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.
Landscape records
These represent a high-level
interpretation that a series of different monuments constitutes a complex. For example, a prehistoric landscape is a
high-level interpretation based on the recognition of settlements, field
systems and trackways.
Elements, monuments and landscapes
may be implemented as separate records or different types of monument record
within HER databases. Whichever
approach is taken, relational databases allow links to be created quickly and
easily between records and hierarchical record structures to be created. Over time, as understanding develops,
existing relationships between records may be discarded and new ones
created. The advantage of linking separate
records in a hierarchy is that it improves the way that information is
presented and allows records to be retrieved either individually or
collectively. Where appropriate, this
functionality allows for parallel records to be created reflecting differing
opinions of a site.
C.4.3 Relationships
between records
In recent years, the discussions
about the event-monument-source model have been paralleled by debate about how
HERs should organise monument records within their databases. This debate still continues and it is
therefore difficult to give guidelines at this stage. However, some HERs have adopted 'hierarchical' systems in which
related monuments and/or buildings are grouped together and assigned to levels.
For sites such as medieval towns or
railways it may be possible to define levels.
For example, Figure 14 has three levels: complex, monument and component
features within the town have been assigned to the different levels. This approach promotes clarity and
consistency as to the unit of record and is thought to improve use of the
record by supporting navigation through levels of information. These hierarchies enable HER officers to
model relationships between monument records, both in space and also in time
and to improve the presentation of information.
Example Hierarchy
Figure 14: Relationships between monument records
In practice, it is difficult to
apply strictly defined levels in a hierarchy across the whole range of the
historic environment. For example, in
the earlier prehistoric periods monuments are less easy to define and the
relationships between them less well understood. In many cases features may be recognised at lower levels in the
hierarchy but there is insufficient information available to interpret what
these represent at the complex or monument level. HER managers who are
exploring record hierarchies are advised to be realistic in their goals. It is better to aim for consistency that is
achievable.
It may also be particularly useful
to record relationships between monuments which are related in their
interpretation and significance, although not geographically contiguous, for
example components of a World War Two defence line.
Recent years have seen growing
agreement on the recording of monuments, sources, and events, but this not the
case with the recording of archaeological finds and environmental
information.
Some HERs have records of the
locations at which thousands of archaeological objects were found and others,
especially those in museums, record additional information describing the
character of individual objects. Because of the way many HERs have developed
primarily as development control tools the funding has not been available to
record artefacts or environmental information in a way which allows consistent
searching across the record. Most HERs contain records of find spots and find
scatters in their areas and an interesting object found by itself in a field
may be recorded separately. However,
the position is less clear-cut when recording artefacts and ecofacts
from archaeological excavations as a similar object found during an excavation
may not even be indexed within the site record. Excavations can produce thousands of items and HER officers face the dilemma of deciding how this
material should be entered into the HER database.
The push from government and the
archaeological community to develop HERs as research and educational tools has
emphasised the need for HERs to reconsider the recording of archaeological
objects and environmental data in their records. The outputs of the Portable
Antiquities Scheme has also prompted
many HERs to reconsider how they record archaeological objects.
In the vast majority of cases it
will be impractical for HERs to attempt to record every single artefact or
ecofact but a consistent approach can be achieved by remembering that the HER
is only an index to information. Finds and environmental indices can be created
which allow rapid, consistent recording of groups of artefacts and ecofacts by
broad type with additional information such as the existence of specialist reports. At present working
parties sponsored by English Heritage are developing systems and thesaurii for
recording finds and environmental material within HERs. In addition EH and
ALGAO are working with the Portable Antiquities Scheme to ensure the transfer
of information reported by metal detectorists into HERs.
In the meantime the following are
offered as aids to achieving consistency:
·
The
HER's collecting policy should clearly state the approach an HER has adopted
for recording environmental data,
objects, find spots and find scatters.
·
The
marine cultural heritage should be included in the HER’s collecting policy.
·
The
HER's recording guidelines should set out the level of detail at which
artefacts and ecofacts will be recorded.
·
Artefacts
and ecofacts should be recorded to a consistent level of detail across the HER
database; HER managers should decide upon detail that can be consistently
maintained rather than recording some objects in great detail and others not at
all.
·
Recording
the major categories of material and key objects found during archaeological
excavations (for example Roman pottery, medieval metalwork) might be considered
to offer a sustainable level of detail.
·
The
HER might signpost users to museums or other bodies that curate any objects or
site archives by including catalogue numbers and museum references in
databases.
| C.5.1 HER numbers and other identifiers | C.5.2 Core data for monument records | C.5.3 A typical monument record | C.5.4 Indexing monument records |
This
section of the manual will look at the way in which information is recorded in
monument records in more detail.
C.5.1 HER numbers and other identifiers
Monument
records may have originated as records in a card-index system, which were
recast as computer records on flat file databases and subsequently migrated to
one of the new generation of relational databases. HER numbers generally provide a link between a computer record
and paper files, photographs and record maps.
However, numbering systems designed for card indexes and record maps may
be less suitable for relational databases.
For example, the system designed by the OS was based on a 1:10,000 sheet map reference followed by a running
number. Numbers were manually allocated
and duplicate numbers were sometimes created by mistake. As computer systems require each record to
have a unique reference number, migration often means that monument records
retain an HER number from an earlier system and also have a unique ID number
automatically generated by the system.
HERs will
usually have a reference number (MIDAS unit of information Primary Reference
Number (PRN)) for each of the records held in their card index or
database. In a database this number can
be automatically assigned upon the creation of a record, ensuring that there is
no duplication and that the number is unique.
To minimise the possibility for confusion, once a number has been
assigned it should remain unique to that record and should not be reused even
if the original record has been deleted.
As well as
an HER using its own reference number for each record it holds, it is often
necessary to make cross-references to other inventories or archives which hold
records or finds relating to those in the HER.
The process of cross-referencing between HERs and other inventories (like
the NMR) is an important aid to retrieval of information (MIDAS unit of
information External Cross-Reference Other Inventory Number). Where a monument is afforded statutory
protection, cross-references should be made to the English Heritage Record of Scheduled
Monuments or the Listed Building System.
C.5.2 Core data for monument
records
Core data
is the minimum level of information that should always be recorded to make sure
that retrieval is efficient and effective.
HER managers are recommended to consider carefully what information is
core to their record and should aim to ensure that this information is always
recorded in a consistent way throughout the HER database.
