C Recording practice guidelines
Contributors: Tony Austin, Allson Bennett, Rob Bourn, Victoria Bryant, Phil Carlisle,
Gail Falkingham, Paul Gilman, Isobel Holroyd, Tony Hurley, Neil Lang, Edmund
Lee, Neil Lockett, Martin Newman, Nigel Pratt, Matthew Stiff.
Computer databases are
important aids to information retrieval but, however good, they are merely
tools that are used by people. To
create records in these systems, people must make decisions about what
information they need to retrieve, how it will be structured and how much
detail to include. Different decisions
are made by different individuals or even by the same person working over a
period of time. These differences can
cause considerable difficulties when it comes to answering a query that requires
information to be retrieved.
This section of the manual will give
general guidelines for creating records based on the MIDAS data standard (see B. 6.3). The aim is not to
set out detailed rules for recording but to describe general principles and issues
to be considered for each of the major categories of information:
·
HER
monuments
·
HER
events
·
sources
·
objects
·
planning
casework
·
monument
management.
C.1 Data dictionaries and
recording-practice guidelines
The aim of this section of the
manual is to give general guidelines on recording in HERs. These guidelines are based on the MIDAS data
standard but it is important to remember that this is an open standard and does
not specify the physical data structure of a database.
When developing a database from such
a standard, it is normal practice to prepare a data dictionary. This is a document which sets out all of the
data fields that make up a computer record and specifies what information may
be recorded in each field, including the reference data lists to be used and
any other rules (for example the use of abbreviations). Data dictionaries have been developed for
HERs. In 1993 Recording England's Past: A
Data Standard for the Extended National Archaeological Record (RCHME and
ACAO) was published and in 1997, SMR '97 (RCHME)
was circulated in draft. SMR '97
provided the basis from which the ExeGesIS SDM Ltd's SMR software was developed
and has continued to be developed to provide the data dictionary for that
software. A range of different computer
systems is in use across the UK and HER managers are recommended to make sure
that a data dictionary specific to their system is available as a reference
aid.
Looking beyond the physical data
structure of HER databases, a complex range of information is available about
the local historic environment, its investigation and management and the
sources of information. HER
professionals must decide how to organise that information into computer
records. This manual gives some general
illustrations of the issues involved in this process but it is possible to
include only a limited number of case studies.
HER managers. are recommended to use this as a base to develop local
recording-practice guidelines for recording particular monument classes in
their area, for example, Roman roads, medieval historic towns, 19th-century
industrial complexes.
Data dictionaries and
recording-practice guidelines are a helpful coaching aid for new members of
staff or volunteers. These documents
also provide useful points of reference as people are learning how to record
information in the HER's computer system. They are part of the Recording Manual
(see section B1: policy and Planning)
C.1.1 Keeping
the recording-practice guidelines up to date
Various forums exist for discussion
about recording practices – in England and Wales the HER Forum, regional HER
working parties and data-standards working parties, and in Scotland the SMRForum. HER managers are encouraged
to discuss issues and, where possible, to develop consistent approaches. As discussions develop, this manual will be
updated. Local recording-practice
guidelines will also need to be kept up to date as changes occur, such as the
introduction of new database software or the start of new enhancement projects.
C.1.2 Quality assurance
procedures
However well documented the HER's
working procedures are, it is people who create the records in its computer
database. HER managers are recommended
to establish routine procedures for checking a sample of the records being
created. This is particularly important
when new people commence data input but it remains important however
experienced staff members are. Mistakes
can occur in computer data for a number of reasons, some as a result of human
error but others may be caused by system or network problems. Without routine monitoring procedures these
errors will only be picked up when queries cannot be answered or when the data
is migrated.
C.2 Modelling the past on HERs
| C.2.1 Defining a model | C.2.2 Current models | C.2.3 New roles, new models | C.2.4 Implementing a data model for HERs |
A model is a representation of some aspect of reality. The
purpose of creating a model is to help understand, describe, or predict how
things work in the real world by exploring a simplified representation of a
particular entity or phenomenon.
