The following warnings occurred: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warning [2] Undefined array key "avatartype" - Line: 783 - File: global.php PHP 8.0.30 (Linux)
|
Is it an Arched trench or a very smelly wet church. Blame the Aussies - Printable Version +- 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: Is it an Arched trench or a very smelly wet church. Blame the Aussies (/showthread.php?tid=5321) |
Is it an Arched trench or a very smelly wet church. Blame the Aussies - barkingdigger - 3rd March 2017 [quote=Marc Berger]The trench arc contamination spreads to being a mitigation stratergy Agreed - it certainly looks like a spectacularly insensitive location! Who'd expect dead people around the west end of a church? Quote:Would anybody know how much the church paid for the archaeology work done at St Mary the Virgin, Oxfordshire? Um - the client & contractor? Just a guess... Is it an Arched trench or a very smelly wet church. Blame the Aussies - Marc Berger - 13th March 2017 Quote:Who'd expect dead people around the west end of a church? Just about anybody who should have followed the apabe advice to do an evaluation. The apabe document does not have watching brief in its lexicon. I don't think that watching briefs should be allowed near churches without there having been a dba and or a field evaluation. How did trench arch get into the document as a mitigation? There is a first edition for the document produced in 2005. What has suddenly compelled this bunch to get all updaty. I would be interested in seeing a first edition, its on scribed but I am not subscribing for a government document... These are four roughly 60square metre trench arch excavations in Lincolnshire churches from which there isn't a report Quote:Environmental Permitting Regulations - Discharges to water and groundwater for England That's possibly 240 square metres without including holes in church walls and floors. The St Lawrence one had a watching brief on a soakaway in 2011 so its not as if the church had never heard about archaeology [URL="http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-816-1/dissemination/pdf/preconst3-103280_1.pdf"]ST LAWRENCE CHURCH, MAIN STREET, THORNTON CURTIS, NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE, DN39 6XW [/URL] RE: Is it an Arched trench or a very smelly wet church. Blame the Aussies - Marc Berger - 12th April 2017 have escalated the faecal disturbance of human burials to the academic god squad, will post after delving into the ministry of Justice or not as may be the case RE: Is it an Arched trench or a very smelly wet church. Blame the Aussies - GnomeKing - 25th May 2017 Marc - thanks for posting about this 'mess' "Question 7: Would a unit that considers the excavation of any skeleton in a watching brief adequate by breaking the bones off at the baulk when financially employed by an organisation that has control over its own planning permissions" "break bones..." > This is Shocking, Totally Unprofessional, and Ethically Indefensible, as is a sewer through a known burial ground (tsk tsk God-Squad!) It should never have gone there, and pretty obviously would have heritage impacts - How the hell did the system fail !? |