+- 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: Urgent for Thornborough (/showthread.php?tid=1984)
Urgent for Thornborough - troll - 3rd September 2005
Sorry Peter-have to put grumpy hat on here...Peter`s response here is a perfect example of why people like Gumbo-and me, despise the concept of "consultants". They have the nasty habit of assuming the moral high ground, assume that the rest of the profession understand less than them and, think they`re very,very clever. Consultants will do fu*ck all unless it`s in their interests. Timewatch et al are members of the public putting us to shame. They have got off their arses and got involved. Well, Timewatch people, you have my support and if there is anything I can do for you, please yell. If there are viewers out there who, like me, is not remotely interested in how Tarmac, consultants, units or landowners manipulate and dress statements and, is sick to death of morons grinning at you in that self-righteous fashion-call me. There is nothing better than a good, nationwide media rubbishing of all that smells in this issue. Not only that, direct action is a tried and tested response to the arrogant. I`m more than up for both. I would also recommend that someone publishes Dr Wardles response. Whatever happens, Thornborough belongs to the nation and no amount of snide,contrived manipulation of law and procedure by anyone should allow a small number of individuals to profit from a national treasure like this. Trust me, I`ve seen the damage that "consultants" do on the ground-you really should cross the road when you encounter them. Whilst I understand Peter`s reluctance to give his time for free, on this occasion, I feel like vomiting. Don`t forget, there are thousands of committed archaeologists out there who work like slaves in sh*t conditions for less than a toilet cleaner. "consultants" charge upwards of 400-800 a day for their services.Peter-you should be ashamed of yourself.
Urgent for Thornborough - Venutius - 3rd September 2005
You brought Dorchester up, not I, I thought you were concerned about the area. Clearly there is virtually no info online so there won't even be many archaeologists that know about it. Not a problem then.
But why then use that as a reason to deter people from supporting Thornborough?
I can accept that you may not think the Thornborough Campaign is as effective as it could be, or even if you think it is the wrong way of going about things. That's fair enough. But to suggest a victory at Thornborough will mean the destruction of a site in Oxfordshire just does not make sense to me.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Urgent for Thornborough - mercenary - 3rd September 2005
Quote:quote:But to suggest a victory at Thornborough will mean the destruction of a site in Oxfordshire just does not make sense to me.
Me either.
Urgent for Thornborough - 1man1desk - 3rd September 2005
Troll
On Thornborough generally, and the links between it and Dorchester, I tend to agree with the campaigners and disagree with Peter Wardle. However, he has posted in his capacity as an individual, and is entitled to make his own decisions as to whether he wants to joint your campaign.
To say that his individual views are a good reason for despising all consultants is very unfair, and simply shows how prejudiced you are.
It strikes me that the first to take the 'moral high ground' were the campaign groups - whether rightly or wrongly, and to criticise someone for doing so who happens to disagree with you (about tactics, not principles) seems rather hypocritical.
1man1desk
Urgent for Thornborough - troll - 3rd September 2005
I accept what you say. What I find extremely nauseating is a rude and arrogant refusal to help. My bias in terms of consultants is deeply rooted by their own actions in the past. Bias...an interesting concept, if I were living in Zimbabwe or, starving to death after a catastrophe in New Orleans, would you see me as bias if I were to become hostile to those in positions of responsibility? I have not come across one individual(within the profession) who can give me one good reason why consultants should be a part of the system. As I said before, County Mounties should be the source of advice for clients. I`ve seen it time and time again where the client`s interests are put before the archaeology. That`s not bias, thats observation. I was unlucky enough to work for a team of consultants as a colleague. They happen to be one of the biggest and most respected but, also happen to be one of the most incompetent,bent and contrived coven of liars this side of the House Of Parliament. Putting my neck on the block, I feel that there is no place for consultants. There is also no place for archaeologists who refuse help to members of the public- particularly when they stand alone in the face of adversity in the form of developers and countless archaeologists who are doing their level best to reduce an incredibly simple concept to a writhing mass of psudeo-legal garbage. Yes, I was wrong to be so harsh when Peter was simply offering an opinion. I stand by my comments relating to Peter`s rude refusal of a simple offer of help. One of these fine days, the nations heritage will cease to be sold off to the cheapest bidder by the careful and contrived manipulations of parasitic consultants. As a parallel, I see some consultants in the same light as government spin-doctors-a lie here, a changed word there and, hey presto! All is well for the client. The Thornborough issue is very simple for me, it`s not for sale! The landscape and it`s occupants never heard the legal arguments that surrounds it today...tis not ours to dispose of as we see fit. No amount of carefuly worded argument will convince me otherwise. As archaeologists, we either support the efforts of the public fighting in Thornborough`s corner or, accept the rule of law as dictated by developers and arrogant consultants.