HER
managers should distinguish between information that is mandatory (such as the
HER number) and that which is highly desirable (for example an accurate grid
reference may not be obtainable from historical sources or verbal
reports). A further distinction may be
made for information that is normally considered optional, but is mandatory for
certain types of site: for example a street address would be mandatory for an
historic buildings record but not for an archaeological site.
The
minimum amount of information recommended for monument records is:
·
HER
number: a number which uniquely identifies the monument record in
the HER
·
Other
identifiers: reference numbers for the monument in external records, for
example Scheduled Monument (SM) number
·
Monument
name: a descriptive name by which the monument can be identified
·
Monument
type: an index to the type or character of the monument
represented on the site
·
Evidence: physical
or documentary evidence for the existence of the monument
·
Period/date:
the maximum and minimum dates/periods of the monument being described
·
Grid
reference: an OS grid co-ordinate locating the monument
·
Administrative
unit: the administrative area in which the monument falls, for
example county/district/parish
·
Description:
a text description about the monument
·
Monument
status: a reference to any protection status that the monument has,
for example II* Listed
·
Event
number: monuments should be linked to relevant event records
·
Source
number: all monuments should have at least one link to a source
record.
C.5.3 A typical monument record
This case study is included to show how a monument may be recorded in a MIDAS- compliant database (in this case exeGesIS SDM Ltd's HBSMR software). Waltham Abbey is typical of many historic towns. It has a medieval core with a market place, a moot hall and mills, an abbey church with associated monastic precinct, there are also various industrial and other components of the post-medieval period, and finds and features of the prehistoric and Roman periods. Individual structures within the abbey church and monastic precinct are recorded separately in the HER, for example the church, cloister, chapter house. The sample record shows how one of these elements, the chapter house, has been recorded (Figure 15).
·
Computer
generated number: EX607, uniquely identifies the record for the chapter
house.
·
HER
preferred reference number (normally the PRN): identifies
the record in the HER's earlier Superfile system and provides a link to paper
files and record maps.
·
Name: provides a
useful way of identifying the site, and the record on computer listings.
·
Summary: offers a
brief explanation of the features present on the site and their current
interpretation. This also allows for
quick checking of the record, and is especially useful in index printouts.
·
Description:
a free text memo field allows for a full description of the current and
past interpretations of the chapter house and its development. A link between this text and additional
reference material is provided by including source numbers in brackets within
the text.
· Sources: links to a separate catalogue of sources and a specific reference allow for details of the relevant sections of journals and other reference sources to be identified. This is especially useful as it allows users to find out more about the monument and to revisit and re-interpret source materials in the light of current understanding. (In this example software, 'sources' can be entered through the 'description' free text memo field.)
Figure 16:
Indexing monument records using the Thesaurus of Monument Types and other
terminology lists in exeGesiS SDM Ltd's HBSMR software. [© Essex County Council
and exeGesIS SDM Ltd. 2007]
·
Location: the
administrative area (county, district and parish) in which the chapter house
lies are recorded.
·
Site-status
or coding system information.. allows any statutory designations
or cross-references to external organisations' record-numbering systems to be
recorded. In this case, the chapter
house is scheduled and a surviving wall is also listed.
·
NGR: the National Grid Reference and
height of the site are recorded in both the text database and GIS.
·
Monument
types: a repeating field allows the character of the monument and
the features represented to be fully indexed.
In this case, the building itself, an interesting extant wall and an
inhumation burial known from the chapter house excavations are all indexed
(Figure 16). This is useful for
retrieval and is linked to the Thesaurus of Monument Types.
·
Period: a direct
link between the monument type and its period of use is allowed for the three
features described for the chapter house all being indexed as being medieval in
date.
·
Evidence: this
allows for the physical or documentary evidence by which the monument is
known. This information allows
monuments that survive in a visible form to be distinguished from those which
survive only in documentary records.
·
Building
materials: this allows for materials that have been used to construct
the walls and roofs of buildings to be indexed and is a useful retrieval tool
for architectural conservation.
·
Land
use/Geology: the software allows for land use, soils and geology on or
around the site of the monument to be recorded.
·
Activity
information: allows links to be made between the monument record and any
event records and other on-site activities relating to the investigation,
interpretation or management of the monument.
In this case, a salvage excavation of the chapter house has been
recorded (Figure 17).
·
Contacts: a wide
range of individuals and organisations may have some form of association with
the monument. These include the current
owners or occupiers of the site and also interesting historical figures such as
architects or famous individuals who are associated with it.
·
Finds: this
allows for objects found on the site to be indexed, using the Archaeological
Objects Thesaurus, with their material, date and (where known) catalogue references
and the name of the museum currently holding the object. (In this example
software, 'finds' can be entered on the separate 'Find' sub-page.)
·
Condition:
information that is useful in managing the site includes records, where
available, of its current condition or assessments made under scoring schemes
such as the Monument Protection Programme. (In this example software,
'condition' is entered on the 'Name and score' sub-page.)
·
Name of
creator and/or updater: the system automatically records the name and date of
the person who created the record as well as details of the person who most
recently updated it. This information
is invaluable in programmes of work to quality-assure records, to provide
performance statistics and to monitor the work of new staff.
Figure 17: Creating links between a monument record and associated people
and events in exeGesiS SDM Ltd's HBSMR software. [Essex County Council and
exeGesIS SDM Ltd. 2007]
A monument report
|
Essex
Historic Environment Record Full Report 30/09/2005 Waltham Abbey Chapterhouse SMR Number Site Name Record Type 80 - MEX607 Waltham Abbey - Chapter House Monument Chapter House excavated prior to
guardianship and display. Monument Types and Dates BUILDING (C11-C12, Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD) CHAPTER
HOUSE (C13, Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD) Evidence STRUCTURE Evidence SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT Main
Building LEATHER Material Main Building STONE Material DITCH (C11-C12, Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD) Evidence STRUCTURE Evidence SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT Main
Building LEATHER Material Main Building STONE Material FEATURE (C11-C12, Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD) Evidence SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT INHUMATION
(Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD) Evidence SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT WALL
(C13?, Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD) Evidence STRUCTURE Evidence SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT Main
Building LEATHER Material Main Building STONE Material Description and Sources Description Chapter House excavated prior to
guardianship and display. Shown to be a two-period structure, rectangular in
plan in both phases with 5 pairs of
buttresses on internal and external faces. The 2nd structure has been
identified with the work of Henry II (1180-1220). 10 conventional burials and
1 heart burial were discovered. The pre-chapter house remains comprised chalk
footings, associated timber features and a large ditch with domestic
material. <2> Human remains found in coffins of chapter house. Finds
also included a stone head and other fragments from a statue, possibly early
14th century and 4 or 5 leather shoes or boots pre-1200 in date. <3> Part of a tiled floor also
found. <4> Prior to excavation one wall of the original north wall of
the chapter house was standing and had been reused in the later, post medieval
Denny mansion house. <5> Other ref: <1> <6> Sources (1) DESC
TEXT: Havercroft, AB in Huggins, PJ(ed). 1974. Archaeology in Essex 1972-3.
