JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for HERFORUM Archives


HERFORUM Archives

HERFORUM Archives


HERFORUM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HERFORUM Home

HERFORUM Home

HERFORUM  July 2006

HERFORUM July 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Fires, Sources and Monuments

From:

David Evans <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Issues related to Historic Environment Records <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:38:45 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (206 lines)

Football FIELD! 

-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CARLISLE, Phil
Sent: 13 July 2006 10:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fires, Sources and Monuments

Sorry yes, I was saving time. Of course we can only say a field is a
battlefield because of physical evidence. Even where we have historic
documentary evidence we can never be sure that the part of the field
we're standing in is a battlefield.

In this instance all we can record is the monument - battlefield with
the evidence types 'conjectural evidence' and 'documentary evidence'.

If we can establish through physical evidence that the field was indeed
a battlefield then it does in my mind become a separate monument type in
the same way that a field with white lines painted on it stops being a
field and becomes a football pitch. Or a barn following conversion stops
being a barn and becomes a house.

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 THOMAS, Roger M
Sent: 13 July 2006 10:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fires, Sources and Monuments

I'm glad that Phil and I agree on fires, but we may disagree on
battlefields!

Unless there is physical evidence (defences, musket balls, whatever, it
is the historical record of a battle which changes our perception of the
field, not the fact of the battle itself. There may be (probably are)
lots of battles which we know nothing about (e.g. ones that may have
occurred in prehistoric times) and the places where those occurred are
still just fields (or whatever) to us. So it's the documentary record,
not the historical event itself, which results in the definition. Which
is why a separate table for that kind seems sensible.

This has cropped up with UADs. There's a world of difference between
saying 'there is historical evidence for a tenement on this site in the
14th cent' and 'there are the remains of a 14th cent tenement on this
site'. The chains of evidence and reasoning which lead to those two
statements are completely different from each other. Not recognising
that difference can lead one into problems.

(I think the problem with battlefields is that, because we have a
Register of them, we feel we need to put them in HERs along with SAMs,
LBs etc. But I don't think they're the same!).

Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CARLISLE, Phil
Sent: 13 July 2006 09:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fires, Sources and Monuments

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



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 THOMAS, Roger M
Sent: 13 July 2006 09:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fires, Sources and Monuments

Dear all

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
ourselves.

A separate record for 'historic events' (as Brian Giggins suggests)
seems a much better idea. 

Roger

-----Original Message-----
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

Dear all,

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. 

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.
**********************************************************************
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 Council 
Postmaster at the address below.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has 
been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager