+Rdut&Gabwp Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 What do you think? I know I would love it, but then I'm biased. (Archaeologist here and proud of it!) Gabwp
+Happy Landins Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 This is a great idea, since currently we can't place caches on such sites. And there are dozens and dozens of fascinating and largely unresearched sites in our country UK But do you mean archaeological digs? Harder to find, and more transient. If you manage the archaeologcal sites I will send you some iron age fort locations soon! They are are already lined up in my mind . . . and on the map!
+The Forester Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 Much too broad, but could be a root directory for a few dozen interesting categories.
+NorStar Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 Only caution is to warn people to list only sites/digs that have been made known to the public and invite visits (or is covered over, again). There are too many poachers out there who could ruin a site where active research is being done.
+Rdut&Gabwp Posted August 24, 2005 Author Posted August 24, 2005 Norstar. I agree. Digs, I'm not sure about. From being on digs, it can get hairy when people just "appear" to watch. Puts the defenses up. When I said Archaeology sites, I was thinking more like Serpent Mound or Mound City in Ohio. Cahokia in Illinois, Chaco Canyon in the Southwest, sites like that. I agree it is a broad category, just a thought. I love to see the ruins of ancient peoples.
Recommended Posts