Vol 48, p15 (2) DESC
TEXT: Havercroft, AB in Couchman, CR(ed). 1978. Excavations in Essex, 1977.
Vol 10, p247 (3) DESC
TEXT: 1977. Stone Head Found in Waltham Abbey Dig may be English king. (4) DESC
TEXT: 1977. Digging up the Abbey's past. (5) MENTION:
Huggins, PJ. 1970. Waltham Abbey:Monastic Site and Prehistoric
Evidence:1953-1967. Third Series, Vol 2, Part 3, p217 (6) DESC
TEXT: 1974. List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic
Interest:Epping Forest. p2 MonFullRpt Report generated by
HBSMR from exeGesIS SDM Ltd Page 1 of 2 SMR Number 80 - MEX607 Site Name Waltham Abbey - Chapter House Location National Grid Reference Centroid TL 382 007
(MBR: 100m by 100m) TL30SE Administrative Areas Civil Parish WALTHAM ABBEY,EPPING FOREST,ESSEX Address/Historic Names - None recorded Designations, Statuses and Scorings Associated Legal Designations DEX5678 Active Scheduled Monument 60 Title not entered Other Statuses and Cross-References GAMHBMC Listed
Building (II) Old SMR
Number - TL30-002 Sites
& Monuments Record - 80 Ratings and Scorings - None recorded Land Use Associated
Historic Landscape Character Records - None recorded Other Land Classes Landuse Recreational usage Related Monuments MEX616 Waltham Abbey - Chapter House Geographical Associated Finds FEX14326 COFFIN
(Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD) STONE FEX14327 FLOOR TILE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539
AD) FEX14328 WINDOW (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD) FEX14329 STATUE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD) STONE FEX14330 SHOE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD) LEATHER FEX14331 WALL (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD) STONE Associated Events/Activities EEX603 SALV EXCAV
by Havercroft, AB (Excavation - Salvage) Associated Individuals/Organisations Gilman, PJ - Heritage Information and
Records Compiler |
Figure 18: A report showing a monument record in the
Essex Heritage Conservation Record. [©
Essex County Council 2007]
C.5.4 Indexing
monument records
When
reading a site report each person will have his or her own idea of what the
monuments described within the text are.
Most people, if shown a picture of a church, would probably call it a
church. What happens if they are shown
a picture of a barrow? Is it a tumulus,
round barrow, long barrow, mound, burial mound or natural feature?
It is
possible that a complex site, investigated on several occasions, has been
described using any of the above terms.
Consider for example the following fictional site:
A Bronze Age Round Barrow, excavated by University of
Westshire in 1977, Scheduled. First mentioned by the Reverend Herbert
James in his book Perambulations about the Parish of Long Stanton. Two
amateur excavations were carried out
around the turn of the century by local antiquarians. ,Most recently excavated by students from the
University of Westshire in 1977.
The
interpretations given by the investigators are as follows:
1875 Documentary source - Tumulus
1890 Amateur excavation - Burial Mound
1910 Amateur excavation - Barrow
1977 Trial excavation by University of Westshire
- Round Barrow
1978 Scheduled - Round Barrow.
It is
essential that when it comes to entering the record on to a database, the
information is entered consistently and that the way the information will be
retrieved is carefully considered.
Previous or uncertain interpretations
The
example above is an illustration of how terminology changes over the course of
time. For many sites the current
understanding can be very different from that of earlier times, for example a
mound may have been interpreted as a barrow but later evidence may suggest that
it is in fact a windmill mound. Often
interpretations have a measure of uncertainty, for example a possible Roman
road may be suggested from the line of hedge boundaries marked on maps or
visible from aerial photographs but the interpretation will be uncertain.
HER
officers need to consider how they will index monument records to reflect
changing or uncertain site interpretations.
The latest interpretation must always be included ROUND BARROW in the
example above. Where there are
alternative interpretations for the site these should be included in the
indexing with some indication of their uncertainty, for example ROUND BARROW
(?) or MOUND (?). Past interpretations
of the site may also be indexed, although an indication of the limited
confidence that can be placed on this interpretation must be included, for
example ROAD (?) or LINEAR FEATURE.
The
monument record's descriptive text should include a discussion of the site's
interpretation, past and present, which reflects any changes in thinking and
uncertainties of understanding.
Changes in form and function
The
function of a monument can change significantly over time. A church was given above as an,example of a
type of monument that is easy to recognise.
However, through time many churches have been added to, altered, used.by
different denominations or even converted for other uses, for example into
houses. Many other buildings have
undergone similar changes in use. When
recording buildings it may be necessary to index both the form of the building
and its later functions. Consider this
example:
The church of St Peter and St Paul is a medieval church with later additions and alterations. The earliest part of the church is the nave and the aisle, which dates to c.1120. The west bays of the nave and the west front of the church date to c. 1300. The Lady Chapel and undercroft were added to the church in the first quarter of the 14th Century and the west tower in 1662. The main body of the church was restored 1859-60 by Fothergill Watson. At this time the church was reroofed and the east window, with stained glass by A W N Pugin, was installed. The Lady Chapel was restored 1876.
Within the church is a 14th-century wall painting of the Last
Judgement. There are also memorial
brasses of 1560 and 1586, an alabaster table tomb by the Nottingham School
dating to 1459 and a wall monument to the Williams family dating to 1815. The church contains the remains of the
Norman Choir dating to the first half of the 12th century.
