Otter36 wrote:I am of the impression for the AP and years of field work that there is a curcus- at least one running over Ilkley Moor
On Rombalds Moor there may be, but it's v.difficult to say for sure. Without excavation or help from archaeologists (summat that local archaeologist Gavin Edwards can't be arsed with) only a summary analysis helps. There is a dead straight linear feature on the moors, consistent with such a monument, and with one end embanked as in traditional cursus monuments. There's even the faded remains of some hengiform structure not far from at least one end of this linear feature, plus an undiscovered cairn-field close by. The biggest problem with the linear feature I'm aware of, is its geography, on the tops. Cursus monuments tend to be in valleys and are low-lying. So the feature I know about probably has other origins. Lemme know wot you think you've found - private message if y' like.
Even though there's a mass of fascinating prehistoric sites on Ilkley & Rombalds Moor (a lot officially unrecorded), archaeo-Edwards reckons there's no need to excavate the important prehistoric remains on the moors, and he'd prefer the peat and heather to simply swallow the sites. I think he doesn't really give a shit tbh, unless large cheques fall his way. Edwards actually wrote at the end of June, 2011:
"The very act of excavating a site...destroys what has survived for thousands of years and should only be undertaken only when absolutely necessary, i.e. if the site is under threat. As in most instances this does not seem to be the case so there is no obvious justification to ‘dig’ these sites."
And he was referring to Ilkley Moor! What utter bollocks! No wonder nowt never gets done in this area with that sort of attitude by the local archaeo. It's bullshit! Imagine if the Wessex or Scottish archaeo's followed that sorta philosophy - we'd never know half of what we do about the prehistoric sites in those areas. There needs to be more pro-active engagement outside the box, instead of paid laziness and lack of enthusiasm.
Otter36 wrote:unfortunately the powers that be think I am imagining things, even if the evidence is black and white, well literally black and white; mono
there has always been snobbery, but a salary should not dictate who is an archaeologist instead of experience and qualification
It aint gonna change quick either. Edwards and his entourage have always been a bit like that round here. They're just a bit 'anal', that's all. The local rock-art student Stuart Feather had some fall-out with the anal authorities in their days. Nowt's changed. I've found they feel a bit threatened by others who come into what they think is "their arena" with finds of their own; and instead of being supportive (even if we make mistakes, as they do), they patronise. It's childish of course, but they hold the power and they like it that way. But take heart: good scientists and explorers aren't like that. I know that; you know that; they know that; we all know that!
Cheers - Paul
Home
