mda Archaeological Objects Thesaurus

Foreword

This thesaurus is the result of work undertaken by the Archaeological Objects Thesaurus Working Party, established in September 1995. The aim of this working party was to develop guidance and common principles for the recording of object names within the archaeological profession and related disciplines, and to provide an interface with other national and international standards developed for archaeological objects. It is hoped that the thesaurus will encourage the use of, and access to, collections, archives and record systems and facilitate co-operation and data exchange between all individuals and institutions involved in the retrieval, research and curation of archaeological objects.

The thesaurus is not a definitive document: additions and amendments are welcomed. The objective of the working party was to produce a 'general purpose' thesaurus of archaeological object types with provision for specialists to develop levels of detail as required. The thesaurus consists almost entirely of terms submitted by members of the working party, supplemented by terms from other sources where areas were considered to be weak.

The compilation of the thesaurus has been undertaken largely by David Forster and Sally Carter, and use has been made of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments of England's MONARCH database for the construction of the hierarchical and alphabetical lists. The work has been directed and supervised by the working party, which has included the following members: Holly Duncan, Bedfordshire County Council Archaeology Service; Isobel Holroyd, British and Irish Archaeological Bibliography; Tanya Szrajber, the British Museum; Carolyn Wingfield, Doncaster Museum Service; Philip Ellis, English Heritage; Sally Carter, National Museum of Wales; Kevin Gosling and Matthew Stiff, ; Neil Beagrie, Kate Fernie, David Forster and Gillian Quine, RCHME; Jude Plouviez, Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service; Geoffrey Denford, Winchester Museum Service, and Christine McDonnell, York Archaeological Trust.

Many other individuals have contributed to the development of the thesaurus. The working party would like, in particular, to acknowledge the following: Dawn Abercromby, Martyn Barber (RCHME); Elizabeth Walker (National Museum of Wales); Beverley Nenk (Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities, the British Museum, and Medieval Pottery Research Group); Frances Healy (Lithic Studies Society); June Swann (Consultant, History of Shoes and Shoemaking); S R Cosh (Association for the Study and Preservation of Roman Mosaics); Dr David Higgins (North-West Region Medieval Pottery Research Group); Ian Betts (Museum of London Archaeology Service); Philip Watson (West Midlands Archaeological Collections Research Unit); Renee Gajowskyj, Gill Woolrich, Nicola Rogers and Patrick Ottaway (York Archaeological Trust), and Dr Dominique de Moulins and Kathy Perrin (English Heritage).

An early draft of the thesaurus was presented and discussed at an Workshop on terminology at Oxford in September 1996. This provided an opportunity for the working party to promote the thesaurus and receive initial feedback. The working party is grateful to all of those who contributed comments.

A key part of the production of the thesaurus has been the process of peer review. The working party is indebted to the following reviewers who contributed invaluable comments on the Introduction, reviewed the hierarchical and alphabetical lists in great detail and provided numberous scope notes: Dawn Abercromby and Martyn Barber (RCHME); Andrew Roberts and John Clark (Museum of London); Leonard Will (Willpower Information); Lindsay Allason-Jones (University and Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne Museum of Antiquities); Alicia Wise (Archaeology Data Service); Arthur MacGregor (Ashmolean Museum); Clare Jewess, Ian Morrison, Trevor Reynolds and Jan Summerfield (English Heritage); Colin Richardson (formerly Tullie House); Colleen Batey (Glasgow Art Gallery and Museum); David Collens (National Army Museum); Duncan Brown (Hereford and Worcester County Council); Diana Murray (Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland); Elizabeth Walker (National Museum of Wales); Guy Kilminster (Cheltenham Borough Council); Hazel Simons (Manx national Heritage); Janet Owen (University of Leicester); Jo Dillon (Armagh County Museum); John Cherry (The British Museum); Judy Mills (Corinium Museum); Mike Stokes (Shrewsbury Museums Service); Neil Beagrie (RCHME); Paul Gilman (Essex County Council, Planning Department); Philip Claris (The National Trust), and Stuart Holm (Museum Documentation Consultant).

has been responsible for the final editing and the publication of the thesaurus. Publication has been aided by financial support from English Heritage and the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.

