That's the trouble with empiricism (or indeed reification), it thinks
that a Monument is some physical thing. It's not: it is an
interpretation. Historical sources, burnt deposits, musket balls,
fields, buildings, etc are all evidence for the interpretation.
I have not suggested we refer to the Great Fire of London as a
"Monument" in speaking about it to the general public, but in a MIDAS
compliant database (using Source - Event - Monument categorisation), it
can only go in a Monuments category, rather than an archaeological
events or documentary source category. The very name itself, i.e.
"Great Fire" is clearly an interpretation (puny in comparison to other
conflagrations in the past!).
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.