Urgent for Thornborough - 1man1desk - 3rd September 2005
Troll,
Curator's official, mandated role is to be an advisor to the planning authority, as part of which role they impose expensive requirements on applicants for planning permission. That is a very important role - possibly the most important in British archaeology - but in our adversarial system, no applicant (commercial developer, public organisation or private individual) will ever see them as an impartial source of advice.
I have posted on other threads about what consultants do and why it is necessary. You might think that curators should do some or all of these functions - but the fact is that they can't. Try reading some of those other postings and thinking about the points made before dismissing a whole branch of the profession as un-necessary.
You may have had bad experiences - so have I. There are consultants that I wouldn't trust behind my back. The same applies, though, to units and to curators. Wherever they work, people are individuals - some good, some bad - so generalisation will always be garbage.
1man1desk
Urgent for Thornborough - troll - 3rd September 2005
I do of course take your comments on board and, to a certain extent agree. My apologies therefore are offered to those consultants out there who feel unfairly treated by my mouth. However, how many consultants out there are willing to tear strips off your clients when they misbehave? Big money can be made in consultancy, losing a client can be catastrophic. Not unusual to see archaeology trashed under the noses of consultants. Whatever the mandated role of the County Mounty, the species is expected to fulfill many roles and most do at no extra cost. Can someone explain to me please how a consultant can be impartial? Anyway, perhaps the issue of consultants can be chewed over on another thread-here, the issue is Thornborough. 1man1desk-thankyou, I will go over the old threads again to refresh my memory. I am fully aware however, of just how the "mandated" roles pan out in reality and they seem to be very different from the ideal. Another issue of course is this-who polices consultants? I don`t think the stigma of consultancy will ebb away until the profession on the whole can accept that archaeologists choose to help developers.....
Urgent for Thornborough - drpeterwardle - 4th September 2005
To people like Troll I say get real. For info this is my track record as as somebody who gives their time freely. I will spell it out to Venutius I am not trying to deter people from helping the Thornborough campaign. A "victory" at Thornborough will make little difference to Dorchester now but a defeat will affect Dorchester and many other sites for decades to come.
First I am a planning aid volunteer - I believe I am the only archaeologists who is - I have done one project for them in the last six months. Why is this the case?
Second I have just done a job for free to help a charity project build houses for the homeless in reading.
Three I have given evidence at Public Inquiry to successfully stop an industrial estate being built on top of a Roman Villa in a conservation area.
Four there is campaignette to stop my own village doubling in size. The local protestors, Streatley Housing Action Group, dont want to pay me even though they will pay a barrister and other expert witnesses. I have however managed to reduce the size of the development to about 24 houses and stop a key field being built upon.
Five there is the objection I raised about Dorchester for the hearing in public. This is posted on Britarch and I think friends of Thornborough bulletin board. I was far more successful than PAGE, who were a bit of a front for the local Tory Party, by using arguments that would be understood by master planners rather than doing illegal fieldwork.
Six there is the time I spent campaigning as a County Council Candidate last May and on behalf of my wife who was also a district council candidate etc.
I admit it was a bit of light year for me on the volunteer front but then in my defence I will say in the last 12 months I have been in hospital for a week, my mother died and both my wife and myself have had health issues.
I can claim a little bit of knowledge about Thornborough as my PhD was on Thwing another class 2A henge in Yorkshire.
It is simply not possible to be involved in everything and earn a living. The Thornborough Henges deserve well qualified people with the time and resources to challenge the planning application and scrutinise what NYCC are going. English Heritage are paying consultants to do just that so why duplicate the effort.
My letter of objection to Dorchester can be read on Britarch
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0312&L=BRITARCH&P=R10878&I=-3
See also
http://www.dsl.iofm.net/PAGE.htm
There another 193 hits for Parishes against gravel extraction.
The point about using superlative or a hierarchy of importance is a simple one. You may save the "best sites" but not the mere Nationally Important ones. The notion that Thornborough is more important that the Dorchester one or vice versa is not meaningful or helpful.
There is a principal in minerals planning that the least environmentally important area will be quarried first. At this stage only scheduled monuments are considered. Please read my previous post on Dorchester. So under the current system we could end up debating which one is to go Thronborugh, Cana Barn or Dorchester? As I put in my letter of objection about Dorchester.
"I would identify a difficulty in county based planning - if a
particular type of monument is concentrated in a particular county it
may seem to be more common from a local perspective than it actually
is nationally. When dealing with archaeological sites of national
importance a national perspective must be taken. The hinterland of
the Thornborough henges is currently subject to a similar structure
plan proposal.
