Issue 518: How do we interpret periods in the CRM

ID: 
518
Starting Date: 
2020-10-20
Working Group: 
2
Status: 
Open
Background: 

In the 48th CIDOC CRM and 41st FRBR CRM sig meeting (virtual),upon discussing the example for P183 ends before the start of (issue 484), there was disagreement regarding whether a phase of a settlement should be construed as an instance of E4 Period or E7 Activity. The sig decided to start a new issue to address the debate on how to interpret periods in the CRM (settlements and administration of communities involved). 
HW: Research on the new issue assigne to Martin Doerr and Athina Kritsotaki.

October 2020

In the 49th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 42nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, AK & MD presented their HW, a description of the Early Helladic II Period and the Early Helladic III Period defined by the characteristics of settlements. In the examples put forward, Lerna_I would be a period within the settlement activity Lerna-A-B-C. 

HW: MD to formulate explicit examples

Post by Martin Doerr (14 June 2021)

 

Dear All,

This is an example for E7 Activity:

The settlement activity of the population of Lerna IV and Lerna V (E7)

["While Caskey notes a major cultural break between the EH II and EH III remains at Lerna, he argues for a high level of continuity in the following periods, until the site was  transformed into a cemetery during LH I. The domestic architecture dating from EH III to LH I (Lerna IV-V, roughly from 2200-1500 B.C.) is therefore considered together as a physical expression of one cultural group, naturally acknowledging and critically examining significant changes over the course of this period. Caskey‟s reports are supplemented by the works of Jeremy Rutter and Carol Zerner, which are particularly important for the EH III and early MH remains respectively. " Following the presentation and analysis of the architecture, the houses are contextualized within the settlement as a whole ]

(Elizabeth Courtney Banks, The Settlement and Architecture of Lerna IV. Lerna: results of excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 6. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2013) 

In the 50th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 43nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the SIG reviewed the example by MD & AK in support of treating settlements as instances of E7 Activity. 

  • The settlement activity of the population of Lerna IV and Lerna V (E7)

Discussion points: 

TV: is the example to be used in juxtaposition with the example for E4 Period? Or do we not need to do that? The purpose of the issue was to illustrate how we define E4 Periods in the CRM. 
MD: we should probably link the example to E4 Period –do we typically repeat examples to superclasses for didactic reasons? Should we rework it to make it suited for E4 Period too?
SdS: maintains that the example looks like an instance of E4 Period instead of E7 Activity. It refers to a collection of actions, not one particular thing that someone did at a given time. However, it could be considered the collective activity of one group. The difference should be made explicit, which requires a lot of work before we can use it in the CRM. The example should not be repeated as such with additional comments in E4. Rather, we should use variants of this example for the respective classes. Showcase that it is the level of granularity in one’s perspective that determines whether an instance of a settlement will relate to an E7 Activity or an E4 Period.

Decision: MD to provide the set of examples and to start an evote on them (HW). 

June 2021
 

Reference to Issues: