=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Sites...but no info
Log In to post a reply
133 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
whatisthat
255 posts

Re: Sites...but no info
Sep 30, 2006, 07:34
TMA Ed wrote:
As Goffik has so eloquently explained, TMA does have submission guidelines which explain that sites shouldn't be added en masse with no information other than their location. I merely ran through the list of recently added sites and added the 'disputed antiquity' labels, as I would as a matter of course for sites that are not recognised generally as prehistoric ...


I'm sorry but I still don't understand the process here.

If a site is posted just with a grid ref and it's of a type not 'recognised generally as prehistoric' then it gets the 'dodgy' tag. Is that right?

So may I ask what constitutes the information that indicates prehistoric provenance. A photo? Fieldnotes? IMO these don't prove a thing.

And types 'recognised generally as prehistoric'. Does this mean a cairn or barrow just with a grid ref is OK but a well is not?

I do hope that editors don't apply the 'dodgy' tag without investigation. Otherwise adding the tag is an 'ill informed' assertion and is just as bad (if this is bad) as posting blank sites.
In reply to:
Re: Sites...but no info (TMA Ed)		 Replies:
Re: Sites...but no info (nigelswift)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index