Dr Gillian Quine
Chair, Archaeological Object Thesaurus Working Party
8th July 1997

Introduction

It is strongly recommended that all users of this thesaurus should familiarise themselves with the contents of the Introduction before using the hierarchical and alphabetical lists.

What is a thesaurus?

A thesaurus is a tool which helps indexers and searchers to choose words consistently to describe things or concepts. The thesaurus is structured in such a way that related words are grouped together and cross-referenced to other groups of words which may be relevant to the subject. Where there is a choice of words with the same or similar meanings, the thesaurus provides a single preferred word and, by arranging terms in a hierarchy, allows the selection of more general or specific words. The purpose of the thesaurus is to standardise the use of terminology, which not only helps in indexing information but also in its retrieval. Furthermore, it is a dynamic tool, one which can be developed through the addition or amendment of hierarchies, terms and relationships according to need.

When is a thesaurus necessary?

The construction of a thesaurus is time-consuming and requires both a financial and a staff resource. Very careful consideration should be given to whether it is actually necessary to produce a new thesaurus. Invaluable advice on this issue is provided by Elizabeth Orna (1983). She indicates that the major factor in the decision-making is whether a recognised vocabulary already exists for the subject area. Where a vocabulary does exist, it can be used as an authority for the terminology used and there is no need to create a new thesaurus. If a recognised vocabulary does not exist, there is likely to be a requirement to establish control of terms. However, there still may not be a requirement for a thesaurus and a simple wordlist may suffice. Orna poses a series of questions which should be answered before a decision is made to produce a thesaurus, and establishes that one is necessary in the following circumstances:

where there is no existing thesaurus
where there is no existing classification or terminology
where there is a need to answer very specific questions
where there are several indexers
where there are several searchers

The creation of a thesaurus, although necessary, may not be possible if there are no information and subject professionals to dedicate time to its creation and it is likely in these circumstances that it will be necessary to continue with simple indexing.

The working party responsible for the creation of the Archaeological Object Thesaurus began by establishing whether a thesaurus existed for archaeological objects. Careful consideration was given to whether the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (Getty 1994), a general purpose thesaurus produced by the Getty Information Institute, would meet the requirements of those responsible for indexing archaeological objects. A review of usage, however, indicated that the thesaurus is not readily available to indexers, is too broad in scope, is difficult to use and that it is not sufficiently strong on archaeology. The working party also considered the Object Class of the Thesaurus of Monument Types (RCHME and English Heritage 1995) but, although this has been incorporated within the thesaurus, it was not sufficiently developed to provide a general purpose archaeological objects thesaurus.

As far as Orna's other questions are concerned, the working party recognised that there was a requirement for indexers of archaeological objects to answer very specific questions and that there was a requirement for a vocabulary tool which could be used by several indexers and searchers, across organisations, to improve the consistency and retrieval of information. A thesaurus was, therefore, needed and with the existence of a working party consisting of information and subject professionals, the resource was available to create it.

Scope of the Archaeological Objects Thesaurus

Archaeological objects, for the purpose of this thesaurus, have been defined as:

"any physical evidence, usually portable, resulting from past human activity and human interaction with the environment, or environmental remains, that can be recovered through archaeological fieldwork".

This is a broad definition but provides users with the scope to apply the thesaurus to a wide variety of archaeological purposes. This definition also means that certain categories have been included which may occur in other disciplines and specialist thesauri. Such cross-disciplinary subjects and objects have only been covered at a very broad level and from a specifically archaeological viewpoint. Users should refer to other thesauri, where they exist, for more detailed guidance.

The working party has not imposed a date limitation on the scope of the thesaurus, recognising that archaeological fieldwork is concerned with the recovery of ancient and modern objects.

As far as the geographical scope is concerned, it was recognised, at the outset, that it would be impossible for the thesaurus to provide comprehensive coverage for archaeological collections from cultures world-wide, and the object names which have been included cover predominantly British and Irish material. However, a small number of foreign names do appear. These were included partly because they are names in common usage and partly because they frequently appear in museum collections. It was also considered worth testing whether they would fit into the overall structure, and to indicate that the geographical scope of the thesaurus could be extended to include collections of foreign archaeological material if required.

