Mr Hamhead
|
Sites...but no info
Sep 28, 2006, 17:21
|
I have just noticed that the Cornwall section has become infested with postings for "Holy" wells. These have been put on by Swastickergirl, who may have done it in good faith..but what annoys me is she has put no info with them at all..just added the site.
I am not getting uptight because they are wells (but I am sure some will) It is just why post something with out details. I have put a new site on this afternoon...Catshole Long Cairn..now I could have posted info on it months ago..but I wanted to visit and photograph first.
There are still some sites in Cornwall posted by "phil" years ago which still only have a site...no info to go with it..
Is it me?
Mr H
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Sites...but no info
Sep 28, 2006, 17:36
|
|
Mr Hamhead wrote: Is it me?
No. But ... It can be useful to know what's out there*. For instance, should unvisitable barrows on Salsibury Plane be added?
There are several empty Irish sites that I set up when TMA first included Ireland. Many of them have since removed, but a few remain. I do remove them when I come across them, though.
It does seem a little pointless to add bucket loads of sites (especially Holy Wells**) and not put anything down about them at all.
*Sometimes and within reason
**Let the fun commence :-) There is a place for some wells but every single one (IMO)
|
TMA Ed
|
Clashing
Sep 28, 2006, 19:29
|
|
Mr Hamhead wrote: I am not getting uptight because they are wells (but I am sure some will)
So come on and let us know
Should they stay or should they go?
Thanks
Lyrical TMA Ed
|
Chris
|
Re: Clashing
Sep 28, 2006, 19:53
|
I've no problem with wells, or anything else relevant. The key thing as Mr Hamhead says is some basic info is needed to assist others in deciding to visit or not.
Nothing more annoying than an intriuging site listing and no info.
Hence my recent pillaging of RCHAMS databases ;-)
|
ocifant
|
Re: Clashing
Sep 28, 2006, 20:29
|
So where's Goffick when he's needed? ;-)
Personally I'd say as a general rule, no (there's plenty on another place). But there are some that deserve to be here. I'd probably not include those that have been 'brick built', but if an ancient water source can be shown to have a significant place in the landscape (e.g. Swallowhead Springs as an example), then why not?
|
BigSweetie
|
Re: Clashing
Sep 28, 2006, 21:31
|
maybe from now on people should post a fieldnote saying where they found out about the site and give an idea of what may or may not be there. I think it can be useful to know what else is about (as Tom says) even if no-one has visited the site before
Cheers
Andy
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Clashing
Sep 28, 2006, 21:40
|
|
I'd probably not include those that have been 'brick built', but if an ancient water source can be shown to have a significant place in the landscape (e.g. Swallowhead Springs as an example), then why not?
Absolutely, the course of the Winterbourne and the concentration of churches along its way suggests an area where pre-Christian beliefs may have continued long after they disappeared elsewhere.
|
Hob
|
Re: Clashing
Sep 28, 2006, 21:53
|
|
Chris wrote: Hence my recent pillaging of RCHAMS databases ;-)
I'm with you on that one Chris. Empty sites are a bit annoying.
A pastmap plug-in would be a real boon.
|
Hob
|
Re: Clashing
Sep 28, 2006, 22:53
|
It's been a while since this one reared it's head.
I just did a quick search, and there's quite a few here with zero info on them. Is it still a case of 'How can they be proved to be prehistoric'?
I don't know about the rest of the world, but on my patch there's loads of places that could have had significance to pehistoric people, but if they were all on tma, it'd look a bit silly, as there's very little to see, or say, other than "It's called the Holy well, so it might be holy...". There are a couple with traditions of pin deposition, in which case it depends on whether you think such folklore alone is sufficient to merit provenance. There are also (up here in Northumberland at least...) wells which have produced votive offerings in the form of bronze swords etc. Which would convince me that the spot had significance to the ancient people of the area. But I wouldn't want to see them advertised as it might encourage that unpleasant type of looter/metal detectorist who doesn't give a shit about wrecking stratigraphy in order to turn a quick profit. Then there's things like this: http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/8006 which was probably a well in IA times and may have been adopted by the romans, but it's recorded sanctity can only be traced back to the Anglo Saxon kingdoms.
If you're going to be pedantic, you can argue that implied prehistoric significance is not equivalent to actual prehistoric significance, and in the absence of recorded finds, I can't see how wells can ever be proved to have such significance.
I suspect (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the fact that the question has been raised again implies that the Eds are considering purging the wells, and whilst i'm not generally bothered about them, part of me thinks it would be a shame to lose the data from the web for those who do like them.
Send all the data to Goffik, then delete them, so he'll be forced to finish his website ;)
|
goffik
|
Re: Sites...but no info
Sep 28, 2006, 22:57
|
I'll give me full opinion tomorrow, but for now will just say:
Wasn't Sw*stika Girl an incarnation of the idiot Cr*ley?
In which case... DELETE!!! IMHO. ;o)
G x
|
