10th July 2013, 01:40 PM
Oxbeast Wrote:Why would you think that its just a survey of what the public think a hillfort is? They do expressly mention that they want to know more about hillforts that are only known from cropmarks. Using volunteers is only one source of data: they are going to be using local and national datasets as well. If I were them, I would be directing the volunteers towards the sites about which sod all is known. As for using Google Earth, plenty of hillforts are covered in scrub. I can think of lots of examples where extra circuits of banks and ditches or other internal/external can be seen on early aerial photos which can't now be seen on Google Earth.
There is rather a lot of sour grapes and dog in the manger on this thread. I'm sure that it has occurred to the project team that they are going to need some kind of discussion about what hillforts are and aren't, and the difference between them and enclosures..
As for:
Nice to see archaeologists giving each other that kind of support. I'm sure your clients think the same about you, Jack.
maybe i should explain what I think.
Yes it's great someone has won funding to do some archaeology.
Yes its great to involve the public/ amateur archaeologists
Yes its great to encourage/ inspire people to get involved in, become interested in archaeology.
But what use will the data be?
Too many opinions and variability in 'measurement' of the monuments/ non-monuments, roundabouts, 19th century gardens, spoil tips........
use lidar data and google earth together supervised by someone who knows something about what your looking for and you get measurable results.
But am guessing that's not the point of the project.