spencer
|
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 17:46
|
|
My own favourite rant re category omissions is holloways. Why they aren't has already been explained to me..same reason as sacred springs. It does still pee me off to see, say, a route of obvious great age 'given away' by snow pressing on heather and you know it's part of a communication system between kosher sites, and there's no category. Worritneeds is someone to do a UK 'ancient infrastructure' A to Z. OK, pix and fieldnote mentions can be a way round, but at the moment the prehistoric infrastructure, what made everything tick, is neglected somewhat, imo. People did not get from A to B by levitating (but I cannot prove it, pfft)
|
goffik
|
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 17:50
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: I think the main issue has always been establishing that wells are prehistoric rather than medieval.
Oh, that is fo' sho' the issue. :) And one I have no problem with. No matter how convinced I am of a well's provenance, I have no evidence to back it up. :D
Other than my standard "it's near an ancient site" and "it looks old". :D
The association of water and its proximity to ancient sites has been much talked about over the years, but it wasn't always such a popular topic. I'm relived when other people are interested. Least of all cos I feel a bit of a nerd about it. :D
G x
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 17:51
|
|
goffik wrote: Other than my standard "it's near an ancient site" and "it looks old". :D
If that's the criteria I think some of us might need to be added to the database :)
|
spencer
|
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 18:00
|
|
Petrified or shitless forests...there's another one. Dated say, to mesolithic, but not a natural rock feature, therefore...
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 18:23
|
Ancient trackway is a site type.
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/5519/ridgeway_southernmost_remains.html
|
spencer
|
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 19:18
|
|
Ooh ta, hadn't clocked that. An underexploited category by TMA ers? Wonder if there's scope there for a creative and constructive 'dodge' or two... Dunno if you've read the Dodd's Peak District Trackways..plenty of scope for TMA adds round here, praps. Love old trackways, me.. Um..if one gets used a lot it becomes a holloway. I know a place near me where the route's been in use for such a long time that five holloways, each deeper than head high, have been created side by side. Er.. I don't think that happened overnight... Can't prove it.
|
spencer
|
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 19:21
|
|
The old folks: a grand bunch of lads (oops, and lasses)
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 19:35
|
I'm sure there are plenty of petrified forests on TMA, Spencer? If you've got one that isn't you should add it.
also, you may say my contributions are from the wrong era, and use that in favour of expanding the site's remit, but I so try to make sure they are interpretations and stories about things which are the right era. This site is specifically about prehistoric things. I'm not sure too much fuzziness around the edges is a good thing?
I'm all for wells and suchlike but if there's no way of proving they're prehistoric then surely they have to be at least properly near a prehistoric site. Otherwise one could add any spring and well... there'd be more of those than anything else... and that would dilute all the proper prehistoric sites and anyone's ability to search through them. Likewise random hills and dips in the ground... if there's a good reason to think they're prehistoric then ok, back it up and add it.
that's my opinion anyway
|
spencer
|
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 19:39
|
|
Sorry, what were we talking about? Forgotten...its like when some old codger starts a topic, eg, say, cancer in the neolithic (has there been one here? Sounds like it could be interesting) and then, after just two or three posts some other old codger comes along and diverts the topic away to, say, injuries, and there it stays, on and on, several Werther's Originals worth of reading time. Original topic forgotten. Sad, that, if it has ever happened, not that I've noticed. Hi ho, the old folks of today..bless!
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 19:50
|
I agree, for what it's worth. Both the book and website have always been clear that the period covered is prehistory, if it starts tipping into later stuff it will just become a muddle and will lose much of the focus that makes it such a wonderful resource.
Being perfectly honest I've never been completely sold about the inclusion of rock features but they do seem to generate a lot of folklore and many are undoubtedly (okay, possibly maybe) a focal point for monuments built close by, as well as possible inspirations for the monuments as well. The number of stone circles built in close proximity to rocky outcrops can't be coincidental, for example.
I reckon the majority of the wells and certainly trackways on TMA have pretty good cases for ancientness to make anyhow.
|
