9th July 2013, 10:43 PM
This does come across as a little bitter Mr BAJR as, you are yourself involved in a project looking at hillforts are you not (did you purposely post a thread on after this one to make the point?).
I would say there is some benefit in both approaches - getting a decent list of every one and categorising them based on extant earthworks, but also key hole or larger excavation to get some decent information about them. I can think of a few examples that have never even been properly surveyed. However, what the £1 million project doesn't seem to be covering is examples where they are recorded (in documentary sources or by other evidence such as place-names) but no standing remains survive. If those were taken into account it would probably give a more realistic idea of the actual number of such sites.
I would say there is some benefit in both approaches - getting a decent list of every one and categorising them based on extant earthworks, but also key hole or larger excavation to get some decent information about them. I can think of a few examples that have never even been properly surveyed. However, what the £1 million project doesn't seem to be covering is examples where they are recorded (in documentary sources or by other evidence such as place-names) but no standing remains survive. If those were taken into account it would probably give a more realistic idea of the actual number of such sites.