+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Thornborough "debate" (/showthread.php?tid=2060)
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 8th November 2005
So all of a sudden 2% is sufficient? Without going back and proving it?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 8th November 2005
What do you this freelance? Given the results of Area 1 and Hey and Lacey etc. was 2% sufficient?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 8th November 2005
Should have read - what do you think Freelance? is 2% sufficient?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - mongoose - 8th November 2005
I have followed this debate with interest. I concur with mercenary regarding that the desirory comments aimed towards the professional ethics and standards of the archaeologists involved are out of order. How more open can you get? Considering the comments that Venetius has made about the work I would really like to know if he has been to visit the site for himself?
On what basis is he making these statements? Is he a professional archaeologist?
Thornborough "debate" - freelance - 8th November 2005
It?s not really my place to say whether 2% is sufficient, but this is a generally accepted amount of work for most evaluation purposes. Given the nature of the topography and the extent of what would have been marshy ground, I?d say it was enough. Even if archaeology had existed further north, in all likelihood this would have been removed by subsequent peat extraction over hundreds of years. In the event of archaeology being encountered north of the proposed transition zone, I trust the integrity of those carrying out the archaeological work to see that it was properly dealt with.
If you want to see the minutes, they?re available at:
http://www.archaeologicalplanningconsultancy.co.uk/mga/projects/noster/pages/ladymins.html
Thornborough "debate" - Cautionary Tale - 8th November 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by freelance
I trust the integrity of those carrying out the archaeological work to see that it was properly dealt with.
This is really what it comes down to. If the work is done to a good standard, and this appears to be the case, then it will logically follow that any inconsistencies raised (by either oddly few or highly concentrated remains) will be investigated - I have worked on similar quarry projects where excavations resulted such initial work. As previous posters have said, it really isn't possible to say what % is correct without having been privy to discussions, and besides that 2% wisely placed can be more effective than 8% poorly positioned.
(I really have worked in the field)
Thornborough "debate" - Hugh - 8th November 2005
I would feel fairly happy with a 2% sample of such difficult to define archaeological remains over such a large area. No percentage is going to be perfect, only a complete topsoil strip would reveal everything. There is also the question of what questions this evaluation is planned to answer.
"A programme of additional archaeological investigation has been agreed in principle between Tarmac, North Yorkshire County Council and English Heritage for the Ladybridge Farm site. The principal objective of this investigation is to define the limit of Neolithic/Early Bronze Age features recorded previously in the south western corner of the Ladybridge Farm site and further to characterise the nature of those remains. Every effort will be made to ensure that this additional sampling has the minimum destructive impact on the archaeological remains whilst achieving the stated objectives. The investigation will be followed by an assessment of the significance of the archaeological deposits. This assessment will be based on the criteria set out in PPG16 and will use an accepted methodology which will include the English Heritage Monument Evaluation Process (MPP). This assessment will serve as a guide to professional judgement."
Which basically means that they need to know the extent of the settlement so that it can be avoided/excavated/scheduled etc at a later date. This is obviously not intended to answer every question about the settlement, merely inform on what types of deposits and monuments are present.
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 8th November 2005
So Hay and Lacay and past experience within meters of the current site don't matter.
By the way, can you thank Tarmac for excavating those two wells on Nosterfield Quarry.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - mongoose - 8th November 2005
Venetius
I am having trouble following your argument. You still haven't answered my previous points. I am not sure that you know what you are talking about. From the press reports the aditional trenching actually takes the sample of the whole site from 2% up to 6%. Additionally having seen the evaluation report online the previous evaluation used a variety of complementary techniques to answer specific questions not just a machine excavated sample. The guys have already looked at 60ha next door so they must have had a pretty good idea of what was there. Have you ever had to evaluate a site?
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 8th November 2005
Personally I would have said that the experience at Area 1, just meters from Ladybridge, plus the results of Hey and Lacey would suggest otherwise. But I do take your point and you are indeed correct - the placing of the trenches is the important thing, unfortunately you never really know how wise the choice is until after the event, and its easier to be wise with 8% than it is with 2%. Wisdom comes with learning from the past.
PS. Could you pass on our gratitude to Tarmac for excavating those two wells. Any idea why they were so close together?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org