Kammer wrote:
Rhiannon wrote:
Fitzcoraldo, I just wanted to say, I really enjoyed your photos of potential shap avenue stones and nearby places. I could just imagine you sauntering through the landscape and muttering 'well look at that' when you spotted another potential candidate.
Would it be a good idea to emphasise in the photo descriptions that these photos are speculative? At the moment it might be perceived that these are definitely stones from a prehistoric avenue.K x
I thought I had sort of mentioned that some of the images were speculative by starting my fieldnotes with ' have added a number of images of stones that I suspect may have originally have been used in the Shap Avenues. '
I guess I should also have added that a number of the stones are included in Tom Clares survey, some are scheduled others aren't.
The photos, a few of many, were a result of two days mooching around the village and plotting more or less where the avenues ran and then looking for stones that corresponded with this route.
What I found was that in the areas where the avenues ran there was an abundance of re-used stones and in the northern part of the village, where the avenues had turned into the fields, there was very little stone. This confirmed the results of a similar informal survey that Stu and I performed a couple of years ago.
I shall have a look at my fieldnotes and see if I can clarify things a little.
cheers
fitz