Relationship between the thesaurus and other thesauri

The working party, in compiling the archaeological thesaurus, recognised that requirements differ considerably between institutions. It also recognised that different collections require different thesauri. This thesaurus, therefore, is intended to be broad and general purpose in scope. It is not intended to be definitive and allows for the parallel use of other terminology and authority lists. It can be used alone, or as a spring board for museums and other institutions to develop thesauri specific to their needs.

Users of the thesaurus

The thesaurus has been developed for all those concerned with the care or recording of archaeological objects across a wide range of institutions including museums, Sites and Monuments Records, archaeological units, archaeological archives, universities and national heritage organisations. It may equally be of use to data systems managers and software developers.

Care has been taken to ensure that the views of the archaeological community are reflected through the following means:

direct representation on the Archaeological Objects Working Party;
co-ordination with the SPECTRUM Archaeology Working Party and the Data Standards Working Party (RCHME, English Heritage, Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers, British Archaeological Bibliography and The National Trust);
the circulation of minutes and draft papers to a range of corresponding members willing to provide expert advice;
consultation with specialist archaeological groups;
peer review.

Thesaurus terms

The thesaurus includes 2,204 terms. There are 1653 preferred terms, 399 non-preferred terms and 152 non-index terms. The last term was added on 7th February 1997.

Terms which have been selected for inclusion within the thesaurus are those in common usage. They have been derived, on the whole, from simple object name and authority lists submitted by members of the Archaeological Object Thesaurus Working Party, together with the Object Class derived from the RCHME/English Heritage Thesaurus of Monument Types. Inevitably, the interests and experience of the group have influenced the coverage. However, in order to ensure that there is reasonable representation across the classes, working party members have sought additional terms from colleagues within their own organisations and externally.

The structure of this thesaurus has been based on a the guidelines given in the British Standard BS5723:1987 Guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri, the second edition of Thesaurus Construction by Aitchison and Gilchrist (1987) and the rules prepared by the Terminology Working Group, Guidelines for Constructing a Museum Object Name Thesaurus (Holm 1993; this publication is referred to as Holm 1993 in the rest of the Introduction). The thesaurus follows a deviation from the British Standard, recommended by the Terminology Working Group, by using singular object names. This is to reflect long-standing custom and practice within museums. Reference has also been made to the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (Getty 1994), the Thesaurus of Monument Types (RCHME/English Heritage 1993) and the Thesaurus of Building Materials (RCHME 1996).

The thesaurus was constructed using the three basic relationships set out in ISO 2788: the equivalence relationship, the hierarchical relationship, and the associative relationship.

The Equivalence Relationship

This relationship, the first to be established when constructing a thesaurus, is between preferred terms and non-preferred terms, where two or more terms are taken to refer to the same concept. A preferred term is the term chosen for use in the thesaurus hierarchy and is used for indexing the object. A non-preferred term acts as a pointer or 'lead-in' to the appropriate preferred term.

The assignment of non-preferred status occurs in the following instances:

a) synonyms
	e.g.	hone	USE	whetstone
The terms, in this case, have meanings that are taken as the same in a range of contexts and can, therefore, be interchanged.
b) quasi-synonyms
	e.g.	fife	USE	flute
These are terms which generally have different meanings but for the purposes of indexing are treated as synonyms.
c) compound terms
	e.g.	amulet ring	USE	amulet finger ring
There are two preferred terms which should be used in this instance.
d) foreign or classical terms
	e.g.	pilum	USE	javelin
Terms in Standard English language are used except where the foreign term is in common usage.
e) regional terms
There are no examples within the thesaurus at present.
Regional dialect terms can be given as non-preferred terms as it is considered that general terms will be more useful for retrieval.

The abbreviations USE (prefix to a preferred term) and UF (prefix to a non-preferred term) indicate equivalence relationships within the thesaurus.

The Hierarchical Relationship

This is the relationship which distinguishes thesauri from basic wordlists and validation files. Preferred terms are grouped together by concept into hierarchies, e.g. specific types of sword (broadsword, cutlass, rapier) would be grouped within the more general heading of sword. A hierarchy is constructed by specifying that terms have a broader term/narrower term' relationship to each other. The narrowest (i.e. most specific) terms possible from each hierarchy are used for indexing, but if none of the bottom-level terms are appropriate, or do not adequately represent the concept, then broader, more general terms should be used.

e.g.	<weapon>
		<edged weapon>
			sword
				broadsword

The number of levels within the hierarchy will vary according to retrieval requirements.

