Jonathan I think you're reading too much into the meaning of occupation site. The scope note makes no assumptions as to the superiority of permanent settlement. It merely suggests that there is no evidence that the site was permanently occupied and therefore is likely to be a transient site.
As to artefact scatter. If that is the monument type then use the monument type ARTEFACT SCATTER. The use of artefact scatter as an evidence type is there so that you can infer a monument type where the artefact assemblage would provide sufficient evidence.
Sites without structures can be recorded using SITE, OCCUPATION SITE, LITHIC WORKING SITE etc.
The thesauri are indexing tools. They are not intended to be used to CLASSIFY in the correct sense of the word.
Phil
________________________________________
From: The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH) [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Last [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24 October 2014 12:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH] Session 2, Q3 - deposits & palaeo-environmental evidence
Gill's post raises a couple of interesting points about implied valuations in the terms we use, which are usually detrimental to Pal/Meso stuff:
'FIND: A monument whose existence is indicated by the discovery of isolated artefacts or an artefact scatter' seems to implicitly exclude those sites where the monument IS the scatter, i.e. the artefacts are not a sign of something that is buried, they (and their depositional/spatial context) are significant in their own right. This is exactly the issue of 'sites without structures'...
'OCCUPATION SITE: A site showing some signs of occupation but evidence is insufficient to imply permanent settlement.' This quite clearly suggests that transient/temporary occupation is inferior to 'permanent settlement' (whatever that means...) - the implication is that if only we had more evidence/better preservation, we could say this was a proper site!!
I think we need better ways (or better language) to record the significance of the transient, temporary and ephemeral - issues which academics are now engaging with, especially studies of mobility in the Meso/Neo.
Jonathan
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of English Heritage unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to English Heritage may become publicly available.
Portico: your gateway to information on sites in the National Heritage Collection; have a look and tell us what you think.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/portico/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of English Heritage unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to English Heritage may become publicly available.
Portico: your gateway to information on sites in the National Heritage Collection; have a look and tell us what you think.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/portico/
|