Work out a Model for Indirect References to Caesarea

[wlpotter]

We have added testimonia records not in the original list under the following circumstances:

1. If a chapter-length excerpt has a sub-section that references Caesarea by name, this sub-section received its own record. This is in keeping with the idea that each direct reference to Caesarea should be identified as a unique testimonium. For example, Eusebius' Palestinian Martyrs, ch. 11 was an existing record. However, several of the sub-sections, e.g. 11.2, mentioned "Caesarea" by name. So, we will make a record, in addition to that of the full chapter 11, for section 11.2.

2. If the broader context of a specific testimonium indirectly references Caesarea. This is the converse case of the above where a chapter-length record will be created which functions as a 'container' for one or more sub-sections that directly reference Caesarea. For instance Eusebius' Palestinian Martyrs, ch. 6 narrates a scene which takes place at Caesarea. However, only section 6.1 directly refers to Caesarea by name. In this case, we created a record for the entire chapter, which the sub-sections can point at as a container. Note that we have retained the editorial chapter divisions when creating these testimonia rather than having a single record for, e.g., chs. 6-9, all of which narrate events that occurred at Caesarea.

Additionally, we have marked those testimonia which refer to Caesarea indirectly -- i.e., by narrating events for which Caesarea was the setting or by referring to the city in some periphrastic way -- as "indirect references". This will at the very least enable us to generate a more accurate abstract, and may even allow an added search/browse facet.

These editorial decisions should be discussed with the project team before wholesale adoption.

[wlpotter]

See the following issues for the technical aspects of the change:

srophe/caesarea#57
#19

[davidamichelson]

We will not use container but will keep indirect.

[davidamichelson]

Need to draft a model for that.

[davidamichelson]

Make an "indirect type" (no key word) or "allusion/related" (no historical specifics) and treat like toponymic.

[wlpotter]

@davidamichelson FYI, we have a "#indirect" testimonia type implemented in (most) data (cf. #23 for a related issue). However, we did not implement an "allusion" or "related" type. Do we need to circle back to this issue?

[davidamichelson]

Please add to documentation, to the taxonomy, and to the form.