Dear all
'Event' is a label attached by historic environment data managers (HEROs or whatever) to describe archaeological activities. We surely wouldn't present these things to the public as events, or let them confuse them with historical events.
This is a dictionary definition of 'Monument' I plundered from the web:
mon·u·ment (mŏn'yə-mənt)
n.
A structure, such as a building or sculpture, erected as a memorial.
An inscribed marker placed at a grave; a tombstone.
Something venerated for its enduring historic significance or association with a notable past person or thing: the architectural monuments of ancient Rome; traditions that are monuments to an earlier era.
An outstanding enduring achievement: a translation that is a monument of scholarship.
An exceptional example: “Thousands of them wrote texts, some of them monuments of dullness” (Robert L. Heilbroner).
An object, such as a post or stone, fixed in the ground so as to mark a boundary or position.
A written document, especially a legal one.
[Middle English, from Latin monumentum, memorial, from monēre, to remind.]
Does that help? We just use these words rather differently from the commonly held definitions. As long as we understand that there's a difference between the technical terminology we use for data management and the descriptive words we use for talking to people surely there's no problem?
I think in any case my children would revolt if I told them we were going to visit a monument.
James Dinn
Archaeological Officer, Worcester City Council
Tel: 01905 721132
Fax: 01905 722454
Mobile: 07789 914772
Minicom: 01905 722156
[log in to unmask]
www.cityofworcester.gov.uk
www.worcestercitymuseums.org.uk
-----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.
**********************************************************************
Making Worcester a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit
**********************************************************************
General information about the Services that Worcester City Council
offers can be found on the Website at www.cityofworcester.gov.uk
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. This message should not be forwarded to a third
party without the originator's consent, otherwise the City Council
disclaims any liability for the accuracy of the contents. If you have
received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
|