In some cases, it is necessary to indicate why certain terms have been grouped into a hierarchy. This is done through the use of grouping/framework terms and facet indicators. Grouping or framework terms represent 'artificial' terms which have been used in order to maintain the desired structure of the thesaurus. For example, introducing intermediate terms such as fishing object and cultivation object allows objects to be grouped by these uses. 'Framework terms' is an effective label for these artificial terms as their purpose is to identify junctions in the framework which would not otherwise have a term to label them. The grouping or framework terms are non-index terms. A facet indicator is an inserted 'comment' which indicates the principle by which the terms in a list of siblings have been grouped or sorted. They take the form <by...>. For example, narrower terms of armour may be grouped by the facet indicators <by form> and <by construction>. Sometimes, facet indicators are referred to 'node labels', but as this expression can have other meanings it is not used here to avoid ambiguity.

Terms within this thesaurus can be assigned to more than one hierarchy. The term razor, for example, appears in two different hierarchies:

e.g.

razor
razor

BT
BT

shaving item
cutting equipment

The use of this structure helps the indexer and searcher to select the most appropriate term.

Hierarchical relationships are expressed in the thesaurus through the use of the abbreviations BT (broader term) and NT (narrower term).

The Associative Relationship

Terms can have close relationships but are neither equivalents nor associated hierarchically. These terms are know as related terms. The British Standard recognises two broad classes of terms linked by the associative relationship: terms belonging to the same category; terms belonging to different categories. In the first case, the relationship is generally between siblings with overlapping meanings and the user searching on one term should be reminded to search on the other,

	e.g.	chatelaine	RT	girdle hanger
In the second case, terms belonging to different conceptual types are related. One of the terms should be implied when the other is used for indexing,
	e.g.	bow (weapon)	RT	arrow

Related terms should be used mainly in the second case where terms exist in different hierarchies.

Related terms can be used by the indexer and searcher to find alternative or additional terms which would improve the retrieval of relevant items.

Related term is abbreviated to RT within the thesaurus.

Class

The thesaurus is grouped by classes and not the broadest noun term (top term). The class is not part of the hierarchy of terms: it is used as a way of grouping terms together into particular themes of disciplines to facilitate the search for and retrieval of terms.

e.g.

AGRICULTURE AND SUBSISTENCE
or
SPORTS AND GAMES

CL is the abbreviation used for Class within the thesaurus.

Scope Notes

Scope notes are used to provide a definition of terms and guidance as regards their usage in the context of this thesaurus.

	e.g.	ossuary	SN	An object that contains bones. Use a monuments thesaurus where this is a site type.
	e.g.	ox shoe	SN	A perforated strip of metal for shoeing the bifurcated hoof of an ox.

The scope notes have been derived from a number of sources.These sources are listed in the bibliography.

Scope Note is abbreviated to SN within the thesaurus.

Rules for vocabulary control

Synonyms

The use of synonyms has been controlled within this thesaurus through the use of preferred and non-preferred terms. Guidance has been included within scope notes where appropriate. Preferred terms are displayed in bold type in the thesaurus, non-preferred terms are in normal type.

Homographs

Homographs are words with the same spelling but different meanings. The use of homographs has been restricted in the thesaurus but, where they have been included, they are distinguished from each other by the use of a qualifying word or phrase inserted within parentheses, e.g. mortar (vessel), mortar (weapon); tippet (cape), tippet (stole).

Singular or Plural

Object names appear in the singular following the recommendation in Holm 1993. Exceptions to this rule are cases where the terms are normally plural even when referring to the singular, e.g. breeches or scissors. This contradicts the British Standard but conforms with established practice in museum and heritage indexing.

Spelling

The most widely accepted spelling of words is adopted as the preferred term. Reference has been made to the latest edition of the two volume Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1986).

Punctuation

Punctuation has deliberately been omitted from the hierarchical and alphabetical lists as its use inhibits retrieval. However, it has been used within the scope notes.

Hyphens

Hyphens are not used in the thesaurus as they can hamper the search for and retrieval of terms.

