I must agree with Roger on this. I think that an 'associated historic events' record which could be linked to one or more monuments makes more sense than misleading the public into believing that 'Great fire of London' is a monument. Indeed if we look at the Monument in London which commemorates the Great Fire, this would have a record with Monument Type - 'Commemorative Monument' and Associated Historical Event - Great Fire of London.
If the house in pudding lane was still around this too could be linked to the same event.
I think Battlefields are slightly different to fires inasmuch as they are Monument Type - field before the battle but during it and ever after they become monument type - battlefield. The field itself may not have changed drastically but the event changed our perception of what it is.
With a fire the monument types are buildings beforehand but afterwards may just be a layer of burnt earth or ash or if we're lucky 'Fire-damaged Buildings'. This is a drastic change but fire-damaged buildings don't stay fire-damaged for long as they are either restored to their former glory or demolished so to have a term such as fire-damaged building or burnt deposits, as a monument type, is to my mind wrong.
Burnt deposits are 'evidence' of a fire event not monuments.
I'm rambling now so I think I'll shut up
Data Standards Supervisor
National Monuments Record Centre
+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.
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of THOMAS, Roger M
Sent: 13 July 2006 09:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fires, Sources and Monuments
If we end up in the position where we refer to the Great Fire of London
as a 'monument', it may (possibly) make sense to us, but it's sure as
hell going to confuse the general public to whom we are supposed to be
more 'friendly' these days. In practice, I suspect if we do start using
language in this rather distorted way, we will also end up confusing
A separate record for 'historic events' (as Brian Giggins suggests)
seems a much better idea.
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Neil Campling
Sent: 10 July 2006 08:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fires, Sources and Monuments
Surely interpreted historical events such as the Great Fire of London
or similar fires in most provincial towns should be identified in HERs
as "Monuments", i.e. as interpretations, just as Battlefields are so
identified. Several different interpretations of the same event would
thus be different Monuments.
Evidence of such Monuments, i.e. burned deposits, would be recorded
separately, as part of a archaeological recording event. Historical
records of such fires would be recorded as Sources.
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.