This section describes the issues that need to be considered
in modelling the information held by an HER to support its functions as a
development control tool and research resource.
The past in all its detail is inherently unknowable.
Pragmatically it is necessary to concentrate effort in data collection to those
areas for which there is a demonstrable need rather then what is theoretically
possible.
HER officers bring extensive domain expertise to the process
of data modelling, but they do not necessarily have the expertise required to
apply this knowledge to the modelling process itself. This may require the
experience of specialist information management experts.
Development of HERs over the last few years has three broad
categories of information describing the past:
§
Monuments: our current understanding of the
nature of the historic environment, traditionally summarised into records of
monuments. Our understanding of these may change over time as new information
becomes available or existing information is re-interpreted.
§
Events: the means by which we have
arrived at that understanding through investigation. Events records that show
where, how, and by whom information has been gathered.
§
Sources/Archives: records of information
sources that show where information included in monument or source records was
obtained from and where it can be accessed in detail, either within the HER or
by reference to a source of information held elsewhere.
These form the ‘Event/Monument/Archive’ model which
underpins the Level 1 HER Benchmark (Chitty 2002).
Figure 10: The
event-monument-source data model
More precisely (though less snappily) this could be
described as the “Archaeological Investigation, Interpretative Monument,
Information Source Reference” model, following the strict definition of
‘Events’ adopted by ALGAO (see C.6 below), and the recommendation that HERs do
not, where possible, hold primary archive material, but refer users to its
location.
C.2.3 New roles, new models
This model needs to be reconsidered in the development of
SMRs into HERs. Additional areas of information are increasingly of interest,
and a greater complexity of relationships between them is required. A ‘Level 2’
benchmark covering this wider remit needs to be developed.
The HER officer should contribute to the definition of what
areas of information to record. This will change and develop as national
standards for the definition of the content of an HER (for example via the
Forum on Information Standards in Heritage ‘MIDAS’ standard) and professional
practice (via the HER Forum) emerge. Some areas are now being recoorded in
separate modules that were previously parts of the monument record. They
include:
§
Access and amenity information:
documenting public accessibility to significant monuments, facilities available
and so forth.
§
Archaeological deposit modelling to
support prediction of the archaeological potential of a given area.
§
Casework: logging of advice given in
response to development control consultations or other enquiries can promote
consistency and improved service to users, as well as documenting and promoting
the actual work of the HER.
§
Designations: increasingly it is becoming
relevant to record and track the legal status of any given area (for example scheduled,
listed, conservation area) so that appropriate advice can be given. Often these
designations apply to large areas covering several definable separate
monuments.
§
Finds and ecofacts: findspots can reveal
additional information about the local historic environment, or the process of
site formation. Environmental archaeological work can allow the HER to present
a more comprehensive view of the archaeological activity within an area and can
assist in the development of research themes and strategies.
§
Historic Landscapes: the
character of the landscape as well as the nature of the individual monuments
within it is increasingly viewed as significant.
§
People and Organisations: the
people and organisations who have been involved in the creation and use of the
historic environment or its investigation. Recording this information populates
the past and promotes connections to the public’s everyday experience of the
past.
§
Historical ‘events’: using the
term in its broad sense. For example, the Elm Decline in c.4000BC, the
invasion of southern Britain by Julius Caesar in 54 BC or the Fire of London in
1666. These contribute context and meaning to the detailed records of specific
monuments and landscape areas.
Although many of the above can be related to the three
‘core’ categories of information which make up the ‘Event/Monument Archive’
model, others (such as historical events, people and
organisations), go beyond it requiring a more complex approach to the modelling
of information affecting the historic environment.
