Peter,
>From the point of view of technically recording these features, bear in mind
that the EH Thesaurus of Monument Types does include the term 'NON
ANTIQUITY' with the scope note "Use to identify a feature, previously
thought to be a monument but now disproved, or to avoid erroneous
identification as a monument in future. Where a feature is regarded as an
antiquity, but is unclassified, use SITE."
Of course, just because our thesaurus includes a term doesn't mean that
everyone should record the particular monument type, but from the
philosophical point of view I agree with Mary's comment, and your
suggestion, that these features are worth recording even if only to avoid
future confusion.
Edmund Lee
English Heritage
-----Original Message-----
From: Tees Archaeology [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 19 September 2000 20:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Natural features
Hello Forum Users
Do any of you record natural or unusual landscape features on your
SMR's? I am particularly thinking of ones where there is no known
archaeology but strong local traditions or names given to natural
features such as 'Druids Hill', 'Saxon Mound' etc. We have a particular
case up here which is the double of Silbury Hill but completely
natural. People are usually devastated, humiliated or just don't
believe me when I tell them this and I thought provision of an official
record of the non-archaeological nature of the hill would alleviate this
slightly.
Peter Rowe
Tees Archaeology.
**********************************************************************
The contents of this email are confidential and are intended
for the use of the individual to whom they are addressed.
This footnote confirms that this email message has successfully
been virus scanned.
Any problems, please contact [log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|