Destroyed Sites-Eds input please

Chris Oct 10, 2006 09:10:36

It got rather lost in the 'sites but no info' thread, but several of us were of the opinion that it was worth adding sites where no trace remains, subject to some information being included in a link or miscellaneous post.

Now we have the Google Earth capability, I feel that this is even more valid, as site distribution patterns are readily apparent.

My questions for the Eds are:

1. Should they be added?
2. If so, whats the preferred format for naming? i.e. something like 'Standing Stones of St Julian (Destroyed)'
3. Is it worth giving them their own site category, so they're more apparent for filtering & GE.

Opinons welcome, (before I start tapping them all in).

Cheers.

whatisthat Oct 10, 2006 10:01:23

Replying to Chris

Chris wrote:

1. Should they be added?

A difficult one which brings to the fore the two (maybe) slightly conflicting aims of the TMA database.

1. To provide a complete database of sites like an official SMR.
2. To provide an easy to use gazetteer that visitors planning a trip can use to get them to the best sites in an unfamilar area.

In Anglesey there are 18 megalithic tombs with something to see, 7 destroyed and 19 possibles (according to this book here). If the destroyed and possibles were included it would satisfy 1 above but not help 2 as it would clutter up the Anglesey page with sites which are probably of no interest to most monument visitors.

Kammer Oct 10, 2006 12:02:07

Replying to Chris

Chris wrote:

1. Should they be added?

In my opinion, only if they significantly further our understanding of the prehistoric landscape. We have to bear in mind that many people don't want to go and visit an empty field.

;-)#

Chris wrote:

2. If so, whats the preferred format for naming?

Personally I favour appending (Destroyed) to the site title. Obviously I'd be happy to tow the line if everyone agreed something different.

Chris wrote:

3. Is it worth giving them their own site category, so they're more apparent for filtering & GE.

I don't reckon we should. It shouldn't be necessary if we exercise adequate restraint when posting ex-sites.

K x

StoneLifter Oct 10, 2006 13:28:37

Replying to Chris

We know that monuments were tightly integrated with the wider landscape and that none existed in isolation. Recording the location of destroyed sites is useful for those adventurers that like to search for surviving remnants. 'David's Cairns', for instance, were probably horizon foresights for a circle or row that is now lost. The Carlaton Mill stone row, in Cumbria, is completely gone now but I'm sure somebody spending time on the ground will turn up cairns, mounds and stones that were on the periphery.

I've listed three destroyed circles on here, one is mentioned in Fieldnotes, another I've altered to (site of), but this one ( http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/3299 ) needs stone circle deleting from the title and (site of) substituting for (Destroyed). I can't log in on that id any longer - still got the mittens though ...

The Eternal Oct 10, 2006 20:42:31

Replying to Chris

Hi Chris,

It's always worthwhile to read about sites that have disappeared, especially if they can be related to existing sites, and to see their original position in the landscape as a whole.
For example, the site below seems to be just a crop mark, but is nevertheless interesting.
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/4319
As there will probably be nowt to see on the ground, the question has to be whether the purpose of TMA is as a website to direct enthusiasts to ancient sites that are visible on the ground, or to direct them to all sites, visible or not., which are of prehistoric interest.
Personally I'd like to see all sites listed, as long as they can be filtered out by those who don't wish them to clutter the website up, as has previously been suggested.

Cheers,
TE.