C.2.4 Implementing a data model for HERs
Modelling these categories of information to create or
develop a suitably comprehensive model is not an easy task. Indeed, an HER
officer with a background in archaeology trying to design a sound data model
faces the same challenge that an information scientist might face in
undertaking an archaeological excavation! There is no substitute for seeking
professional support and advice from information scientists and software
designers.
Some issues that the HER community
need to consider in developing a broader information model include:
§
Interoperability and integration: HERs
exist in a broader community of ‘memory institutions’, including, for example
museums and local record offices. The HER community should aspire to develop
data models that promote sharing and interoperation of data between HERs and
the wider information community.
§
Pick ‘n Mix: A data model for HERs should
cover all the information areas that might be of relevance. HER good practice
might not eventually use all of the area of the model, but it is sensible to
allow for expansion and development.
A major focus of development effort in modelling this wider
information community has been the development of the Conceptual Reference
Model (CRM) by CIDOC, the documentation committee of ICOM, itself a branch of
UNESCO, the United Nations cultural heritage body.
C.3 Case study, recording monuments
and events: Throckmorton Airfield, Worcestershire
Neil Lockett, Worcestershire Historic Environment Record
This case
study is included to provide an overview of the fixed and dynamic elements of
the event-monuments-source data model. The process of investigating a real site
over a period of time is described, as is the process by which HER records were
created and amended. Event, monument and source records are described in more
detail in later sections of the manual; the purpose of this section is to set
the scene.
Describing
the site
Throckmorton airfield is
located on a natural plateau between the villages of Throckmorton, Lower Moor
and Upper Moor. The site was identified as a suitable location for mass burial
of animal carcasses during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in April
2001.
At the time
that the site was identified, only two monuments were recorded on the HER
within 1km of the airfield. These comprised the suspected extent of a medieval
village and a moated site to the east of the airfield. (Figure 11)
Figure 11: Throckmorton
known archaeological sites prior to the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic [© Worcestershire
County Council 2007 and © Crown
Copyright. All rights reserved. 100015914. 2007, air photograph © Central Counties Air Operations Unit 2001]
In order to
assess the potential archaeological impact of the excavaton of pits for selected
for mass burial, aerial photographic sources topographic sources and placename
evidence from a 18th century Enclosure map were consulted (Figure
12),. These sources suggested that the extent of archaeological deposits was
much wider and of a more diverse character than had been was then known. The
placenames ‘Hurstpit Ground’,‘Lower Blackpits’, ‘Ridgeway Ground’, ‘Upper
Blackpits’ and ‘Grainway Ground’ shown on an 18th century Enclosure
map (Figure 12) extended east to west along the ridge and were suggestive of
pre-medieval activity.
An
archaeological assessment by the
Curator, taking all available evidence into account, suggested that the site
had a high likelihood of producing deposits of Prehistoric to Medieval date,
with a focus of settlement lying directly under the airfield. It was decided that the potential of the
site was such that a formal programme of recording was required during
groundworks. This took place in
three stages (Figure 13):
·
The
first stage took the form of salvage recording and watching brief undertaken
during the construction of the burial pits and ancillary works (Stage 1,
WSM30519, Figure 13). The latter included excavation of a major ‘cut off’ canal
and topsoil stripping. This led to the identification of an area of well
preserved and significant Romano-British deposits which were rapidly recorded
as far as circumstances permitted.
Figure 12: Placename evidence
from 1774 Throckmorton Enclosure map [© Worcestershire
County Council 2007 and © Crown
Copyright. All rights reserved. 100015914. 2007]
Figure
13: Throckmorton events
undertaken as part of foot and mouth mitigation [© Worcestershire County Council 2007 and © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. 100015914. 2007]
·
The
second stage of work comprised evaluation (Stage 2; WSM30861) of areas of the
site under consideration for further burial pits to further investigate
significant deposits identified during the early part of Stage 1. Areas of the
site to the north, east and west of the initial burial pits were selected for
geophysical survey, the results of which led to the removal of selected areas
from any contingency plans for additional burial pits in the event of the
outbreak continuing. In addition, a further contingency area for two more
burial pits was identified. This was sandwiched between excavated burial pits
to the north and west and the ‘cut off’ canal to the south and east. A large evaluation trench was excavated to
assess the character, preservation and significance of archaeological deposits
at this location in order that contingency plans might be devised for the
archaeological excavation of the area in the event of the outbreak continuing
or a new outbreak developing.
