This page (revision-35) was last changed on 18-Sep-2012 10:42 by Alison Bennett

This page was created on 13-Jun-2012 17:01 by Matthew Stiff

Only authorized users are allowed to rename pages.

Only authorized users are allowed to delete pages.

Page revision history

Version Date Modified Size Author Changes ... Change note
35 18-Sep-2012 10:42 970 bytes Alison Bennett to previous
34 18-Sep-2012 10:31 1 KB Alison Bennett to previous | to last
33 27-Jun-2012 15:04 96 KB Administrator to previous | to last
32 27-Jun-2012 12:53 96 KB Administrator to previous | to last
31 27-Jun-2012 12:32 96 KB Administrator to previous | to last
30 14-Jun-2012 11:27 96 KB Tony Austin to previous | to last
29 14-Jun-2012 11:27 96 KB Tony Austin to previous | to last
28 14-Jun-2012 11:26 96 KB Tony Austin to previous | to last
27 14-Jun-2012 11:25 90 KB Tony Austin to previous | to last
26 14-Jun-2012 10:35 51 KB Tony Austin to previous | to last
25 14-Jun-2012 10:34 51 KB Tony Austin to previous | to last
24 14-Jun-2012 10:19 45 KB Tony Austin to previous | to last
23 14-Jun-2012 09:48 41 KB Tony Austin to previous | to last
22 14-Jun-2012 09:44 36 KB Tony Austin to previous | to last
21 14-Jun-2012 09:38 27 KB Tony Austin to previous | to last

Page References

Incoming links Outgoing links
SectionC...nobody
SectionC

Version management

Difference between version and

At line 1 changed 2 lines
!!!C Recording practice guidelines
\\
!!!C: Recording practice guidelines
At line 13 removed 227 lines
!!!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
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
!!C.2.2 Current models
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).
%%image-caption
[{Image src='fig10.gif' alt='Figure 10: The event-monument-source data model.'}]
''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)
%%image-caption
[{Image src='fig11.jpg' alt='Figure 11: Throckmorton known archaeological sites prior to the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic'}]
''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.
%%image-caption
[{Image src='fig12.jpg' alt='Figure 12: Placename evidence from 1774 Throckmorton Enclosure map.'}]
''Figure 12: Placename evidence from 1774 Throckmorton Enclosure map (© Worcestershire County Council 2007 and © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. 100015914. 2007).''
/%
%%image-caption
[{Image src='fig13.jpg' alt='Figure 13: Throckmorton events undertaken as part of foot and mouth mitigation.'}]
''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 Monuments
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
%%image-caption
[{Image src='fig14.gif' alt='Figure 14: Relationships between monument records.'}]
''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.
!!C.4.4 Artefacts and ecofacts
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 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).
%%image-caption
[{Image src='fig15.jpg' alt='Figure 15: The monument record for the chapter house at Waltham Abbey displayed in exeGesIS SDM Ltd's HBSMR software.'}]
''Figure 15: The monument record for the chapter house at Waltham Abbey displayed in exeGesIS SDM Ltd's HBSMR software. (© Essex County Council and exeGesiS SDM Ltd. 2007).''
/%
This page (revision-35) was last changed on 18-Sep-2012 10:42 by Alison BennettTop