The church
would normally be recorded on a single monument record. Panel 8 shows how the following monument
type and phases of use might be indexed:
|
Panel 8: Example of type and phase monument recording |
||||
|
MONUMENT/TYPE |
FROM |
TO |
DESCRIPTIVE DATE |
EVIDENCE |
|
Church |
1100 |
1140 |
c 1120 |
Documentary |
|
Church |
1280 |
1320 |
c 1300 |
Documentary |
|
Church |
1859 |
1860 |
Restored 1859-60 |
Documentary |
|
Lady Chapel |
1300 |
1324 |
early 14th century |
Building |
|
Lady Chapel |
1876 |
1876 |
Restored 1876 |
Documentary |
|
Tower |
1662 |
1662 |
|
Building |
With
buildings, HER managers are recommended to index the separate phases of
building, re-building and restoration within a single monument record. In the example given above, evidence for the
phases in which the church and chapel were built is available from both
documentary sources and in the fabric of the building itself. This approach improves information
retrieval, as it is possible to distinguish, for example, medieval churches
that were restored in the Victorian period from those which survive in their
original form. Detailed phase indexing
within the same monument record should not affect the ability to count the
total numbers of a given monument type in an area. This is because the total
number of records will be counted not the number of uses of an index term.
Panel 9
shows how in addition to the monument type and date indexing the following
attributes might also be indexed:
|
Panel 9: Example of additional attributes
for monument recording |
|||
|
OBJECTTYPE |
FROM |
TO |
OBJECT
MATERIAL |
|
Commemorative
Brass |
1560 |
1560 |
Brass |
|
Commemorative
Brass |
1586 |
1586 |
Brass |
|
Table
Tomb |
1459 |
1459 |
Stone |
|
Plaque |
1815 |
1815 |
|
|
HISTORICAL
PERSON |
ROLE |
FROM |
TO |
|
Fothergill
Watson |
Architect
|
1859 |
1860 |
|
A W N
Pugin |
Architect |
1859 |
1860 |
MIDAS defines a diverse range of
activities as events, all involving the collection of information or judgements
about the monuments at a particular location.
ALGAO has agreed a more precise definition of events as being 'A single
episode of primary data collection over a discrete area of land. This event can only consist of one
investigative technique and is a unique entity in time and space' (Bourn 1999).
All events have the following unique
characteristics:
·
They involve some form of activity
or work: Under the
ALGAO definition this involves collection of primary data in the field. This includes activities aimed at yielding
either positive or negative archaeological results and that collect data about
artefacts, ecofacts, features or landscapes as a by-product. In addition to these activities the MIDAS
definition includes activities involving the interpretation of primary data and
those involving management or interpretation of the site.
·
An activity is undertaken in
relation to a defined geographic area: For example, the area of an excavation trench or survey, the
area covered by an aerial photo or a series of evaluation trenches.
·
An activity is undertaken at a fixed
moment in time: All
events are unique and once completed their exact circumstances can never be
repeated. However, although the date of
modern events is normally known, the precise date of historical events can be
more difficult to identify.
·
An activity is undertaken by a
person or organisation: All events are carried out by specific individuals who bring to the
activity their personal skills and experience.
Again, although identifying the individuals responsible for organising a
modern event is normally easy, this is not the case with past events.
When creating event records HER
managers should bear in mind the following points:
Negative events: Some archaeological surveys,
evaluation and other investigations take place but find no evidence for human
activity (referred to as negative evidence).
However, information about the methods and techniques used and the
circumstances in which these events occurred is valuable to archaeologists
planning subsequent events on the same or adjacent sites. Therefore, it is recommended practice to
create event records whether or not the event produces evidence for human
activity on the site. For example, a
watching brief that produces no results should be recorded as an event, as
would a watching brief in which archaeological deposits are observed. Negative
events are equally as important in evaluating the archaeological resource as
events that find traces of human activity and both should be recorded with the
same rigour.
Events carried out for purposes other than
archaeological or architectural investigation: Events such as aerial surveys or geotechnical test
pits are often carried out for purposes other than archaeological
investigation. However, such activities
can also produce useful information: for example aerial photographs taken for
map-making reveal crop-marks and earthworks, cores taken for geological
purposes contain palaeobotanical remains and sediments. Events which produce results that are useful
to archaeological or historical investigations are worth recording.
Projects: A project may involve different
techniques of survey or excavation carried out at different times, by different
people/organisations on different pieces of land. For example, a programme of research into a hill fort and its hinterland,
such as at Danebury, may span a period of years and involve several excavation
seasons, geophysical and aerial surveys and programmes of field-walking, As
each of these activities is carried out at a distinct time and place and by a
particular organisation, a series of related event records should be created
and possibly linked together as a project.
Interpretation of primary data
Much research involves
interpretation of primary data collected during one or more events. For example, aerial-photographic
interpretation, desk-based assessments and documentary research all involve
examination of primary data and produce secondary sources such as plans and
reports. Source records should be
created in HER databases (see C.8)
for any air-photo transcriptions, plans or reports that are produced as a
result of this research. These source
records may then be linked to any associated monument records thus enabling the
materials to be retrieved for future reference and further research.
As well as creating a source record,
it is also useful to record information about the act of interpretation
itself. Details about the person or
organisation that carried out the work, when and in what circumstances, are of
value in assessing the validity of the interpretation in future. Although activities involving the
interpretation of data (whether primary or secondary) do not fall within the
ALGAO definition of an event, they are included in the MIDAS definition. HER managers may wish to record
'Interpretation events' in their databases but alternatively might incorporate
a description of how the source was created in the text of the source record.
| C.7.1 A constant feature of HER databases | C.7.2 Core data standards for events | C.7.3 OASIS (On-line AccesS to the Index of archaeological investigationS) | C.7.4 A typical event record |
This section of the manual will look
at the information recorded in event records in more detail.
C.7.1 A
constant feature of HER databases
Once an event has taken place it
cannot be repeated and in the same way, once an event record has been created
on an HER database it should not need to be changed. Events are simply factual records of who did some work, when,
where and how. However, it may be
necessary to add information at a later date about the location of finds,
archives or digital data produced during the event.
C.7.2 Core
data standards for events
The minimum information recommended
for event records is:
PRN: a
number that uniquely identifies the event record in the HER
Name: a
descriptive name by which the event may be identified
Event type: the
type of work carried out during the event, for example geophysical survey
Grid reference: an OS grid co-ordinate locating the event
Administrative Unit: the administrative area in which the event falls, for
example county/district/parish
Organisation: the
body responsible for undertaking work on site
Person: people
responsible for undertaking work on site
Date: the
date range when the event took place.
