At long last there seems to be some sense emerging regarding the issue of names.  I completely agree with Glenn Foard, Annie Given & Paul Cumming.  The name SMR is not really an accurate description of many SMRs but so what?  Most people, even many members of the public, know & recognise the name.  It doesn't really seem to bother them that the name isn't strictly speaking accurate.   Furthermore, as in NI, the term is embedd in UK government policy - PPG16 even has a section entitled SMRs (para 17) and it is also in many (if not most) local government archaeological policies.  To change the name now will only cause confusion in many people's mind's and also may also create problems when faced with an appeal/inquiry or legal challenge situation when one is dealing with lawyers who may well be able to demonstrate that the SMR is no longer the SMR if renamed.  In that situation it would follow that any policies etc refering to the SMR are unenforcible and irrelevant.  This may sound petty and unlikely, but being married to a property lawyer, I have been assured that a lawyer would have no qualms in taking such an approach.  So why make life more difficult than it need be?

As I said a few days ago, if an authority wants to change the name of their SMR so be it, but there is absolutely no reason us all to change the name just for the sake of accuracy.  Archaeologists already have a reputation of being a bit inward looking, so why make it worse.  Let's just stick to the name unless and until there is serious external pressure to do so.

Rob Bourn

>>> "Given, Annie" <[log in to unmask]> 02/18/00 11:28am >>>
since the name, and need to contact, nismr, is embedded in government
policy, publications and practices the thought of changing it caused a
feeling of real dread, and i agree with pauls expressed concerns  

with reference to HEIMS in particular,in some NI vernacular, and no doubt in
Scots, the statement 
		to make a hames of something
means 	to make a complete mess of it

annie given


-----Original Message-----
From: Cuming, Paul - SP EM [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 17 February 2000 11:45
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: In Nomine Smrorum


Whilst not a passionate opponent of the re-naming of SMRs, and indeed
agreeing that those of us who store Heritage information will need to expand
our datasets beyond a narrow definition of Sites and Monuments I do wonder
if this is really a step we need to take at present. Three main objections
that occur to me:

1. At present as SMR Officer I can claim to be meeting the objectives of my
job description pretty well. I would like to think that we have a pretty
comprehensive database of the sites and monuments of Kent as known to date.
If my job description is retitled Historic Environment Information Record
officer or somesuch I move from a position where I can defend our record
fairly robustly to one where I have to acknowledge serious weaknesses.
Clearly this has ramifications both politically and in terms of the planned
future direction of the SMR. Whilst I would like in due course to see some
movement in the direction of HEIMS or whatever, I would rather it were
formally recognised by a change in name when we were nearer to acheiving the
record so described. I do agree, however, that this is a disucssion we need
to have at an early stage in this process.

2. The question of SMRs acheiving statutory status has already been raised.
Presumably this status would be awarded on the basis that SMRs have acheived
a stable place within the profession, that they contain reliable and
consistent data, that they fulfill their objectives as stated in their
titles consitently and generally have attained a certain level of
'maturity'. Are these criteria likely to be supported or contradicted by a
mass (and almost certainly inconsistent) name change at this juncture to a
form of words which very few 'ex-SMRs' will meet to a satisfactory level for
some time to come.

3. Historic Environment Information Record - just how long is this
particular piece of string? Sites & Monuments Record may be too tight a
definition of what we do but some of the alternatives are very woolly. A
HEIR officer or Cultural Resource manager could, after all, be expected to
store historical information to a level well beyond that maintained by SMRs
at present. 

In general I wonder if a mass name change at this point will help or hinder
us in acheiving the reliability and consistency we seek. At a time when many
SMRs are in a state of flux due to the introduction of new software (in
particular Exegesis with all its attendant problems) and are already
stretched by resourcing problems do we really need the serious new injection
of confusion both inside and outside the profession that changing our names
must bring?

Paul Cuming
SMR Officer
Kent County Council



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