·
The third stage of work
(Stage 3; WSM30862) was undertaken as a result of the making of a Channel 4
Time Team programme by Videotext Limited. Through the kind co-operation of the
landowners, QuinetiQ, an extensive geophysical survey and programme of
small-scale trenching was undertaken across one area of significant remains
identified by geophysical survey during Stage 2.
As a result
of the three stages of work an extensive area of previously unsuspected Iron
Age and Romano-British settlement has been recorded. In addition, work by the
HER and the Curator enabled the HER record for this part of the county to be
substantially improved through desk-top assessment. Analysis of aerial
photographic sources, as well as Enclosure and Tithe maps, enabled areas of
medieval settlement and cultivation to be more accurately mapped.
Monuments Recorded
·
Neolithic
to Iron Age trackway (Documentary / Cartographic evidence)
·
Iron
Age to Roman settlement (Sub surface deposit)
·
Shrunken
medieval settlement (Earthwork evidence)
·
Medieval
field systems (Cropmark / Earthwork evidence)
·
WWII
to Cold War Airfield site (Extant Building / Structure)
| C.4.1 The level of detail at which records will be created | C.4.2 Levels of interpretation: elements, monuments and landscapes | C.4.3 Relationships between records | C.4.4 Artefacts and ecofacts |
The term 'monuments' covers a diverse range of structures
that vary widely in their nature, date, function and form. Even the legal definition included in the
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 is all encompassing and the
National Heritage Act 2002 amends the
definition of “ancient monuments” in the National Heritage Act (1983) and the
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979) to include sites in, on
or under the seabed:
·
any
building, structure or work, whether above or below the surface of the land or
sea, and any cave or excavation
·
any
site comprising the remains of any such building, structure or work or of any
cave or excavation
·
any
site comprising, or comprising the remains of, any vehicle, vessel, wreck,
aircraft or other movable structure or part thereof which neither constitutes
nor forms part of any work which is a monument defined above; and any machinery
attached to a monument shall be regarded as part of the monument if it could
not be detached without being dismantled.
Almost any structure or deposit of
man-made origin can be classified as a monument, submerged, buried or standing
proud. These take many forms, for
example earthworks, standing structures, buildings, cropmarks, sub-surface
deposits, industrial complexes, component features of buildings, elements of
archaeological sites, artefacts, artefact scatters, find spots and destroyed
sites known from documentary sources.
As most places have a long history of use, monuments of different date
may lie on top of or alongside one another and differential preservation across
the site may mean that a monument survives in different forms. The process of monument recognition and how
this process is recorded, is critical and a number of issues need to be
considered when creating monument records.
C.4.1 The level of detail at which records will
be created
HER
officers need to decide to what extent the data will be 'lumped' together or
'split'. Will every single post-hole,
pit and linear feature be recorded and cross-referenced to a main site
record? Or will all features of all
periods on a site or a plot of land be recorded on a single record? Some wreck and aircraft sites will be in a number of pieces and may have
debris associated with them.
Lumping
This approach derives from the need
to identify points or areas of land on a map or chart where there are potential
archaeological or historical issues to take into account in the planning process. A record is created in the HER for each
identified land parcel and remains of all periods are indexed on this record.
Issues to be considered:
·
Over
time new discoveries are likely to be made in areas that are adjacent to a land
or sea parcel that has an existing record in the HER. Should a new record be created or the boundaries of the existing
land parcel extended to include the new discoveries?
