A very interesting review Jonathan. In particular, interesting to note that "sites" are also implicitly sidelined by the ceremonial and monumental connotations of "Monument", so it is not just Palaeolithic remains that might be implicitly overlooked, but later features as well. Clearly it has been hard to tinker with the legal definition of "Monument", but I think that from the Palaeolithic/Mesolithic viewpoint ( and perhaps also relevant to non-monumental evidence from later periods too) what needs to happen is that HER officers, and others in the curatorial, consultancy and contracting environment, need to start consciously embracing and adopting a wide concept of "Monument" to cover all historical environmental information.
Homepage: www.soton.ac.uk/~ffws/New_ffws/index.html
Francis Wenban-Smith (Dr)
Department of Archaeology (CAHOR - Centre for Applied Human Origins Research)
University of Southampton (Avenue Campus)
Southampton, Hants
SO17 1BF
02380-596 864 (direct)
07771-623 096 (mobile)
-----Original Message-----
From: The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Last
Sent: 24 October 2014 10:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH] [MASSMAIL] Re: [FISH] Labels, Lithics and Landforms e-conference -Session 2: Landforms and sediments
As an outsider to FISH and the data issues being explored here, one thing that struck me was how different the definition of 'monument' is to that used in ancient monuments legislation, where I've previously been concerned with efforts to define and explain what we called 'sites without structures' - those sites, including most Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archaeology, that fall outside the scope of the 1979 Act, and are thereby ineligible for statutory designation, however important we might feel they are.
This issue was thoroughly explored in the selection guide that's available at https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/dssg-sites-early-human-activity/ and I won't repeat what you can all read there (though I'd still welcome comments/feedback on that document…).
So what I have done, in the light of my terminological confusion, was to unpick a bit more the different ways we use the word 'monument', and this brief investigation is set out in the attached. I apologise if it's of no relevance to the present discussion, but it was helpful for me at least! There is a sense, I feel, that however inclusive the MIDAS definition of 'monument' now is, the term itself carries connotations associated with the myriad of other ways we use it, none of which seem particularly useful for categorising Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites.
Jonathan
|