C.7.3 OASIS (On-line AccesS to
the Index of archaeological investigationS)
The core data standards for events
as outlined in C.7.2 form the backbone of an OASIS record. (see also C.8.1)
Background
The OASIS project aims to provide
access to the large and growing body of archaeological grey literature and to
make it available to researchers and teachers. OASIS is a collaborative venture
between the Archaeology Data Service (ADS), the English Heritage National
Monuments Record (NMRE), and the Archaeological Investigations Project (AIP).
From the
early 1990s, English Heritage funded an annual data collection exercise to
compile an index of archaeological investigations across England. The results
have been published as annual hard copy volumes, The Gazetteer of Archaeological Investigations in England, issued
as supplements to the British and Irish
Archaeological Bibliography. An
archive copy of the database which provides the information for the printed
volumes published to date has been deposited with the English Heritage NMR.
Since 1978 the NMR has also compiled a separate database of archaeological
interventions, The Excavation Index.
By 1998 this held records for over 55,000 archaeological interventions in
England. Data was collected from a variety of sources, combining bibliographic
recording with direct supply in the form of reports, proformas and microfilm
deposited with the NMR. The scope of the Index covers both invasive and
non-invasive methods of fieldwork. holding basic data on the location and
results of fieldwork. From September 1998 selected fields from the Index have
been available on the Internet via the ADS on-line catalogue ArchSearch (http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue),
together with the related Microfilm Index.
The OASIS project was developed in
response to the need to provide a single unified index to archaeological
investigations, a means of accessing the associated grey literature and an
online method by which the index could be maintained. A major achievement of
the project was to integrate the AIP records with the Excavation Index to
provide a single concorded list. The concordance programme delivered a fully
unified record for archaeological interventions in England to 1998. Where a
fuller electronic copy of a report is available on-line, either on the ADS
server or on the web site of the contractor or HER it is possible to include
the URL of the resource as a bibliographic reference. As curators begin to
require deposition of digital reports and as they make them available on the
Internet it will be possible to build up an online virtual library of grey
literature, directly linked from the index.
OASIS
also aims to use IT to ease the flow of information from those undertaking
fieldwork to the wider archaeological community, while ensuring that validation
and quality assurance are not lost. The current situation involves tremendous
duplication of effort. OASIS aims to capture the data once, hold it in a
database, and then to allow all those parties who have a legitimate interest in
it to access it. An on-line web-based Data Submission Form has been created,
which is being used to inform the relevant monument records of the completion
of specific field or post-excavation tasks, such as the deposition of ‘grey
literature’ reports or of archives. The report can be completed on-line to
provide details of all aspects of the intervention required by the local
planning authority. Once the form has been completed to the satisfaction of the
contractor it is saved within the OASIS database. HERs are allowed access to
the same database to participate in checking and enhancing the records on-line.
It is recognised that the diversity of local practices will mean that the
information flow may vary according to region and the OASIS form and database
holdings module is flexible enough to accommodate the various roles required by
the different organisations involved. At periodic intervals a copy of all new
validated Excavation Index records will be supplied to the ADS and made
available on-line via ArchSearch.
A full Scottish version
has now been developed and was launched in October 2006.
HER use of
the OASIS form
An Historic Environment
Record (HER) will see a list of all of the projects in their area when they log
on to OASIS. The status column will tell them whether the project is
ready to be validated by the HER or is still undergoing completion by the
archaeological unit. In the screen shot below all the fully completed OASIS
projects are hidden from view to avoid cluttering up the list. The HER can view
all the data in the new project and amend and add to it as necessary. They may
want to allocate an HER event number to the project in the project details
section of the form for example. Once they have viewed the data they can validate
it by ticking a box at the bottom of each section of the OASIS form. Once the
HER has fully validated a record, an e-mail will be sent to the relevant HER
informing them that the OASIS record is ready to be checked by them.
![Figure 19: Example of a project summary page from the OASIS form [© Archaeology Data Service 2003]](images/fig19.jpg)
Figure 19: Example of a project
summary page from the OASIS form [© Archaeology Data Service 2003]
After validation an HER may sign off
the record and download the project data as XML. For more detailed instructions
about how to use the OASIS form go to http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/oasis/
or request manual from the NMR.
HERs can promote the use of the
OASIS recording form by contractors by making it a requirement in development
control briefs or requesting a copy of the OASIS summary sheet within their
grey literature reports. Example wording for use within a brief can be found
below.
At the start of work (immediately before fieldwork
commences) an OASIS online record http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/oasis/
must be initiated and key fields completed on Details, Location and Creators
forms.
All parts of the OASIS online form must be completed for
submission to the HER. This should include an uploaded .pdf version of the
entire report (a paper copy should also be included with the archive).
(See also
Section B)
Figure 20
shows how an event may be recorded in an HER database (in this case exeGesIS
SDM Ltd’s HBSMR software).
Figure 20: How an event may be
recorded in an HER database [Essex County Council and
exeGeSIS SDM Ltd 2007]
| C.8.1 Online sources | C.8.2 Distinguishing sources and events | C.8.3 Interpreting monuments from sources | C.8.4 Verbal reports |
The term
'sources' covers various materials that provide information about the monuments
in a locality. They include:
documentary archives, maps, plans, antiquarian books, photographs, drawings,
airphoto interpretation plots, publications, reports, journal articles, digital
data and geophysical survey data.
It should
be noted that these sources may, in turn, now be available in variety of
formats: hard-copy, online, or a combination of the two.
Key
Internet information sources for HERs at time of writing can be located via the
following websites.
HEIRNET
The HEIRNET - the Historic Environment
Information Resources NETwork – enables access to Historic Environment Information
Resources (HEIRs) for conservation, research, learning and general interest,
and promotes HEIRs, informing information managers about new developments in IT
and offering them technical advice. It can be accessed via the following links:
HEIRNET
at: http://www.britarch.ac.uk/HEIRNET/index.html,
HEIRNET
Register: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/heirnet/index.cfm search the Register for details of Historic
Environment Information Resources held by organisations across the UK. The
register contains details of organisations holding information about
archaeological sites, monuments, historic buildings and finds.
HEIRPORT: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/heirport/
search the Historic Environment Portal, resources available include the ADS,
the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland,
Scottish Cultural Resources Access Network and the Portable Antiquities Scheme.
