+- 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: Private EYE !! (/showthread.php?tid=1835)
Private EYE !! - drpeterwardle - 6th March 2005
The triple group of henges in close proximity is unique so far as I remember and I think so is the fact the banks were coated with gypsum if I remember correctly. I think so is the fact that one of the henges is built on top of a cursus.
There can be no doubt that the henges are special.
Peter
Private EYE !! - BAJR Host - 6th March 2005
Careful troll.... ! please be nice.. B)
I think we have gone off the target here... it is not so much whether the henges are special... but whether or not an evaluation of what must also be a rather special ritual landscape prior to quarrying is the right attitude to take when the only real action to be taken is to protect the whole area for further study, rather than a swift examination when the features appear after the topsoil has been removed. The other question is why Tarmac initialy said in March 2004 that they had no designs on the Moor until after an EH consultation, and then they have put in a map and a request to have the moor added to the prefered mineral extraction area BEFORE the consultation was even awarded?
Are they confident that they will get the area no matter what? Do they think the EH consultation will not actually matter a it has no statutory backing? Who knows. .... perhaps they could make a statement to clarify... perhaps Mr Campling could let us know what the hell is going on - I would expect he knows - I should give him a call and hopefully get some answers...
Private EYE !! - troll - 7th March 2005
Many plenty sorries for those offended...nothing personal[:I] Just feel that we are jumping through the same endless and exhaustive verbal loops that led to the current situation anyway. Look out-theres going to be an accident up ahead-right, form a working party, buy lots of biccies and lets come to a ridiculously irrelevant and incomprehensible agreement before we act. The situation is fairly cut and dry as I see it. Less pantomime-more solid change.
Private EYE !! - troll - 7th March 2005
Anyhoo- sod it all, am off to the near east again. When I come home, I expect a grown-up profession or someone`s goin over me knee!So there.A lot. Well, a bit anyway.On tuesdays with a lettuce leaf.
Private EYE !! - sniper - 7th March 2005
Troll, I agree with what you are saying, though you may be saying it a bit personally. If the site is important, which it is, why excavate such a small sample of it and base everything on that. Commercial archaeological methods should not be used on something like this. Small samples miss things, no matter how large, or small, the site is, I've seen it numerous times. Sample the wrong area, and bang, all the archaeology ends up on someone's drive. And so we need the gravel do we? Well, I'm sure we need good building stone as well, so, I know, let's tear down Canterbury Cathedral and only look at 10 per cent of it before we do.
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Private EYE !! - BAJR Host - 7th March 2005
True .... True.... and TRue....
Off to teh Near East are we!!... lucky man.....
If only I was a bit younger.. when I was your age... etc... er hang on.!! Off to Georgia soon and then Iran before to long. Damn but I miss the desert though... many good times spent there... far too many !!
I agree completely sniper ... this is commercial archaeology carried out on something that warrents something a bit different. On reflection, this sort of evaluation takes place as aprt of a planning condition, or as a pre application. the intention is to remove the archaeology before moving iin.... shurely this should not be the case here?
Private EYE !! - troll - 7th March 2005
Agreed Sniper-my mouth has a tendency to say what I feel and not what it should in polite society.Again-I openly apologise to all who were offended.To those who were`nt-you`re not reading BAJR enough! I do however, make the point that what should be said-should.What I have to learn is to say it sneakily....
Iran Mr Hosty? Jammy sod.....[:p]
Private EYE !! - BAJR Host - 7th March 2005
Have now talked with Mr Campling. Which has been very useful.
BAJR will publish a special page looking at the arguements from both sides with links to relevant websites and resources. Contributions from all are welcome - please email me on Thorny Problem
Once we have all the details then this special will be placed online with the next edition of the Digger.
Setting aside the importance of the henges, we have to look empirically at the story. The planning issues, the rights and wrongs, the results, the views. From the Friends of T. to English Heritage and Tarmac.
[:p] just a thought!
Private EYE !! - drpeterwardle - 8th March 2005
David,
I think this would be a very useful forum, but I think you should moderate it, given how things can get out of hand in the other place.
Are we debating, for example,:
sampling strategies for evaluation or mitigation
strategic planning
the pros and cons on PIS (preservation in situ as I call it) v research.
transparency in the planning system
what a difficult job curators have.
best wishes
Peter
. And so we need the gravel do we? Well, I'm sure we need good building stone as well, so, I know, let's tear down Canterbury Cathedral and only look at 10 per cent of it before we do.
Private EYE !! - BAJR Host - 8th March 2005
I agree Peter... however at first it will just be a atatic page that contains all the info and links to allow a fuller understanding.
It may become a debate.. that would be good... and that would be moderated... just to on the safe side! It could be useful in understanding a number of ....er.... issues.
till then.... give me a week to put a page together.[8D]