Thus, co-incidentally, the nature of structure planning is such that
it is possible that only one example of one of the rarest types of
monument with its landscape and hinterland will survive in the UK
within a ten year period"
Similarly
"There are circa 70 henges known in the UK. A henge is circular
monument of unknown function of late Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age
date with a bank, usually internal to a ditch, with one or more
entrances. They are assumed to be religious monuments. They occur in
concentrations rather than as isolated monuments. There is one type
known as type IIA ? because it has two entrances and two banks. There
are 7, perhaps 8, examples in the UK which are:
Thornborough North, Middle and South (Yorkshire)
Cana Barn and Thornborough (Yorkshire)
Dorchester Big Rings. (Oxfordshire)
Thwing (was considered to be a class 2A henge but on excavation
proved to be more complex and a class 2 henge with a later outer
ditch added when the monument was fortified) (Yorkshire).
Of these all survive except the Dorchester Big Rings, although Thwing
has been partially destroyed by ploughing and archaeological
excavation.
These monuments are to be compared and contrasted with the circle
henges (a henge with a stone circle within it) of Stonehenge and
Avebury (Wilts). A similar amount of labour was used to construct
them. There are two other examples which are of a comparable size -
Marden (Dorset) and Durrington Walls (Wilts).
The hinterland contains many monuments which are nationally important
in their own right, often due to the Rarity, such as mortuary
enclosures, cursuses and causewayed camps.
It is apparent to me, having studied these most enigmatic monuments,
that the only way we are ever going to understand such monuments is
from the study of the main focuses, the henge itself, and the
hinterland."
While I am reasonably confident about Dorchester for now, but what about in 10 years time?
As things stand I see there a lot of heritage issues at the moment which are going largely unnoticed such as:
erosion of gravemarkers
listed buildings which are at risk in the Welsh Borders
as well as master planning and gravel for example.
I choose to spend my time on issues doing things that I know will make a difference and utilises my skills to the best advantage which means doing the following:
giving evidence at hearings
ensuring that politicians I know are properly briefed
Peter
Peter
Urgent for Thornborough - Venutius - 4th September 2005
"A "victory" at Thornborough will make little difference to Dorchester now but a defeat will affect Dorchester and many other sites for decades to come."
Thanks for the clarification Peter, I can partially see your point, after all, given the huge response Thornborough has caused, if our government cannot save it, then you are right, there is little hope for the rest. You are correct about the other places being under threat too - just look at Catterick for example. Can you believe the hole left by Catterick Henge quarry is now being filled with hardcore!
I chose to campaign regarding Thornborough very carefully - it should be a "quick win" - the issue is obvious and an important one - its been brushed under the carpet for too long.
I hope you know I have never expected help from anyone, but I do occasionally ask.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Urgent for Thornborough - Venutius - 18th September 2005
http://archive.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/2005/9/14/206072.html
Decision-makers urged to reject quarrying near henges
From the archive, first published Wednesday 14th Sep 2005.
THE long and often acrimonious battle over the future of one of Britain's most important archaeological sites will come to a head next week.
At a meeting in Masham town hall, North Yorkshire county councillors will decide on the future of quarrying operations by the 5,000-year-old Thornborough henges.
In a major blow for quarry operator Tarmac, they are being recommended to throw out plans to extend extractions near the three large Neolithic earthworks.
Planning officials said the proposal would have "an unacceptable impact on nationally important archaeological remains".
They also said the move would be contrary to the authority's policy on
mineral extraction and that there was no overriding need for it.
Tarmac Northern wants to extend Nosterfield Quarry at Ladybridge Farm,
Thornborough, near Ripon, to extract 2.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel over four years.
An application was submitted in June last year and immediately brought
protests from those who feared for the future of the henges, about a kilometre south-east of the extension area.
Almost 850 letters of objection and three petitions with a total of 9,680 signatures were sent in. Some of the objections came from overseas.
The Council for British Archaeology, Yorkshire Archaeology Society and
action groups the Friends of Thornborough Henges and TimeWatch also
submitted detailed responses calling for the scheme to be rejected.
Tarmac has insisted throughout that the development would pose no threat to the henges, saying the extension would be further from the earthworks than the existing quarry site.
Yesterday, their response to the recommendation to refuse permission was muted.
Tarmac Northern estates manager Bob Nicholson said: "We have only just
learnt of the officers' recommendation and will need to study the report to committee in detail before we are able to comment further."
Councillors will meet at 1pm on Tuesday, and the public turnout is expected to be high. The chairman of TimeWatch, George Chaplin, was not making any early celebrations yesterday.
He said: "The messages we are getting are that refusal is far from certain."
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org