Technical advice: http://www.britarch.ac.uk/HEIRNET/techadvice.html
The OASIS Project – Online Access to the Index of
Archaeological Investigations
The OASIS Project is being developed to provide an
online index to archaeological grey literature that has been produced as a
result of large-scale developer funded fieldwork (see also C 7.3). The OASIS
data capture form has been designed to help in the flow of information from
data producers, such as contracting units, through to local and national data
managers, such as HERs/HERs and NMRs. The resulting information will be
validated by the relevant NMR and passed onto the ADS for inclusion in its
online catalogue. OASIS can be found at: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/oasis/
biab
online – the British & Irish archaeological bibliography
The biab online database contains datasets
covering publications from AD 1695 to the present day on archaeology and the
historic environment, historic buildings, maritime and industrial archaeology,
environmental history, and the conservation of material culture - with a
geographical focus on Britain and Ireland. It contains collection, unit and
item level references and is developing an HER-compatible download function
which will enable direct import into HERs. The service will also provide links
to online documents and publisher websites plus tables of contents for key
journals. It is also planned that the bibliography and the Archaeological
Investigations Project (and OASIS) data will be able to be queried from a
single interface. biab online, the British & Irish archaeological
bibliography can be found at:
The Council for British Archaeology (CBA)
The
Council for British Archaeology’s website provides information and links to:
Defence of Britain project database; Database of Radiocarbon Dates; Training
Online Resource Centre (TORC); and the forthcoming Online Guide to
Archaeological Research (OGAR) at:
The
Archaeology Data Service (ADS)
The ADS
hosts many of the above services as part of its remit to facilitate the long
term preservation of a broad range of digital datasets. The ADS’s on-line
ArchSearch facility is a valuable resource for HERs in cross-checking and
identifying missing resources/sites (see section F8.3 for a description of
ArchSearch). Links to this resource can
be found on the ADS site at:
Use of online & digital sources
External
digital data can be used as a source in either of the following ways:
1. A copy can
be incorporated into the HER, treated as a backlog for Monument or Event record
construction.
2. Alternatively,
they can be treated as a source, with a reference to the specific data via the
UID of the external dataset, for example.
Which
option to choose depends on how searchable that reference needs to be. So for example a general reference to a
dataset on Roman sites in Britain (say a British Archaeological Reports – BAR –
gazetteer) could be treated as a source attached to existing monument records
in the HER. However, if the HER wanted to use the BAR in more detail it might
be necessary to actually import the data.
Whatever
the format, when creating source records, the issues discussed below should be
considered.
C.8.2 Distinguishing
sources and events
By their
nature, sources contain information describing both events and monuments. As described above there are different kinds
of sources. There are the primary data
and archive collected during an event, for example the finds, photographs,
digital-survey data and samples. Then
there are interpretative accounts of the features observed during the event,
such as the excavation report, maps and plans.
Although an excavation report provides a source of information
describing the event itself, the report should be recorded in the HER database
as a source and considered as the product of the event.
This is
equally true of historical documents, maps, drawings and photographs. Although these were produced following an
event such as a land survey, often little information is available about that
event and the documents may provide the only surviving record that it took
place. HER officers are recommended to create source records to enable users to
retrieve the original documents from the County Records Office, local museum or
other repositories. However, there may
be occasions when HER officers may consider that there is insufficient
additional information available to create an event record from such historical
documents.
C.8.3 Interpreting
monuments from sources
Most HER
databases include some monument records which are based on information obtained
from historical documents: for example antiquarian books may refer to monuments
or features that are no longer visible, or place names recorded on maps suggest
the presence of monuments in past landscapes.
The problem is that limited information is available about the event to
help to assess the reliability of the source and the interpretation given. Monument records that are derived simply
from a historical document will have a measure of unreliability because it is
difficult to validate the information.
Most
sources have a physical form. They are
objects that need to be stored on shelves or in cabinets and drawers and to be
cared for as important parts of the HER's collections. However, another important source of
information for HERs comes in the form of verbal reports. For example, a member of the public may
visit the HER and report the location where an object was found. Normally the HER officer will make notes
based on the conversation and these will be held in supplementary files and
referenced to any record that is made in the HER database. It is not recommended practice to record the
information directly into the database without also making notes of the
conversation on paper to go on file.
Clearly, this information is difficult or even impossible to validate,
and the reliability of the locations reported can vary dramatically,
particularly if the reporting takes place some time after the object was found.
C.9 Level at which sources will
be catalogued
As
described above, sources comprise materials of all shapes and sizes, plus
digital versions available through online sources. Books, photographs, maps and
documents are probably those most frequently used by HERS. It is important, therefore, to examine at
what level cataloguing will take place.
Consider a
journal series published by a learned society, for example Antiquity. This series
might be catalogued by the HER on three levels:
1.
the collection level, that is, a single source record could
be created for all volumes in the series
2.
the unit level, that is, source records might be created for
each individual volume
3.
the item level, that is, source records might be created for
every article within each journal of the series.
Cataloguing
at the collection level provides a useful first step. Such a source record will help HER managers to record details
about the collection, the originator, the materials/items included and any
copyright or other issues to be considered.
However,
as a general rule of thumb, it is probably most practical for HERs to catalogue
their collections at the unit level. It
is useful for each book, box of photographs or set of papers to have a single
source record which contains information about the place where that unit is
stored and other details that help to manage the HER's collections.
Cataloguing
at the item level may be appropriate in some circumstances. For example, HER managers may decide to
create source records for particularly useful articles in a journal without
recording all the other articles at this level. Cataloguing at item level can be a significant overhead and HER
managers might prefer to number the items uniquely within a unit (for example
the photographs in a box) and create a single source record containing a list
of the items and their identifying numbers.
Consider,
for example, a set of photographs from a single roll of film taken by J K S St
Joseph during a flight on 3rd July 1979.
Each image on the roll of film will have a unique negative number and
the film and negative number may be used to identify each photographic print
from the film. HER managers might
decide to create two source records.
One source record will be for the roll of film, containing details of
its storage location and the type and format of the film. A separate source record might be created
for the set of prints, giving details of the print numbers and their storage
location, which will normally be different to that of the film for collections
management reasons. At a later date,
separate source records might be created for each individual print, perhaps if
the prints were scanned or if the subject content of the photographs were to be
described in detail.
As described
in section C.8.1 many datasets are now available online and are able to be
downloaded into the HER if necessary.