Compound Terms

Compound terms have been factored into single concepts where possible, e.g. for harp tuning peg use harp and tuning pen. However, where the splitting of a compound term would distort its meaning or where the use of a term is well-established it is left unfactored, e.g. toothbrush.

Multiple Indexing

It is common practice, when indexing, to assign as many thesaurus terms to each item as are necessary to express all aspects of the object or concept, e.g. buckle and strap fitting for a belt buckle.

Language Order

Compound terms within the thesaurus have been expressed in natural language, e.g. burial chest, not chest, burial.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviations and acronyms have not been used in the thesaurus.

Dialect and Regional Terms

Standard English is used wherever possible for preferred terms. However, regional and dialect terms will be accepted as preferred terms where there is no recognised equivalent term.

Loan-words/Foreign and Classical Terms

Terms which are well established are, and will be, included within the thesaurus.

Slang Terms and Jargon

The thesaurus, currently, does not contain any examples of slang terms or jargon. Terms which represent newly emerging concepts and for which there is no widely accepted alternative will be accepted as candidates for this thesaurus. In cases where slang or jargon terms emerge as alternatives to well established terms, they may be accepted as non-preferred terms.

Display of the thesaurus

The thesaurus display comprises two parts. The first is a systematic section showing a hierarchical display of the preferred terms under the class names. The second is a full alphabetical display, showing preferred and non-preferred terms, with scope notes and the relationships for each term. The classes appear in upper case in the hierarchical display and in lower case within the alphabetical list. All other terms are in lower case. Preferred terms are printed in bold type and non-preferred terms in normal type. Non-index terms are in normal type and appear within <>. Facet indicators are also displayed in angled brackets, eg <armour <by form>>. This is due to limitations in the system used to produce the hierarchies.

Specific issues arising during the creation of the thesaurus

It should be emphasised that the working party has debated long and hard many of the issues which have arisen during the creation of this thesaurus. The following section has been included to explain certain decisions which have been made and to highlight some of the problems which are encountered during the development and use of a thesaurus.

