Featured Title:
Stones Playing Cards, great gift idea |
 |
| Landscapes for the World: Conserving a Global Heritage |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 118 guests and 0 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , sem , Klingon , coldrum , bat400 , TheCaptain , Runemage , SolarMegalith , davidmorgan
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Portal Talking Shop >> Storing Temporal Data
|
 |
| Author |
Storing Temporal Data |
juamei
Joined:
28-11-2002
Messages: 24
from Buxton
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 12-07-2012 at 00:22
Realised you are also missing a fairly obvious age type; Historical. Obviously only applies to a limited number of sites and all Roman and after but suspect there must be at least one on here 
I haven't got far enough into the Bayesian Analysis Longbarrow paper to know how specific the spacial location of the individual RC dates needs to be to be useful for that technique, but I wonder if the RC dates are stored with enough accuracy whether a similar technique across comparative sites is possible. Ie using data entered on here eventually.
[ This message was edited by: juamei on 2012-07-12 00:22 ]
 Profile
 Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7008
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-07-2012 at 16:24
Yes indeed - one being here
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=13947
Date 2002
I'm sure our date collection would be useful eventually for wider analysis if we include enough reference data - we can make it available to download as a further step. I'll get onto some coding as soon as our event at the end of July is over.
Thanks
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
DrewParsons
Joined:
10-06-2008
Messages: 213
from New Zealand
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-08-2012 at 08:43
I am just doing a book review: "Thirst" by Steven Mithen, Professor of Early Prehistory at the University of Reading. On page 22 he says "Archaeologists who study the Paleolithic period prefer to use "years ago" but Neolithic and Bronze Age specialists prefer to use either BC or BCE".
By "years ago" he refers to 1950 (not 1948 as stated in other posts here).
I like the terms Bronze Age or similar era descriptions as they are wider ranging than specific dates for sites which often have a long period of use. The more we get into technical dating the harder it is to indicate on site pages and the harder it is for the average visitor to Megalithic Portal to comprehend. Let's keep it simple, after all professionals will understand what we mean by Bronze Age in Britain but ordinary folk will be bamboozled by technical calibrated
radio carbon dates with standard deviation spreads.
As to whether we use AD and BC, or BCE I think that everyone is familiar with BC and AD -even atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims, so ignoring the religious argument I am in favour of retaining AD and BC too.
Profile
Reply
|
jazzrabbit
Joined:
04-09-2012
Messages: 1
from London
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-09-2012 at 16:07
Hey, hi everyone. Just chipping in with my own date related thoughts...
I think usability has to be borne in mind. Dates really can be entered in a number of different formats, to differing tolerances. Ultimately though, what matters is how you interrogate that data and get results that are of use to you.
My suggestion would be. For general public users, lay people without professional level knowledge, I think you would be best going with broad period based dating. Maybe getting as granular as early, mid, late per period. The periods being Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze, Iron and so on.
Stick with the very well established BC/AD dating system. It does obviously have links to a religious structure, but I think using Christ as a specific measurement point is as good as any? If other sites or users want to run these dates through to a different dating system (Chinese?), thats up to them and their dates are equally as valid.
I think beyond this, very specific dating information, that current science has supplied should certainly be considered for inclusion and this could then be used as the basis of a more scientific date specification system.
So, get locations categorised into broad periods, allowing for more accurate sub periods. So Bronze Age would be fine, as would Early Bronze Age.
Then, in a second phase, allow for maybe a date range for a given location, with maybe its foundation given as its start, and falling out of use as its end.
So, a more scientific search for locations, based on date, would be a date range, and any location that has its period of use falling within that date range, would be considered a match.
When you then add a system for specifying events, then you can get even more granular and specify events as points in time, and these can also be searched for within a given date range.
To give you some background. I have been working on a site, for the last two years or so, with another guy. We have been aiming to produce a more generic cataloging system, based on locations and functionality. A part of that also involves time categorisation. The tricky thing for us is that we want to span from modern dat, through to geological epochs. So I have been thinking on this particular problem for a while now.
I think the key here is to keep things as simple as possible at point of use. Whilst also not throwing away data that could be of use to those with a more professional need. Not easy....
Profile
Reply
|
bat400
Joined:
10-04-2006
Messages: 1335
from South Central Indiana, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-09-2012 at 14:45
Quote:
|
On 2012-09-20 16:07, jazzrabbit wrote:
I think usability has to be borne in mind. ...
My suggestion would be. For general public users, lay people without professional level knowledge, I think you would be best going with broad period based dating. Maybe getting as granular as early, mid, late per period. The periods being Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze, Iron and so on. ...
Stick with the very well established BC/AD dating system...
So, get locations categorised into broad periods, allowing for more accurate sub periods. So Bronze Age would be fine, as would Early Bronze Age. ...
Then, in a second phase, allow for maybe a date range for a given location, with maybe its foundation given as its start, and falling out of use as its end. ....
So, a more scientific search for locations, based on date, would be a date range, and any location that has its period of use falling within that date range, would be considered a match. ...
When you then add a system for specifying events, then you can get even more granular and specify events as points in time, and these can also be searched for within a given date range. ...
|
|
I find myself in basic agreement with all these points. However, I will point out that names for basic "ages" vary by the culture. "Bronze Age" is meaningless if you are talking about the Maya, but there are similar descriptors that can be referenced to a brief article, on "Dates used on the Megalithic Portal", or the like.
I am personally in agreement with jazzrabbit on BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. For the older layman the earlier nomenclature is still more commonly understood. It is a difference without a distinction. I've not understood the point of it and it provides additionally opportunity for typos since "BCE" and "CE" contain the same letters. However, it's not worth arguing about if there is a "majority" opinion.
[ This message was edited by: bat400 on 2012-09-21 14:59 ]
Profile
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News