This section of the. manual will
look at the information recorded in source records in more detail.
C.10.1 Core data standards for sources
The minimum information recommended
for source records is:
PRN: a number that uniquely identifies
the source record in the HER
Title: a
descriptive name by which the source may be identified
Archive type: an
index to the type of source material, for example bibliographic, photograph
Originator: the
body or person responsible for originating the material, for example the author
Date: the date when the source was
produced
Repository: index
to organisations holding original archives or copies of secondary sources
External reference: the reference number by which the source can be identified in the
repository.
C.10.2 A typical source record
Figure 21 shows how a
bibliographical source may be recorded in an HER database. Neolithic
Settlement of the Thames Basin (Holgate 1988) is a BAR report and is
typical of many publications that form part of a larger series.
Computer-generated number: RC 103954,
uniquely identifies the source record.
Title of the volume: Neolithic settlement of the Thames Basin
recorded in the title field and the BAR number recorded in the Part No. field
allow the volume to be identified both in the HER's library and on listings.
References: can be used to record any
numbers identifying the volume used by external bodies, in this case the ISBN
number has been recorded. This is
useful because it helps users to identify the volume in other libraries.
Monuments: links have been created to monument
records referenced in this source. The
Specific Reference field allows the pages within the report which refer to a
particular monument to be recorded.
Figure 21:
A typical source recorded in exeGesIS SDM Ltd’s HBSMR software [Essex County Council and exeGeSIS SDM Ltd 2007]
C.11
Consultations and planning casework
| C.11.1 The archaeological conservation process | C.11.2 The historic buildings conservation process | C.11.3 Why record conservation advice? | C.11.4 Consultation record and recommendations |
One of the primary roles of
local-authority archaeological and historic buildings services is to provide
advice on the implications of development and land-use change to local planning
authorities and to other organisations and individuals. For many services, planning applications
form the largest element of their conservation workload. However, consultations also include those
relating to tree planting, hedgerow removal, agri-environmental schemes and the
activities of statutory undertakers.
Given the importance of this
advisory service, and its relevance to monuments, the built heritage and to
areas of land, it is important that details are accurately recorded and linked
to the HER databases.
C.11.1 The archaeological conservation process
The process of archaeological
conservation in relation to land-use proposals is a clear, established system,
based upon the procedures used in other areas of environmental management.
The key elements of the conservation
process can be summarised as:
Appraisal: this
first stage involves the conservation archaeologist considering an application
or enquiry and using the HER and any other readily available information to
provide a professional judgement as to the impact of the proposal on the
historic environment.
Assessment: if
an impact is likely to occur, and there is insufficient data in the HER to make
an informed judgement, then the conservation archaeologist will make a
recommendation. This may be that the
applicant or organisation be asked to provide the result of a professional
archaeological assessment involving a desk-based assessment, field evaluation
or building assessment.
Mitigation: on the basis of the
assessment phase, an appropriate conservation recommendation can be made in
order to mitigate any adverse impacts that may result from a proposal.
In practice, archaeological
conservation is rarely straightforward and is often complicated by the
policies, attitudes and resources of other organisations involved in the
process. Any record system must be flexible
enough to accommodate variability whilst avoiding excessive detail (making
maintenance unrealistic for a busy archaeological service). Additional detailed information will remain
within the casework files, linked to any computer system.
C.11.2 The historic buildings conservation process
The process of historic buildings
conservation in relation to planning proposals is similar to that for
archaeological conservation. Until
recently, HERs and Historic Buildings Records were maintained in separate local
government departments. HERs include
historic buildings and some services and are now bringing together advice for
archaeology and historic buildings. However,
this is a new and developing area for many and it is difficult to offer
guidance at this stage. Accordingly,
this topic will be expanded in future editions of this manual.
C.11.3 Why record conservation advice?
There are several reasons for
recording the conservation process on a database:
Consistency: it
is important to ensure that responses to consultations are consistent with, or
at least taken in the context of, previous advice.
Monitoring: as
casework progresses through the conservation cycle, it needs to be
tracked. Often projects can last
several years and the database should contain sufficient information to enable
an archaeological officer to understand the current status of any particular
project.
Statistics: local
clients/partners and organisations involved in national research often request
statistics about conservation advice and the HER should be able to produce this
in a variety of forms.
Searching:
the database can act as an index to the more detailed casework files held
elsewhere in hard copy format.
ALGAO:UK, which represents the
majority of local-authority archaeological services in England, Wales,
Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man has begun the process of
undertaking annual surveys of its membership to gather information on
conservation casework. This will enable
the identification of national trends and gauge the effectiveness of policy and
legislation relating to the historic environment.
C.11.4 Consultation record and recommendations
Any information system needs to be sufficiently flexible to be able to reflect the complexities and iterative nature of the consultation process. The details of incoming consultations should be recorded as well as the details of outgoing advice. It should be possible to record not just the initial response to a consultation (for example a desk based assessment), but also any subsequent recommendations (for example a field evaluation or mitigation recording). To complete the picture, the recommendation should be linked to any resulting event(s) (see Figure 22).
Figure 22: Consultation and conservation advice
Consultation data
A typical consultation record for a planning
application from the North Yorkshire County
Council HER which uses exeGesIS SDM Ltd’s HBSMR software, version 3.04 is shown
in Figures 23 and 24. Other types of consultation, such as countryside
management works, are each recorded slightly differently depending on how we
use the data for statistical and other purposes.
Figure 23: A typical consultation
record from the North Yorkshire County Council HER showing the details tab [North Yorkshire County Council and exeGeSIS SDM Ltd 2007]
The Details tab records the baseline
information about the consultation, in this example, a full planning
application.
Organisation and Contact record the Local Planning Authority and planning officer
Applicant and Agent are self-explanatory
External reference number: this is used to record the unique external reference number
allocated by the consulting body (such as the planning application number) or
by the conservation archaeologist where no other acceptable reference is
available.
Case Officer
records the curatorial archaeologist dealing with the consultation
Log Date
records the date the planing application appeared on the weekly list
Target Date
records the date the consultation response is required by
Consultation: this
is used to record the nature of the consultation, for example what type of
planning application, whether it is a
pre-application enquiry from a developer or a countryside management scheme.
The terms that can be used in North Yorkshire are controlled by a look-up table
based upon a locally-adapted version of the ALGAO Consultation Type wordlist (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/FISH/ALGAOConsType_1.html).