·
Archaeological
investigations of a site may find no traces of human activity using a given
technique. How will such negative
evidence be recorded?
·
As
remains of all periods are included on a single record, sites with deeply
stratified remains and multiple phases of human activity are likely to be
poorly represented in the HER. For this
reason, this approach does not meet the recommended standard for UADs.
Splitting
This approach is based on the need
to present information about the phases of activity on a site. One or more records will be created for each
parcel of land or sea according to the
information available about each distinct structure or phase of activity.
Issues to
be considered
The two main issues are:
·
very
limited information may be available for some phases of activity on site. Presentation of the information to users of
the HER may be improved by creating records for broad phases of activity rather
than multiple records each containing minimal information.
·
for
some excavated sites or historical buildings very detailed information may be
available. This may tend to lead to the
creation of too many phase or component records and complicate the overall
interpretation and presentation of information about the site.
In fact, lumping and splitting are
not mutually exclusive. Most developed
HERs divide up information about sites to improve its presentation and
retrieval in some way. The approach
recommended in this manual is to split the available information to create
separate records for the major phases of activity on a site. A degree of 'lumping' of information will be
involved and there is no rule of thumb for the extent to which separate records
should be created. Decisions will be
based on the amount of reliable information that is available about the site,
local management issues and the interpretation to be presented to HER
users. For example:
·
for an
historic village core, where all that is known is a reference in Domesday and
the documented age of the church, anything more than a basic splitting of the
data into two records is unnecessary.
If significant new information were recorded during excavation new
records would be created.
·
with
complicated archaeological landscapes a number of events may have produced
large quantities of reliable data.
Splitting this into separate records enables the component features of
the landscape to be interpreted and their individual management needs taken
into consideration.
·
on an
excavated site, it may be desirable to create separate records for both the
elements (excavated features such as pits, post-holes, burnt patches, floor
surfaces) and also an interpretation of the structure that these collectively
represent (for example a hut).
These examples illustrate something
of the complexity of the information available to describe the historic
environment. On a day-to-day basis, HER
officers assess the available sources and make complex decisions about how to
divide this information up into records.
This is an important process and HER officers are recommended to discuss
the issues with their peers and develop consistent approaches where possible.
When considering the extent to which
data should be split and record hierarchies created, it is important to
remember that the HER database presents a summary and provides an index to the
existence, quantity and quality of data and archives held elsewhere in the HER
or in other organisations such as museums.
HER officers are recommended to aim to provide a consistent standard of
core index-data before creating an excessive number of detailed records.
C.4.2 Levels
of interpretation: elements, monuments and landscapes
HER officers need to consider the
degree to which information has been interpreted in the records that are being
created. Maritime records and landscapes should be recorded to the same level of
detail as terrestrial records.
Element records
These may be created for features
observed during an event which have been subject to minimal
interpretation. For example, features
observed during an excavation are recorded as they have been described in the
excavation report by the excavator, such as a rubbish pit, a patch of dark
earth, a burnt layer. This is equally
true of the component features of a building observed during a survey, for
example window, architrave, fireplace.
These are features that survive in physical form and are part of a larger
site, but individually do not represent an interpretation of the function of
that site. It is particularly useful to
create element records where investigations have revealed traces of human
activity that cannot be interpreted with any certainty. As element records are used to record the
investigator's observations they are generally regarded as a fixed part of the
HER database. Thus if the features or
the function of the site are subsequently re-interpreted the element records
should remain unchanged, while the changing interpretation is reflected in the
associated monument records.
Monument records
These represent an interpretation of
the function of a particular site based on the available evidence, including
any elements, components or finds known from the site. For example, features surveyed in the field
as earthworks or structures after excavation and the observation of the
stratigraphy, finds and other elements may be interpreted as an Iron Age
farmstead. New evidence from subsequent
excavations may lead to a re-interpretation of the site at a later date.