Featured Title:
Stones Playing Cards, great gift idea |
 |
| The Henge Monuments of the British Isles: Myth and Archaeology |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 118 guests and 1 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , sem , Klingon , coldrum , bat400 , TheCaptain , Runemage , SolarMegalith , davidmorgan
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Portal Talking Shop >> The types of site that The Megalithic Portal covers, and why
|
 |
| Author |
The types of site that The Megalithic Portal covers, and why |
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7007
from Surrey, UK
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 11-06-2012 at 17:28
I invite comments on this description before I post it as an official FAQ, to be linked from our top menu. I am going through and adding links as well.
Anyone who has had more than a casual glance at our web site will know we are more than just a Megalithic Portal, but outside of this obvious 'giant stones' category, what else do we cover, and invite contributions about has been the cause of some confusion over the years.
What we do cover has evolved over time and is not easy to answer in one sentence. We had a discussion on this subject at the recent Summer 2012 AGM meeting of our Megalithic Portal Society (memberships available!) and I agreed to write down a summary of what we agreed - so here goes, as succinctly as I can:
The types of site that The Megalithic Portal covers, and why
==============================================
Megalithic sites ie prehistoric sites made up of giant (and not so giant) stones - I don't think I have to explain this one.
We also cover other types of Prehistoric site, again these should be fairly self explanatory, but note that we do include early industrial sites as prehistoric flint mines, important locations where it is thought that megaliths were quarried, the similarly important sources of material for prehistoric hand tools. But how do we define prehistoric? In Europe this is pre Roman (or borderline Roman), in the USA it is pre-Columbian, and for Australia and New Zealand and similar locations we include sites created before the area was colonised by Europeans in the last few hundred years.
So we cover all types of ancient sites in the Americas such as Chaco culture, and also Inca and Mayan sites. For the purposes of discussion and study we also cover sites of disputed origin such as the examples of unusual megalithic stonework to be found in New England.
We don't as a rule cover artefact find sites from any period, with the exception of important quarrying sites, as discussed above.
We do cover Mesolithic settlement sites and Palaeolithic sites such as caves that contain rock art and evidence of human interest. What other Palaeolithic sites we cover is open for discussion essentially we do cover important sites to the story of early humans but not individual find spots.
We do cover large and notable glacial erratics. In some cases there is evidence of interest in these sites by prehistoric people, in terms of treating them as marker stones on important routes, or perhaps as spiritual sites. These can also be confused with 'genuine' standing stones, so it is also useful to give them coverage them for this reason. Similarly we include important natural features where there is evidence or reasonable suspicion that they were revered by prehistoric people.
In general we don't cover Roman sites, this is mainly because there are just so many of them that Roman sites would be in danger of taking over the focus of what our web resource is about.
However there are a number of instances where we do cover Roman sites. These are primarily when the site is something like a settlement or temple / ritual site where there is reasonable evidence (or likelihood) that the site was founded and in use in pre-Roman times.
Thus we do cover the town of Silchester in Hampshire as there is evidence that this was first settled in Iron Age times. We also cover relevant sites in ancient cities like Rome, Athens and Jerusalem for the same reason. We accept listings for ancient cities, towns and settlements throughout the Middle East and beyond We don't cover Roman military sites, or villas that were clearly created by in Roman times.
We do have a gallery of important Roman sites called the Roman Portal this purely runs as a photo gallery and doesn't have 'site pages' that show up on maps and so on. We would welcome contributions to this but please keep photos to a high quality and with not too many of the same site it is intended as a 'taster' only.
Similarly we have a 'photographer's gallery' section, which is somewhere for our contributors to showcase their photographic skills on other topics in particular of landscapes and historic sites - as a bit of a break from ancient sites. If you are a Megalithic Portal contributor you are welcome to send photos to the Photographer's Gallery, but they must be high quality examples of the art and we reserve the right to limit quantities of these.
OK, I hope you are following this so far. Now it gets more complicated as there are also some types of post Roman site that we also cover on the main 'Megalithic Portal, and that welcome submissions for:
Early Mediaeval / Dark Age earthen sites such as Saxon Barrows, most famous of which is Sutton Hoo. In many cases these can show continuity of practice and use from pre-Roman times - and in areas of the world where the Roman influence didn't reach then such comparisons may be even clearer. For this reason we include hillforts in Poland, the dates of which stretch into Mediaeval times, but are to all intents and purposes still hillforts. We don't generally cover Early Mediaeval masonry buildings, but there are some exceptions that we do include.
We cover ancient crosses, the interest in these began because in quite a few cases ancient crosses have had origins as standing stones. Our interest in these sites has grown over the years, with specialist contributions from a number of contributors, such that we now include include all types of ancient cross, up to around 1100AD. We also cover marker stones up to this period, again due to the 'crossover' of interest with standing stones.
