Kiddies - I sat this one out till yesterday. The separation of
observation from inference is sound both scientifically and
philosophically. Doesn't matter what you call the entries, so long as
they are one or the other.
`Recognition event' is six syllables, and inevitably gets contracted to
`rec-event' (often misspelled `recent'!) and ultimately just `event'.
As we are seeing from Jeremy, the last one opens the way to conflating
it with `historical event', so full circle. Re-using the term
`monument' for an `interpretation' or `model' seemed (do I remember) to
arise from conflation with part of the 1960's Benson/Cook term `sites
and monuments' for the prototype heritage record, but I am pretty sure
Don never saw this as a separation of observation from interpretation.
For the Fire of London exemplar, Pepys' factual description is a record,
and hence in current parlance a `recognition event'. It therefore ranks
alongside a modern archaeologist's record of an extensive City fire
horizon with typical late 17th-cent ceramics associated. If however
Pepys had speculated who started the fire, without any reference to an
evidence-based judicial process, that would belong to the realm of
`interpretation', and would be a `model'. Schliemann's excavations may
be historical events Phil, but his factual account of what he found is a
record.
Other disciplines would have called a convention to resolve this, maybe
it could still happen as a session for an IFA conference. All it would
need is a table of synonyms for `observation' versus synonyms for
`interpretation', I would vote for fairly basic terms like `record'
versus `model'. - Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LAKE, Jeremy
Sent: 19 July 2006 11:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rejoinder - Great Balls of Fire
I agree with Phil. We have made something very straightforward very
confusing.
An Event is something that happened - a fire, a battle: its extent is
subject to interpretation that can be tested by the evidence.
The definition of monument is in itself subject to interpretation. It is
a physical thing (as a building, a hill fort, an industrial or military
site or even as buried archaeology with high potential to reveal
evidence about past societies/technologies etc) but it has the ability
to both reflect and inform the understanding of the past by us or
others. It is a physical thing, but like landscape - in itself the
result of human and natural interaction - is open to a diversity of
views and interpretations, whether its preservation affords value to
society etc. I personally would like us to drop monument and work from
less 'antiquarian' definitions of the broader historic environment -
whether hedges, woods, roads, buildings, smelting mills or whatever.
Language needs to be clear, and I must confess that if I was external to
the HER community I would be mightily confused, rather maddened and even
feel excluded by the type of language that is bandied about. My wife and
friends would likewise tell me to get real!
J
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CARLISLE, Phil
Sent: 19 July 2006 10:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rejoinder - Great Balls of Fire
Dear Neil
I have to disagree. The labels we attach to the monument in a record ie
what we think it is or want to call it, whether house, burial, bridge,
castle or ditch is the 'Interpretation' not the monument itself. The
monument itself is, was and, to my mind, always will be a 'thing'.
If my four year old asked me what we were doing at the weekend and I
said we were going to visit some interpretations he would be slightly
confused, whereas my wife would probably try to slap some sense into me
and tell me to stop talking rubbish.
Conversely If I said we were going to visit something (ie some 'thing')
Fred would more than likely be excited and ask what we were going to
visit, the answer to which, given his current fascination, would
inevitably be a castle!
I think the recent email traffic on this discussion list has also shown
that the use of the term 'Event' in the archaeological sense is
restrictive.
I would rather see types of event - historical events, activities (ie
archaeological investigations etc.).
In fact in the NMR AMIE database 'Activities' is the name of the table
in the database used to record 'Events' (in the investigative sense).
The OED (bless it!) gives the primary definition of an event as
'Something that happens; an occurrence, an incident.'
In this respect both Schliemann's excavations and the Great Fire are
events. And I would also argue that Schliemann's excavation is also an
historical event!
What do we think the general public would understand by Events in the
Monument - Event - Archive model? I would argue that they would expect
to see historical events rather than investigations carried out on a
site.
As more and more information from HERs and the NMR is made available
over online we have to ensure that it's public-friendly and as such we
have to speak in a language that they understand otherwise we'll be
constantly pointing users to our FAQ or glossary pages to explain the
jargon.
Also if, as you say Neil, monuments are not things but merely
interpretations then why so we persist in talking about the Monument -
Event - Archive model and not the Interpretation - Event - Archive
model?
As for Themes we use this in 'Viewfinder' to group photographs which
depict similar things eg. Childhood, Crime and Punishment, Bomb Damage,
People (active) and People (posed).
So again let the gods of confusion reign!
Phil
Phil Carlisle
Data Standards Supervisor
National Monuments Record Centre
Kemble Drive
Swindon
SN2 2GZ
+44 (0)1793 414824
The information contained within this e-mail is confidential and may be
privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you have received
the e-mail in error, please inform the sender and delete it from your
system. The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed to anyone else
or copied without the sender's consent.
Any views and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of English Heritage. English
Heritage will not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Neil Campling
Sent: 19 July 2006 08:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Rejoinder - Great Balls of Fire
Dear all,
We are in the middle of a major campaign called "History Matters". Why
then don't we know our own history? I refer everybody to the notes made
of the ALGAO SMR Sub-committee Event -Monument Seminar held on 13
October 1998. All of what we have been discussing was set out at that
seminar, and the majority of curators have been working on that basis
since then.
Phil asks "If monuments are not 'things' then what are they?". As I
said in my previous e-mails, they are "interpretations". Simon asks "I
cannot see why it cannot be an event albeit an historical one, how would
you classify the excavations of Troy by Schliemann?" In my previous
e-mail, I noted the confusion between recording events and historical
events. Under the Monument - Event - Source schema, an Event is defined
as "a single episode, i.e. using a single investigative technique of
data collection, over a discrete area of land". Schliemann's excavation
at Troy would thus be an Event (or series of Events). The Great Fire of
London would not be so under this definition.
The 1998 seminar identified that it would not be possible to interpret
some information to produce a Monument, or that it might be hard to put
some data derived from Events into a coherent, i.e. Monument, form. But
this is exactly what Ed was talking about in his e-mail when he said he
wanted to "explore *new* concepts that MIDAS Heritage (the 2nd edition
title) will extend into, beyond the EMA model". I think Theme is a good
starting point for this new category / concept for data or information
that does not fit easily into the EMA model.
Cheers,
Neil
WARNING
This E-mail and any attachments may contain information that is
confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the
view of the Council.
North Yorkshire County Council.
***********************************************************
Building Pride in our City.
Reduce, reuse, recycle - please don't print this email unless really necessary.
This email and any files transmitted with it 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 author by return email
http://www.oxford.gov.uk
***********************************************************
|