Development Type records the general nature of the development or land-use change
proposal. The terms that can be used in North Yorkshire are controlled by a
look-up table based upon a locally-adapted version of the ALGAO Work Proposed
wordlist (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/FISH/ALGAOWorkProposed_1.html).
Site name: it
may be useful to record a site name or plot number, especially if different to
the location, as many developments have distinctive names which are not part of
the subsequent address.
Parish
records the civil parish in which the proposal is located. In North Yorkshire
each parish has a four-figure code, the initial number of which identifes which
of each of the seven districts it is part of.
Location: this
records the address of the site in question or the broad area under
consideration.
Proposal
records in more detail than Development Type the nature of the consultation
proposal
Recommendation data
The Consultation Stages tab is used
to record the advice given and subsequent stages relating to that consultation,
as well as the dates these occurred.
Figure 24: A typical consultation
record from the North Yorkshire County Council HER showing the Consultation
Stages tab and the link to the related event record [North Yorkshire County
Council and exeGeSIS SDM Ltd 2007]
Stage In
North Yorkshire, this has been simplified and all are classed as ‘curatorial
work’.
Action In
this example of the North Yorkshire planning application, each of the stages
visible in Figure 24 record when the consultation was sent by the LPA, the
advice given and when (in this instance, for evaluation by trial trenching),
the preparation of a WSI and the date, and the receipt of the evaluation
report, and date. A further four stages
that are not visible in Figure 24 document the subsequent advising of a
watching brief, the preparation of a WSI for this, the receipt of the report
and the advising of compliance with the archaeological condition. The terms
used are controlled by a look-up table.
Stage Start and Completion Dates (see Figure 24 ) for:
·
Stage
1: records when the
application was requested and received respectively (in this example the
application was sent to us automatically, so only an end date is recorded).
This allows us to distinguish between those planning applications that we
request and those that come to us direct, and also to record the length of time
between request and receipt.
·
Stage
2: Start date is
when the application was received. Completion Date is when the advice was
given/sent. This stage allows us to prepare statistical information for our
local performance indicator based up the length of time taken to respond to
planning application consultations.
·
Stage
3: Only Completion
Date is filled in to record when a WSI was prepared. This stage can also be
used to record ‘WSI Agreed’ if a WSI is sent to us for comment and agreement.
In this instance Stage Start date can be completed to record when the document
was received.
·
Stage
4: records when a
report has been received in the Completion Date. This data is also recorded in
the corresponding Source record for the report.
Overall Outcome records the final outcome of the Local Planning Authority’s decision on
the planning application. The terms that can be used in North Yorkshire are
controlled by a look-up table based upon the ALGAO Final Outcome wordlist (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/FISH/ALGAOFinalOutcomeLUT_1.htm)
Date Completed
is used in North Yorkshire to record when the intial consultation response was
made (in this instance the same date as for the Completion Date of Stage 2).
| C.12.1 Monitoring | C.12.2 Management recommendations | C.12.3 Management activities | C.12.4 Case study, recording monument management: Shooting Butts Barrow, Shropshire |
The risks
facing archaeological monuments in the landscape are well documented (Darvill
and Fulton 1998). Many of the potential
threats of damage or destruction can be avoided, or significantly reduced, by
adopting a sympathetic management regime for the monument. Organisations with direct responsibilities
for conservation of the historic environment, such as the National Trust and
the National Parks, can implement such a regime using the HER as a key
tool. Some HERs are also beginning to
record this information as a result of co-operation with departments of their
local authorities who manage land (for example Country Parks), through English
Heritage-funded projects to secure management agreements for scheduled
monuments and as part of historic buildings-at-risk surveys.
Since
1991, the National Trust has been developing a computerised HER system to help
deal with management by recording the archaeological monuments in its care and
generating reports to determine monitoring programmes, repair works and
integrated management strategies. These
processes can be divided into three broad interrelated categories: monitoring,
to assess the condition of the monument; recommendations, to outline the requirements
for preservation and activities, to record work carried out (Figure 26).
Figure 25:
Monument management process
It is
essential that any decisions affecting management are based on a good level of
understanding of the individual monument, its place in the wider landscape and
the factors which have led to its current state of preservation. The first step to achieving this is the
monitoring of the monument in its setting during a field visit. The aim is to provide a ‘snapshot' of the
monument's condition and to flag up any actual and potential risks or damage
caused by factors such as land use, visitors, burrowing animals or natural
processes.
The
monitoring record is compiled in the field using a proforma. This should include information about:
·
stability
·
vulnerability
·
physical damage
·
visibility
·
accessibility
·
land use on and around the monument.
Figure 26:
Successive monument monitoring reports as recorded in the National Trust SMR [©
National Trust and exeGesIS SDM Ltd 2007]
Recommendations
may be made about the date of the next visit (usually a period of between one
month and five years) and any work that should, or should not be, carried
out. Photographs may also be taken to
form a record of the current state of preservation of the monument, which, over
time, can form part of a sequence showing changes in condition or land use.
With the
monitoring information entered on to the HER database, reports can be
generated. These can include related
information, such as site status, location and contact details for the landowner
or tenant. Lists can be prepared of
vulnerable buildings or monuments that are being monitored, allowing programmes
of visits to be planned. The National
Trust's Property Warden at Housesteads uses these reports to good effect to
help plan monitoring and maintenance inspection work for Hadrian's Wall. With professional guidance,
monument-monitoring programmes have also proved suitable projects for local society
or special-interest group involvement and can help raise awareness of
archaeology and HERs in the local community.
C.12.2 Management
recommendations
Before an
informed decision on future management and conservation can be made, other
factors which may affect the management of the monument need to taken into
account. These include statutory and
non-statutory designations, specialist reports that may have been undertaken
(such as biological or ecological survey reports) and any past or current
land-management regime already in place.
These factors and the data gained through monitoring visits are combined
to produce recommendations that set out short and long-term objectives for the
preservation of the monument.
Short-term
management objectives often concern issues such as ongoing damage to the
monument, such as a path causing erosion that needs to be re-routed, or the
safety of visitors, such as the need to erect a fence around a hazard. In these instances, the HER can be used to
record and monitor the management activity.
Long-term objectives are usually more strategic in their aims and should feed into broader land-management planning, such as the formation of conservation and whole farm plans. The benefits of incorporating archaeological requirements into integrated management strategies are great. If this holistic approach is adopted, threats to