For similar reasons we also include other early Christian carvings, rune stones and hog backs, again up to around 1100AD. This also includes Pictish Symbol Stones again there can be evidence of continuity of use from prehistoric times.
We don't cover ancient churches per se. As with Roman sites there are just too many of these and to do so would take us too far away from our original remit, but we do include and show photos of churches that contain notable Early Christian crosses and carvings.
We do cover modern stone circles and monoliths, as we are interested in how our culture, and that of past centuries likes to ape ancient stones and structures. Examples would be the Maryhill Stonehenge and even this interesting sculpture in Winchester, England. Other sites in this category would be modern sites that can easily be confused with ancient sites, such as this Civil War gun emplacement in Cornwall.
We do cover Hill Figures if there is a reasonable likelihood that they originated in prehistoric or Early Medieval times. So we don't cover white horses that are known to have been created in the last few hundred years.
We do cover ancient labyrinths, again as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they originated in prehistoric or Early Medieval times. You can get into the realms of folklore here and evidence of that nature is generally given the 'benefit of the doubt'.
Another type of site we cover is museums from around the world that have significant prehistory collections. In this case, as with churches, we accept general views of the outside of the museum building, as well as examples of their content.
Looking further afield, interest from various specialist contributors has increased our coverage to include ancient temples on the Indian subcontinent and in south east Asia (eg Thailand, Vietnam and Bangladesh). The origins of these sites can be back in the depths of time and are sometimes poorly understood. Many of these temples are still living worship sites that have been redeveloped and added to over centuries such that individual sections are no longer ancient structures. Rather than arbritarily cut this group of sites in half, we have generally relaxed the date period to accept temples originally constructed before about 1500AD. Following the same argument and given our interest in comparative religion, and sites of spirituality worldwide it would seem reasonable to include Muslim religious sites of early origin.
You will probably agree that this has taken us rather a long way away from a 'Megalithic Portal', but the name has kind of stuck, and does still express the heart of what we're interested in. However we hope you will agree that our site it is much richer as a result of its wide coverage that it does have. As some of our contributors have suggested - unlike in a book, we are not short of space for either text or photographs - so if a particular type of site doesn't take your interest you then just skip over it!
I hope this has been a helpful (if rather long winded) guide to what we cover, and why. In general with a few exceptions - if it's ancient, we do cover it!
The aim is to serve as an encouragement to share information on sites that you may have visited but have been concerned that we might not appreciate. If you think your site may be a bit borderline then please just ask in the forum before posting it.
To add a new site please use our 'Add a site' form here, and give as many details as you can
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/submitsite.php
Briefly, to contribute photographs, please have a search first and see if we list the site you have visited. There is a good chance that we do. If so then please click on 'Submit an Image' in the top right of the page. We also encourage you to submit comments and corrections, just post them on the page and we will look at them - don't be shy.
Many thanks for all your contributions of all sorts to the 'Megalithic' Portal, and myself and the other site admins look forward to receiving many more.
Andy Burnham
Founder
 Profile
 Email
 Reply
|
frogcottage42
Joined:
14-02-2010
Messages: 235
from tuosist
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-06-2012 at 18:47
Crikey, did I start this?
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
OFF-Line
|  Posted 11-06-2012 at 20:09
Not entirely 
It's been a-brewing for a while off and on, but I think you were one of the catalysts on this occasion.
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
frogcottage42
Joined:
14-02-2010
Messages: 235
from tuosist
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-06-2012 at 21:05
I think I should probably feel guilty but inside I am laughing like Sid James!
It is a very fluid debate but sometimes whether right or wrong it is easier when there are clear boundaries.
I for one would welcome a separate area for sites which do not quite fit with current criteria, a kind of rogues gallery.
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7007
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-06-2012 at 23:48
What sort of things have you got in mind FC - go on, tempt us 
Profile
Email
Reply
|
bat400
Joined:
10-04-2006
Messages: 1335
from South Central Indiana, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2012 at 04:20
For site type we already have the infamous "Not Known (by us)", but for topics .... hmmm
"Not the Megalithic Portal"? 
But seriously, Andy, I think you've completely captured the current state of affairs.
[ This message was edited by: bat400 on 2012-06-12 04:25 ]
Profile
Reply
|
frogcottage42
Joined:
14-02-2010
Messages: 235
from tuosist
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2012 at 09:28
I will give that some serious thought and comment when I have a sensible idea
Profile
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1483
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2012 at 17:42
One small matter not covered in Andy's explanation, and I think an important matter in all of this, is the limited time that the admins have in accepting/editing/linking/correcting etc etc the submissions we do have. If the floodgates are opened to additional subjects, then several things come into play.
