Cheers Nigel
Seems a bit pointless cutting a figure on flat ground dunnit.
I flew up the north east coast once, the chalk wolds were chokka block full of allsorts of weird and wonderful shapes.
If anyones into the aerial stuff I'd recommend CBA research Report No.12 "Aerial reconnaissance for archaeology". There's a section called Pitfalls in interpretation by D.R. Wilson.

Not sure I agree. Yes the area is flat, but why do we assume that the makers wanted to pin it up prettily on a hillside for all to see? That's just us and our perspective - pictures go on walls and landcape figures like Nazca lines have to be seen from above (you can't get much flatter than Nazca and unless you believe in aliens...)

Supposing - just supposing the importance of cutting a horse in the turf was more important than the finished work of art. Doing rather than being. Plenty of other cases have been suggested where the making of a feature is really more important than the finished object.

Supposing you lived or moved to a hill less region yet your tribal religion, customs, identity badge or totem compelled you to cut a horse in the turf. Now you have two choices -

1 Don't do it 'cos you haven't got any hills OR 2 Do it anyway - on the flat.

I'll not pre-judge but look forward to the results of investigation.