By products	By products (e.g. by products of manufacturing processes) have been included in the thesaurus because they are generally regarded as discrete objects and need to be both indexed and retrieved.
Commemorative	The term commemorative object has been included within the Objects Unassigned class. Specific types of commemorative object, eg commemorative mug and commemorative stone are included as narrower terms.
Containers	The working party debated at length the question of how containers should be dealt with. Containers are usually described by function or by form, e.g. frying pan would be described by function and a tripod vessel by the form of the container. It was decided that containers would be listed primarily by function within this thesaurus but it was recognised that common usage and retrieval were also important. Some containers have been included by form in order that users can develop this hierarchy but there was a very deliberate policy of not trying to cover every single form. Typologies of container forms would be best dealt with by developing a hierarchy with a facet indicator but they are not considered part of this thesaurus.
Currency	Many objects have been excluded from the Currency class on the basis that although they may have been used for exchange purposes they are not true currency, e.g. ingot and torc.
Ecofacts	This is a very small class, largely due to the fact that the majority of potential terms were regarded as materials and it was considered more appropriate for these to appear within a separate materials thesaurus. However, it was recognised that there is a requirement within the archaeological profession for certain remains to be indexed as objects for the purposes of retrieval.
Historical names	Currently, historical names have not been included. However, if there is felt to be a need for these names, it is suggested that the standard rules for creating a new term are applied, with the most common term becoming the preferred term and other terms non-preferred terms, e.g. firelock is an eighteenth century term for a flintlock musket; firelock USE flintlock musket. There is a second issue with historical names. This is where antiquarian or old archaeological practice was to assign a name to an object on the basis of its similarity to a contemporary object, e.g. dress fastener, or according to a current theory, e.g. currency bar. Changes in interpretation have led to the existence of terms which have a name indicating one function but which are thought to perform another one, e.g. currency bar implies a function of currency or exchange but these objects are now believed to be roughouts for swords. Each of these terms had to be treated individually within this thesaurus: some have been assigned preferred status and others non-preferred. In all cases, they have been clearly scope noted.
Materials	Many materials are recorded as finds in archaeological excavations. However, this does not necessarily mean that they are objects. This thesaurus has followed the recommendations made in Holm 1993 that materials should be recorded in a separate field within information systems and that a more specialised thesaurus should be used (see RCHME's unpublished Thesaurus of Building Materials). For example, a lump of mortar found on a site could be indexed as architectural fragment and described as mortar in a material field. In the case of samples of materials, sample can be recorded as the object type and material within the material field (see note on Sample).
Multi-function	Many objects are multi-purpose. This presented a number of difficulties in creating the thesaurus and led to the development of the classes Containers and Tools and Equipment. Terms have been assigned to these more generic classes as well as to the relevant thematic ones.
Music	Object names in this class are classified by sound production method.
Nationality	The thesaurus is weighted towards British objects because of the nature of the original wordlists. Foreign objects have been included and this should continue.
Grouping/framework terms	Where possible, these have been given a consistent style, of the format fishing object.
Objects and parts	Holm 1993 recommends indexing a part of an object as its whole where it is known. This has generally been followed within the thesaurus. The purposes of this rule are to ensure consistency and the retrieval of information. In the context of consistency, if parts are indexed then a genuinely whole object would also need to be broken down into its component parts.This would inflate the thesaurus as well as creating more work for the indexer. Experience has shown also that end users will ask for an object by its whole name and will be, by default, interested, in the parts of the object. If the completeness of an object is an issue, it is recommended that a completeness field or flag is added to the record. There are, for pragmatic reasons, cases in this thesaurus where the whole-part rule has been broken. This is where it is only usually the part which survives and the part which has been collected, and where indexing of the whole leads to the loss of meaning, e.g. loomweight.
Patterns, templates and moulds	It is recommended in Holm 1993 that the type of precursor should be recorded as the object name and that the products which it helps to shape can be recorded elsewhere. It is recommended in this thesaurus that a combined term for the product and precursor, eg axe mould, is entered as a narrower term of the precursor, eg mould.
Religion or Ritual	There was a deliberate policy to try to avoid concentrating purely upon one religion within this class. The bias towards Christianity is largely related to the objects being identifiably religious and reflects the contents of the original wordlists. It is recognised that it is difficult and highly subjective to separate religious from secular in a pre-Christian context and only very definitely 'ritual' objects are included.
Reproductions and replicas	These are representations of other items which possess object names in their own right. Originally, terms relating to the representation of items, e.g. copy, were included within the Unassigned class and it was suggested that these were multiple indexed with the appropriate object names, e.g. statue and replica. However, on reconsideration, the working party decided to remove these terms, as they do not represent object names in their own right and it was felt that their inclusion involved the mixing of concepts. It is recommended that this information is recorded separately, i.e. an additional field is added to a database.
Samples	Holm 1993 recommends that, in the case of samples of raw or semi-processed materials, the object name should be the name of the material followed by the qualifier 'sample', e.g. coal sample, or remains. It is also recommended that the material should be recorded in a material field For the purposes of this thesaurus, materials have been omitted (see note on Materials) and the term sample has been included in the Unassigned class. It is suggested that if sample is to be used with another term within this thesaurus, that multiple indexing is employed.
Tools and Equipment	Most tools can be used for more than one function or by more than one trade. A deliberate decision was made in this class not to qualify tools by a craft qualifier, e.g. metalworkers saw, carpenters saw and joiners saw. All of these should be entered as saw since this is the primary function of the tool. It was decided to group tools by the main function for which they were designed, e.g. a knife is designed to cut although it can be used to mark objects, pierce them and even to crush them.
Unassigned	An Unassigned class has been used for those objects which cannot be assigned to the other classes or subject areas. Often they can be associated with a range of uses, e.g. wheel. In the case of hoard and ingot, although both can be associated with currency, it cannot be assumed that this was always their function.
Unidentified Objects	It is accepted that there may be instances where it is not possible to identify an object. It is also recognised that it is likely that some form of object name will be regarded as mandatory within a catalogue record. The name unidentified object has, therefore, been included within the Unassigned class.
Toys and models	The terms toy and model occur within the thesaurus. Specific types of toy and model, eg toy boat and model shoe, should be included as narrower terms.

