close
more_vert

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.

Several places seem to have been added already with (Site of) appended. This does seem to the accepted norm in archaeo speak.

whatisthat wrote:
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.

Agreed. However, if they had their own sub-category, they could be filtered out. Or even be not usually visible, with an option to 'filter in'.

FourWinds wrote:
Several places seem to have been added already with (Site of) appended. This does seem to the accepted norm in archaeo speak.
I have done that myself - the problem is I am now finding dozens of sites, which would somewhat clutter the gazetteer as whatisthat suggests.