cataloguing rules.

introduction.

Note! I have now found the county's catalogue online. This means I only catalogue sites or finds I know of that are not on the county's catalogue. I link to the county's on a parish by parish basis.

I apologise for the length and wordiness of these rules. But they have to be precise. So this page falls short of what I would hope for in accessibility. I include these rules in case you find them helpful despite this.

This page details the rules I use when rating a source, or when rating a specific entry in the catalogues. The status disproven to verified is given a visual "star rating" from 0 to 5 stars for quick reference only. I recommend you read the rules below when assessing an individual entry's status.

rating sources.

the source.

Question. Is the source one of these:-

• An original archaeological report of an excavation, geophysical survey, field walk, or other similar, organised survey?
• A directly and unedited transcription of this kind of an original archaeological report (without translation into English)?
• An original historical document, verified as authentic by one or more reputable scholars?
• A directly and unedited transcription of this kind of original historical document, without translation into English?

Answer. If "yes" to any of the above, then the source is Primary.

Question. If the source has not been identified as Primary, is it one of these:-

• From a publication:
  • written by one or more reputable authors who is considered expert in the field; and
  • which cites at least twenty publications?
• From a publication produced by a reputable organisation, which is recognised as accurate?
• From an online source that cites generally:
  • cites at least ten publications; and
  • is open to public view; and
  • is generally recognised as accurate?

Answer. If "yes", then the source is Secondary.

If the source has not been identified as either Primary or Secondary, it is Tertiary.

Note: experts in the field personally looking at a specific catalogue entry are counted independently from secondary sources – effectively as primary sources.

Note too: entries are generally divided into finds and sites. Finds and sites tend to be more speculative in this catalogue. It is because of the more ready inclusion of sites that I have devised the status system.

kinds of source data.

These kinds of source data are catalogued:-

• Archaeological evidence, meaning:-
  • a large numbers of finds from the period; or
  • a comprehensive archaeological survey.
  In either case:-
  • from one or more primary or secondary source(s); or
  • from one or more expert(s) in the field – that is where the source(s) or expert(s) talk about the specific site or find; or
  • from one or more tertiary source(s).
• Modern landscape feature, meaning:-
  • from a map that counts as a primary or secondary source; or
  • from the results of interpretation of aerial surveys that counts as a secondary source; or
  • from one or more expert(s) in the field – that is where the source(s) or expert(s) does not say an opinion about the specific site; or
  • my own findings from published aerial surveys. In these cases, I do not speculate, only describe. I ususally ask for expert interpretation on these.
  Sources from aerial surveys usually mean crop markings.
• Place name evidence, meaning:-
  • from a map:-
    • that counts as a primary or secondary source; and
    • is generally supported by:-
      • one or more extra secondary sources; or
      • one or more experts in the field as indicating the claimed site type – that is where the source(s) or expert(s) does not say an opinion about the specific site.

rating catalogue entries.

the entry’s class.

A catalogue entry is given a grouped class if:-

It is based on a number of singular class entries, that together reasonably may suggest a feature. This is given some leeway in inclusion within the catalogue, but not in status.

Otherwise the catalogue entry is given a singular class.

For example: A village called “Something Street” might count as a singular Roman Road (Part) entry. But a modern track connecting two village names ending “Street” might count as a grouped Roman Road entry.

the entry’s status.

Note: 'Specific' refers to the catalogued site or find. 'General' refers to similar sites or finds, and not only or necessarily to the specific one catalogued. The term “comprehensive archaeological survey” refers to the specific site.

A catalogue entry is given a disproven status, and a "zero star rating" , if:-

• After a comprehensive archaeological survey:-
  • one or more experts in the field state publicly that they are satisfied there is no evidence to substantiate the specific original claim, and
  • no expert(s) in the field disputes this; or,
• After comprehensive place name or statistical research which formed the only original basis for the claim:-
  • one or more experts in the field say publicly that they are satisfied there is no evidence to substantiate the specific or general original claim; and
  • no expert (s) in the field disputes this.
  For example: if refutation of “Street” as indication of a Roman Road (part) in either the specific case, or generally across the board, would invalidate the specific claim based upon that place name evidence.

A catalogue entry is given a speculative status, and a "one star rating" , if:-

• It would have been given a disproven status, but for continued disagreement between experts in the field; or,
• It is from a tertiary source, with no supporting kind(s) of evidence; but which is not yet catalogued with another status.

A catalogue entry is given a conjectural status, and a "two star rating" , if:-

• It is a grouped site entry based only on one kind of source data, even if:-
  • this is supported by specific or general statistics or general convention; and
  • even if one or more secondary sources agree with the statistics or convention but no secondary source or expert in the field has yet been catalogued as having examined the specific claim – and so
  • excepting a comprehensive archaeological survey.

A catalogue entry is given a hypothetical status, and a "three star rating" , if:-

• It would be given a conjectural status, but one or more secondary source(s) has been catalogued as having examined and agreed with the specific claim – but which does not yet count as unverified or verified; or
• It is a singular site entry supported by one or more kinds of evidence but which has not yet been catalogued as:-
  • supported by a comprehensive archaeological survey; or
  • specifically verified by one or more experts in the field
  and where the validity of at least a large part of the specific evidence is catalogued as disputed by one or more secondary source(s)*; or
• It is a grouped site entry supported by two out of three kinds of evidence but no secondary source or expert in the field has yet been catalogued as having examined the specific claim – and so
• excepting a comprehensive archaeological survey.

A catalogue entry is given an unverified status, and a "four star rating" , if:-

• It is a singular site entry supported by one or more kinds of evidence but
  • which has not yet been catalogued
    • as supported by a comprehensive archaeological survey; or
    • as specifically verified by one or more experts in the field –
  • *and where the validity of at least a large part of the specific evidence is not catalogued as disputed by either one or more experts in the field or by one or more secondary sources; or,
• It is a grouped site entry supported by all three kinds of evidence but which has not yet been catalogued
  • as supported by a comprehensive archaeological survey,
  • or as specifically verified by one or more experts in the field; or,
• It is a find entry which has not yet been specifically verified by one or more experts in the field.

A catalogue entry is given a verified status, and a "five star rating" , if it would have been given an unverified status and if:-

• It is a singular or grouped site entry and which has been catalogued
  • as supported by a comprehensive archaeological survey; or
  • as specifically verified by one or more experts in the field; or
• It is a find entry which has been specifically verified by one or more experts in the field.

Note: inclusion of a site or find in a museum catalogue is assumed to show specific verification by one or more experts in the field.

That concludes the cataloguing rules.