Hill-fort Survey

Sometimes I totally fail to understand peoples attitudes. The negativity here is astounding. Why aren't you celebrating this news?

A university has secured a large grant to survey a certain class of prehistoric monument (you like those, don't you?) over a 4 year period and they would like prehistory enthusiasts (thats you isn't it?) to be involved, together with researchers and PhD students in creating a central resource which will help everybody better understand the sites and, im sure, break new ground in the process.

Sniping about how much money they'e been given.. If they were given £50,000 and refused help from enthusiasts you'd be saying how typical it is that something like this is under funded and how insular the profession/academics are.
The paranoia is just bizarre.

If you don't like it, if its "donkey work" to you, don't contribute, but I would be willing to bet heavily you'll use it when its done!
Perhaps you need several tenners in a plain envelope before you'll contribute? Or perhaps its all a bit too serious?

In all honesty, its probably a lot easier to sit at home with a cup of tea and trawl the internet for information other people have actually bothered to go out and get, and then post it on TMA, proclaiming some sort of relevance in the process.

I'll be contributing to it. So when you use the resource to read about a site i've gone out and collected data on, don't forget to thank me will you.

The concept seems positive, the objectives are laudable. The use of volunteers is workable, as long as they are given some decent archaeological surveying training (I'm not sure how much long-term use the data will be if it just says "there are some bumps").

But part of me does worry that this is more evidence of getting people to do work for nothing, work that would previously have warranted employing people and properly training them to do this kind of skilled enterprise.

You could argue that this is not practical in the current climate ("they're cutting the NHS for goodness sake, surely money is better spent on hospitals than surveying hillforts, etc etc") and you could well be right, but personally I'd happily see some of our defence budget go and EH, RCAHMW, etc be given the money to employ people to carry out this properly, in a way that would add vast value to the data for future generations to study.

In Wales, the upland monuments are being comprehensively surveyed and mapped by the various regional Archaeological Trusts* - would it not be better to fund bodies like that to carry out this work? I'm not suggesting that they couldn't use volunteer resources to help them, just that in my mind the project justifies a heavier bias towards using skilled, professional resource and paying the people involved fairly for that work. In government-speak, creating some real employment opportunities in the heritage sector.

*http://www.cpat.org.uk/wat.htm

If you've looked at the site are you not put off by the fact that it could take you all day to travel to a site, take measurements with a tape measure (as they ask you to), and various other observations, type it all into the form, and not even know whether someone else had already been there and done it before you?

If your remark about sitting at home and getting things off the internet is a gibe at me then it makes me laugh as you have contributed precisely three photos and one site to TMA. Perhaps you've got an enormous website somewhere with masses of thoroughly original research, maybe you have. I say good luck to you and all your contributions to the Oxford website, I'm sure they'll be very happy to have your help, and at least you won't have to trawl this forum telling everyone how crap it is. It's as crap or as good as you make it. I just see you whinging today and I don't see much past evidence of you trying to contribute to the website either.