We get swamped with too much data/pictures etc to handle.
The new site type may have little interest to the admin, so gets left and thus causes a blockage. I personally leave all wells and middle/far eastern stuff well alone for example.
The admin may have no knowledge of the new site type, and thus all sorts of errors get through, which then causes concern (up to anger) from the submitter, and also more time to correct later.
Apart from the hardcore team, some admins come and go, and each generally adds one of their pet topics. When that admin moves on, we are left with not only an untended topic, but also get more and more stuff still submitted - this is how the initial Roman stuff got on here in the first place.
So please bear this in mind when wanting to add stuff!
[ This message was edited by: TheCaptain on 2012-06-12 17:47 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Sunny100
Joined:
20-03-2010
Messages: 216
from Near Nelson, Lancashire
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2012 at 21:16
I think I'd better err on the side of caution on this issue and keep my mouth SHUT. Leave it to Frogcottage to come up with something, perhaps. 
Profile
Reply
|
bat400
Joined:
10-04-2006
Messages: 1335
from South Central Indiana, US
OFF-Line
|  Posted 12-06-2012 at 22:24
Or maybe eliminate part of what we accept now...
Profile
Reply
|
DrewParsons
Joined:
10-06-2008
Messages: 213
from New Zealand
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2012 at 22:37
When we finalise a list of what is acceptable and what is not I think bullet point topics s and a very short note why they are in or our will communicate the policy best: Here are three sexamples
Neolithic sites: Yes
Roman sites: Only if they have a pre Roman connection. See note 1
Pre Contact North, South American & Australasian sites: Yes - note 2
Notes:
1: There are so many Roman sites that at present their inclusion would swamp the system. There is a Roman Photo Gallery available but no site pages.
2: These pre contact sites are often neolithic and prehistoric and give an insight into neolithic societies.
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7007
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-06-2012 at 15:29
> Or maybe eliminate part of what we accept now...
I think that would really apply to whether we should accept new submissions to the 'Roman Portal' photo gallery section? I think everything else has grown up with reasonable justification - and indeed the Roman stuff was a prequel to the Roman project that's been on permanant hold for a long time.
Bullet points with notes is a better way to present the copious notes and exceptions and so on - good idea Drew I'll do that and re-post.
Also worth following SolarM's suggestion from another forum and giving dates for different parts of the world:
"It would be worth to set up some borderline date for different parts of the world and make them public."
"For example, let's take Latvian hillforts and the chronology of Latvian prehistory - actually the Iron Age in Latvia extends to 12th century AD (the pagan tribes without writing were still inhabiting these Baltic areas) and some of the hillforts are dated as late as that. I think we have to consider regionality of chronology in different parts of the world."
(could you help with the dates for Eastern Europe SolarM as I wasn't certain of the above - cheers)
[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2012-06-13 15:41 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7007
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-06-2012 at 15:36
> I think I'd better err on the side of caution on this issue and keep my mouth SHUT.
Go on - what are you thinking of - we can only say no! Turning my above text the other way round I think we've pretty much said we accept most things that are older than ~1100AD (and even then with some possibilities after this) as long as it isn't Roman (but possibly so even here) or isn't a church (but even these accepted under some circumstances) and isn't a 'modern style' masonry building.
[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2012-06-13 15:42 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1483
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-06-2012 at 17:38
And please, no Norman Motte / Bailey / moated manors or suchlike.
Profile
Reply
|
frogcottage42
Joined:
14-02-2010
Messages: 235
from tuosist
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-06-2012 at 17:52
There would still be problems with some types of site, for instance here in Ireland we have approximately 10,000 known examples of 'ring fort'.
This is a completely inappropriate description of a type of monument which seems most likely to be just the normal type of farm complex from the late 3rd c. to the middle 12th.
Some of these are spectacular, some are barely visible, very few contain anything Megalithic and there are far too many to accept really.
Saying that it would be a shame if you weren't able to have some of them!
One thought I did have is that for sites which miss the official mark how about having them in a separate gallery, like the Roman and allow people to add links on the pics to their own Flickr or similar site where they can describe/ catalogue etc in their own time and without the admins needing to check beyond obvious links to inappropriate material?
Some contributors here have their own websites and maybe those with specialities could donate a little room to similar material?
Profile
Reply
|
Sunny100
Joined:
20-03-2010
Messages: 216
from Near Nelson, Lancashire
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-06-2012 at 18:11
I think I agree with you frogcottage42 and what you say on this difficult issue. I now have my own website/blog and am putting Roman sites on. Some of these are quite interesting and a few include ancient churches within the actual fort with inscribed/carved stones in them.
Profile
Reply
| |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News