On 9 Apr 02, at 12:01, Peter Muckle wrote:

> You will always need a broad period field - don't mess with it by
> sub-dividing. 1958 is an odd choice for modern though - is it a typo? from
> 1918?. Or something to do with Sir Cliff Richard's first No.1?
>
> Maybe there should be separate fields for sub-period (ie EBA, LBA),
> millenium/century (early, mid, late), reign (Victorian), historical period
> (Industrial Revolution, WWI, Civil War, Nuclear etc) and absolute (1653). If
> you try and incorporate all of these into a single period field, you will
> end up with a crazed system, a bookload of contradictory rules and no way to
> follow them.
>
> Architectural Historians have been using multiple time/period/style
> classifications for years, which have been largely overlooked by
> archaeology-trained SMR officers. IMO this is one of the fundamental
> failures of every SMR system I have looked at (apart from my own of
> course!), and most of the officers I have talked to as well (I would be
> delighted to be contradicted by an  architecture-aware SMR officer). As
> buildings are being entered more and more onto SMRs, these flaws are being
> highlighted. So I say - expand your mind - go and read some books on
> architectural history first!
>
> Peter Muckle
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Evans" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 10:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [FISH] Period classifications
>
>
> Surely the date ranges are parameters rather than true dates, otherwise
> different parts of the country (UK) would, for example,  have different
> start date for Roman (Sussex AD 37!). Certainly the opportunity to use
> century dates (starting with 01) is an excellent idea although I would not
> like to see post medieval disappear entirely. The later part of the PM
> period is difficult to justify, but Victorian is not a good replacement. I
> shall suggest pb for Post (Mark) Brunel. I would also find Civil War WWI
> WWII useful additions
>
> Thank you
> David Evans
> Environment and Conservation
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 09/04/2002 11:27:23 >>>
> Hi everyone ......
>
> i have recently been asked this question .. i suggest we really need to
> move along on this ....and provide some solutions at present the periods
> are pretty shabby ...
> ............................................................................
> .....................................
> Jason Siddall
> NTSMR Officer
>
> Please ask FISH about periods - we are unhappy about the 'modern'
> period ending in 2050 - not sensible! Also, why does 'post-medieval' end
> at 1900 and 'modern' not begin until 1958 - less sensible still...
>
> Can we please move away from 'post-medieval' to century dates? I want
> to be able to use terms such as '18th century' or '20th century', etc.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Rob Woodside
> NT Archaeological Adviser
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it from South
> Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> notify the South Gloucestershire Postmaster at the following
> address [log in to unmask]
>
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> **********************************************************************
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.338 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 14/03/02



Victoria Bryant
Information and Records Officer
Worcestershire Archaeological Service
Woodbury Hall
University College Worcester, WR2 6AJ
Tel: 01905 855494
Fax 01905 855035