Hello whatisthat, hopefully this will clarify things.
whatisthat wrote:
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?
Correct. If it is of a site type that has a possibility of prehistoric provenance such as an earthwork or mound. In the event of a contributor posting a site that clearly does not fall into the TMA remit, (such as a wayside cross, or 13th century boundary marker), then it would be deleted without discussion. This might sound unlikely, but it does happen, evidence of such is not apparent whilst browsing TMA, as such sites get deleted fairly quickly.
whatisthat wrote:
So may I ask what constitutes the information that indicates prehistoric provenance. A photo? Fieldnotes? IMO these don't prove a thing.
Indeed they do not. Often, fieldnotes and photos are posted, but are insuficient to constitute provenance. However, we are aware that sites and monuments registers are not infallible guides to
all of the sites still in existance, so these sites are not deleted out of hand, but acquire the 'Dubious Antiquity' tag. An inclusion on a SMR is generally considered to be enough evidence, as it implies that the site has been visited by someone with enough wherewithall and experience to make an informed decision.
whatisthat wrote:
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?
That's not far from the way things are. At present, the Eds are attempting to find information to post at 'blank' TMA sites. In the case of cairns, barrows etc. a mention in an SMR can often be found. However, as I'm sure you appreciate, there are rather a lot of sites to check, and online info is not always available, so we rely (as ever) on the goodwill, knowledge-base and assistance of TMA's contributors to fill in some of the blanks.
However, whilst we try to not apply the DA tag without investigation, we do draw the line at accepting unfounded assertions of prehistoric provenance. In the case of the Llangernyw Yew and Standing Stones, your post which includes the statement "These stones are the real thing and are commonly acknowledged as Dark Age inscriptions maybe re-using earlier standing stones", it's the word 'maybe' that warrants the DA tag. Without any firm evidence that these were once standing stones, we feel it would be potentially misleading to remove the tag. In this case, the addition of fieldnotes and images contains enough information to allow readers to make an informed conclusion if they are thinking about visiting the site.
To refer to the submission guidelines again, it's largely a case of trying to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. The raising of these issues on the forum is useful in trying to do so.
Thanks for the feedback,
TMA Ed.
