet more confusion. Inelegant as it is I can see merit in using
post-medieval as a broad term, particularly given the obvious difficulty in
finding agreement on key periods within this.

Mike Evans

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlisle, Philip [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 2:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: POST MEDIEVAL and MODERN


Dear Nigel et al

The only problem from a thesaurus/terminology point of view is that EARLY
MODERN by, its very nature (to my mind anyway), should be a narrower term of
MODERN in the same way that EARLY IRON AGE is a narrower term of IRON AGE. 

With regards to Jeremy's comments 

If POST MEDIEVAL should be a broad term for anything later than it, then
MODERN would be a narrow term and similarly MEDIEVAL, and POST MEDIEVAL
would be narrow terms of POST ROMAN. I'm not sure how useful that would be
in a search.

Phil



-----Original Message-----
From:	Nigel Pratt                 ES [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:	12 May 2000 12:51
To:	[log in to unmask]
Subject:	RE: POST MEDIEVAL and MODERN

Cath Maloney wrote:-

	"I know, I sympathise.  But part of my original point was that both
these terms are used far too loosely, often because these are the most
recent periods and so many archaeologists dismiss them, assuming no one is,
or ever going to be, interested in them, which is very far from the case.
These are also the periods which can be very precisely dated, especially
with the availability of documentary evidence and standing buildings."

	I totally agree with this, in the past I have had to enter data onto
a SMR from archaeological reports where these terms are used in this way.
The terms should be retained if only to assist in dealing with such
(hopefully increasingly rare) reports.
	and:-

"Andrew Millard suggested Early Modern for the period 1500-1800 but that
covers what archaeologists are used to  calling post medieval.  But could we
use  EARLY MODERN to describe say 18th-19th century and MODERN to describe
the 20th and 21st centuries, if we need these handy terms?  Otherwise just
use 18th century/19th century or whatever when one can't be specific."

	I don't see why EARLY MODERN, POST MEDIEVAL and MODERN cannot have a
degree of overlap (DSU please correct me if I have blasphemed!). I would
favour POST MEDIEVAL and EARLY MODERN both starting with at 1540, with EARLY
MOD finishing in say 1690. POST MED would finish in 1900, with MODERN
starting in 1901. Other suggested terms, such as NUCLEAR AGE, 20th Century
etc can also be fitted in. Do these all these period terms need to be
contiguous? Would this make it horrendously complex?
	

	Nigel Pratt					


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%