Future development of the thesaurus

The Archaeological Objects Thesaurus is designed to be a general purpose thesaurus, providing a framework onto which users can add, as necessary, their preferred, more detailed, nomenclature where specialised collections, research or regional variation require the use of extended typologies or more refined definitions. It is regarded as a dynamic tool for indexing and retrieval purposes and it is hoped that users will contribute to its further development through the submission of candidate terms and by returning comments.

Although it is recognised that many organisations have constructed their own thesauri, it is intended that this thesaurus will help to establish a national standard for the indexing and retrieval of archaeological objects and also that it will contribute to the development of terminology at an international level.

It is also recognised that institutions will need to use this thesaurus in combination with other general purpose and more specific thesauri, such as the Art and Architecture Thesaurus and the Thesaurus of Monument Types. Reference should be made to the bibliography for details of relevant published and unpublished thesauri.

Select Bibliography

Thesaurus construction

Aitchison, J. and Gilchrist, A. (1987). Thesaurus Construction: a practical manual. 2nd edition. London: Aslib.

British Standards Institution (1987). Guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri. (BS 5723:1987) (ISO 2788-1986). London: British Standards Institution.

Holm, S. (1993). Guidelines for Constructing a Museum Object Name Thesaurus. Cambridge: .
Web document at http://www.open.gov.uk/mdocassn/

International Organization for Standardization (1986). Documentation - Guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri (ISO 2788). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

Orna, E. (1983). Build yourself a thesaurus: a step by step guide. Norwich: Running Angel.

Willpower Information (1996). Thesaurus principles and practice.
Web document at http://www.willpower.demon.co.uk/thesprin.htm.

Thesauri and wordlists

Published

British Museum (forthcoming). Object Names Thesaurus.

Blackaby, J.R., Greeno, P. and the Nomenclature Committee (1989). The Revised Nomenclature for Museum Cataloguing: a revised and expanded version of Robert G. Chenhall's system for classifying man-made objects. Nashville, Tennessee: American Association for State and Local History.

Getty Art History Information Programme (1994). Art and Architecture Thesaurus. Oxford: OUP.

Getty Art History Information Programme (1994). Guide to Indexing and Cataloguing with the Art and Architecture Thesaurus. Oxford: OUP.

Lavell, C. (1989). British Archaeological Thesaurus. CBA Practical Handbook No.4. London: CBA.

National Army Museum (1993). Thesaurus for cataloguing Military Collections. London: National Army Museum.

National Museum of Wales (1982). Classification of Objects in the Welsh Folk Museum Collections. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales. (Out of print).

Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England and English Heritage (1995). Thesaurus of Monument Types: A Standard for Use in Archaeological and Architectural Records. Swindon: RCHME.

Social and Industrial History Working Party (1993). Social History and Industrial Classification 2. 2nd edition. Sheffield: Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language, University of Sheffield.

Summerfield, P. (1988). Historical Collections Classification Scheme for Small Museums. Perth: Museums Association of Australia.

Unpublished

East Anglian SMR Working Group (1989). East Anglian Regional Wordlist for Sites and Monuments Records.

English Heritage (nd). DELILAH system.

English Heritage (nd). Ancient Monuments Laboratory Collections Management Database.

English Heritage (nd). Historic Properties Group Collections Management Database.

English Heritage (nd). Greater London Sites and Monuments Record.

Museum of London (1996). Lists of Prehistoric and Roman Object Names (mapped to AAT).

Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (1996). Thesaurus of Building Materials.

The Standing Committee for Museums in Hertfordshire (1984). Hertfordshire Simple Name List: a Thesaurus of Terms for use in Cataloguing General Social History Collections.

Tullie House Museum (nd). Simple Name Termlist: Archaeology.

West Midlands Archaeological Collections Research Unit (nd). Simple Name List.

Winchester Museum Service (nd). Term List.

York Archaeological Trust (nd). Glossary of Simple Names.

Reference works for scope notes

Adkins, L. and R.A. (1982). A Thesaurus of British Archaeology. Newton Abbot & London: David & Charles.

Adkins, L. and R.A. (1982). The Handbook of British Archaeology. London: Papermac.

Blair, J. and Ramsey, N. eds (1991). English Medieval Industries. London: Hambledon Press.

Bray, W. and Trump, D. (1975). Penguin Dictionary of Archaeology. London: Penguin.

