Well, you could save all the hand-wringing and navel-gazing about site locations by just getting, for instance, a national public body whose remit is the dissemination of archaeological information, and who don't have to deal with the on-the-ground consequences, to publish the vast majority of sites on the web, complete with maps which indicate the accuracy of the grid references [oh yes, and 'sensitive' sites will be agreed between the said organisation and the other executive agencies and national museums, without any recourse to the SMRs].

 

Then all the SMRs can heave a collective sigh of relief knowing that its not THEIR fault if the information is misused by rogue detectorists, developers, land managers et al. :o) 

 

On the whole it does seem to work though, and, as far as I am aware, those who have trialled such a scheme have not been overwhelmed by any of the suggested issues raised on Thursday.

 

Andrew

 

 Blimey list lurker's!  Well, after last Friday's whimper of a week-ending it's good  to kick start this week with a bit of exciting controversy!  Thanks Hal.

;-))  Any offers?
Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Bishop, Hal [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
 ... the majority of the e-mails on the SMR forum are, as you well know, opinionated or irrational outpourings of navel-gazers with little relevance to the real world: You were at Warwick where it was all too apparent .