The website only has fragmentory details of some of the archaeology that has been done. As such it is incredibly dificult to uderstand the site. For example, there were I think five pit alignments found on the site, I'd like to know where these were, how long they were etc.
There is a bit mentioned of one pit alignment. Breaing in mind many of these were excavated more than 5 years ago it seems odd that they are not yet fully documented whilst some very recent finds, such as the square barrows do get published.
Thus we have a brief mention of some Mesolithic artefacts but not the ability to locate the pit that they came from or the exact context they came from.
Most interesting to me, is that most of the information was published only after our campaign was started and particularly after some of these features were highlighted online.
As you know, partial information is no information and for excavations done almost ten years ago I'd have liked a much fuller picture.
But then I seriously doubt that the primary purpose of this website is to provide a clear picture of all archaeology dicovered on the site.
Reply | with quote | Posted by BrigantesNation 27th December 2004ce 15:00 |
stonehenge mesolithic post holes (Treeman, Dec 26, 2004, 02:59)- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (Treeman, Dec 26, 2004, 03:03)
- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (moss, Dec 26, 2004, 14:13)
- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (smallblueplanet, Dec 26, 2004, 15:02)
- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (fitzcoraldo, Dec 28, 2004, 15:27)
- Orion's belt? (pendant, Jan 18, 2005, 23:35)
- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (Dave1982, Oct 29, 2014, 17:14)
|
|