Brodribb, G. (1987). Roman Brick and Tile. London: Alan Sutton.

Clark, J. (1995). The Medieval Horse and its Equipment. Medieval Finds from Excavations in London 5. London: Museum of London.

Collins (1993). Collins Concise Dictionary. 3rd edition. Glasgow: Harper Collins.

Corvisier, A., ed. (1994). A Dictionary of Military History - and the Art of War. Oxford: Blackwells.

Curl, J.S. (1993). Encyclopaedia of Architectural Terms. London: Donhead.

Dirsztay, P. (1978). Church Furnishings: A NADFAS guide. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. (1994). New Encyclopaedia Britannica. 15th edition. London: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.

Fleming, J., Honour, H. and Pevsner, N. (1991). The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture. 4th edition. London: Penguin.

Jackson, R. (1981). A set of Roman medical instruments from Italy. Britannia, XVII, 119-167.

Lever, J. and Harris, J. (1993). Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture 800-1914. London: Faber and Faber.

MacLean, J.H. and Scott, J.S. (1993). The Penguin Dictionary of Building. 4th edition. London: Penguin.

Manning, W.H. (1985). Catalogue of the Romano-British Iron Tools, Fittings and Weapons in the British Museum. London: British Museum.

Matthews, L.G. (1982). Antiques of Pharmacy, Parts I, II and III. London: Merrell.

Oxford University Press (1983). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. 3rd edition. Oxford: OUP.

Parker, G. (1995). Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare - the triumph of the West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, G. L'E (1980) Antique Scientific Instruments. Poole: Blandford Press.

Vince, J. (1973). Fire Marks. Aylesbury: Shire.

York Archaeological Trust (various dates). The Archaeology of York, Volume 17. London: CBA. Published and forthcoming.

Recording standards

International Council of Museums, International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) (nd). Directory of Thesauri for Object Names/ Inventaire des Thesauri ou Vocabulaires Controls des Objects. Paris: ICOM.

International Council of Museums, International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) (1992) Normes Documentaires (Archologie)/Data Standards (Archaeology). Unpublished.

International Council of Museums, International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) (1995). International Guidelines for Museum Object Information: The CIDOC Information Categories. Paris: ICOM.

Museum Documentation Association (1994). SPECTRUM: The UK Museum Documentation Standard. Cambridge: .

Norgate, M. (1992). Object Format Rules. Steeple Ashton, Wiltshire: Norgate.

Other useful references

Museum Documentation Association (1990). Terminology for Museums. Proceedings of an International Conference. Edited by D.A. Roberts. Cambridge: Museum Documentation Association.

Museum Documentation Association (1992). Thesauri for museum documentation. Proceedings of a workshop held at the Science Museum, London. Cambridge: Museum Documentation Association.

Class Definitions

Agriculture and Subsistence

Objects associated with cultivation, hunting, gathering, fishing, horticulture and the primary processing of foodstuffs.

Animal Equipment

Objects associated with the care and use of animals.

Architecture

Objects forming fragments or parts of a building's fabric, structures and associated services, e.g. drain pipes. Where an object is a fixture or fitting, use the separate class.

Armour and Weapons

Protective covering for personal defence, objects designed to kill, injure or overwhelm an opponent or quarry, and ancillary equipment.

Container

Objects which serve as vessels. This class includes containers for which the function is either specific or unknown. Where the function is known, the term is also included within another class, e.g. churn is in Containers and in Agriculture and Subsistence.

Abbreviations used within the Thesaurus

The following standard abbreviations are used in the thesaurus:

The equivalence relationship

USE written as a prefix to the preferred term

UF (ie use for) written as a prefix to the non-preferred term

The hierarchical relationship

BT (ie broader term) written as a prefix to the superordinate term

NT (ie narrower term) written as a prefix to the subordinate term

The associative relationship

RT (ie related term) written as a prefix to the related term

Class

CL (ie class) written as a prefix to the class

Scope note

SN written as a prefix to the note

Note on This Version

Within this version of the thesaurus the use of an '' indicates an hypertext link to another term

, English Heritage & Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, 1997.
You may freely download this page for non-profit use, but must acknowledge

, EH & RCHME in any output in which it is used.