+- 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" - Real Job - 21st November 2005
Troll - not making a 'desperate attempt' at anything (other than to chuck my opinion in), but trying to raise a debate. Do you deny that ploughing truncates archaeology, in some cases completely? If you don't deny it then is it possible to call such remains preserved?
HB - didn't know about the management plan. However, given the current state of the stewardship scheme there is not much EH can do to stop a determined farmer (as I understand it).
What exactly is EH proposing - changes to the stewardship scheme or removal of Class Consent 1 from scheduled monuments? And how long before it happens - after all the problem has been well known since (at least) the 70s?
Thornborough "debate" - Sith - 22nd November 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
Perhaps we can expect to see an experiment to judge the effects of worm poo next.Any more desperate attempts anyone?
Not as daft as it sounds. Didn't Darwin study the effects of earthworms on soil movement in the 1880s and come up with some suprising results?
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
The ability to dig a site is insignificant next to the power of the Force
Thornborough "debate" - mercenary - 22nd November 2005
Quote:quote:Any more desperate attempts anyone?
Troll- Not sure I get what you mean here. Arguing that ploughing has damaged/is damaging a site is not an argument against digging it, just an argument against preservation in-situ.
I learnt something of interest on this subject recently. I've often wondered why agricultural topsoil is usually 0.30m deep. The reason apparently is that's the standard depth the plough is set at (except for potatoes I understand). So, if you have 0.30m of topsoil over natural then the ground level is stable, or erosion is reducing it and archaeological features are slowly being removed. If there is more than 0.30m over natural, and/or a sub-soil/ b-horizon is present, then the ground is being built up and the archaeology is probably not being destroyed.
Any problems with this hypothesis? I'd be curious to know especially from soil scientists or farmers.[?]
Thornborough "debate" - Arthus - 23rd November 2005
Yes any proper study of ploughing would have to involve talking to present and past farmers. I met one recently who found a Romano-British village with his plough and then called in the archaeologists.
There is surely a case for preventing ploughing (and Quarries) near sites such as Henges; at the very least until it is certain that all the archaeology that can be found has been recorded.
At the moment government/Eu is funding all sorts of schemes to pay farmers not to farm (returning land to wetlands, set-aside, tree planting etc). I suspect that some New Labour type might jump at the chance to cut production whilst doing something with a 'feel-good factor', but the wheels of government move slowly and I won't hold my breath.
Arthus
Thornborough "debate" - Hugh - 23rd November 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Arthus
Yes any proper study of ploughing would have to involve talking to present and past farmers. I met one recently who found a Romano-British village with his plough and then called in the archaeologists.
There is surely a case for preventing ploughing (and Quarries) near sites such as Henges; at the very least until it is certain that all the archaeology that can be found has been recorded.
At the moment government/Eu is funding all sorts of schemes to pay farmers not to farm (returning land to wetlands, set-aside, tree planting etc). I suspect that some New Labour type might jump at the chance to cut production whilst doing something with a 'feel-good factor', but the wheels of government move slowly and I won't hold my breath.
Arthus
Read up on the new Environmental Stewardship schemes, and old Countryside Stewardship schemes. Both can give money to farm land in a way that stops or reduces damage to archaeological sites.
On another point, one of the major problems in modern farming is the compaction of the soil by heavy machinery which causes the plough to effectively go slightly deeper with every ploughing session in some areas. However most farmers understand the processes and try and avoid them.
Thornborough "debate" - Grubby - 23rd November 2005
In reference to the Stewardship schemes there are several points to be noted.
1 They are voluntary
2 They are temporary
3 They are funded with public money
4 There is a finite level of funding
5 they operate on two levels - an entry level scheme and a higher level scheme.
The entry level scheme operates on a points basis where points are accumulated per ha for adopting available options from a list supplied by DEFRA. These options include things like reduced tillage, arable reversion etc.. Once the farmer has accumulated enough points for his farm to qualify then he can receive paymments. The archaeological components on the list is only small when compared to other components such has environmental ones. These include beetle bannks, set aside etc. The entry level scheme is about environmental enhancement not management. It is possible therfore to adopt options which are beneficial to the environment and detrimental to the archaeology eg. beetle banks and not get paid. There is no consultation with archaeological bodies at this stage.
In order to qualify for a higher level scheme a farmer has to produce a management plan assessing his whole farm. Options chosen at this stage are converted into pounds. Applications for higher level schemes are sent to the local authority and EH for consultation. Again the higher level schemes are temporary and voluntary and difficult to qualify for. Whilst they offer respite they do not offer a solution.
As to the other comments raised, modern ploughs work off hydraulics and can be lowered to specific depths. Their weight, therefore is predominantly held by the tractor (this is why they have large metal weights on the front). Reduction in soil cover can also be caused by other factors such as wind and water erosion and the loss of organics from the soil.
Sometimes its quite useful being the son of a farmer!
As to EH producing a management plan for Thornborough does anyone have any more details?
Thornborough "debate" - historic building - 23rd November 2005
Conservation Plan
I believe it is being produced by Atkins Heritage from their Leeds branch. In my previous incarnation i worked for an environmental consultancy and we were asked to interview for this project. I have seen a couple of stories pop up on the CBA news feed about it a good few months ago now.
I am sure EH and Tarmac, who I believe are jointly funding it may have information. I wonder if the friends of Thornborough are one of the consultees who may be able to provide some info.
Thornborough "debate" - Hugh - 23rd November 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Grubby
In reference to the Stewardship schemes there are several points to be noted.
1 They are voluntary
2 They are temporary
3 They are funded with public money
4 There is a finite level of funding
5 they operate on two levels - an entry level scheme and a higher level scheme.
The entry level scheme operates on a points basis where points are accumulated per ha for adopting available options from a list supplied by DEFRA. These options include things like reduced tillage, arable reversion etc.. Once the farmer has accumulated enough points for his farm to qualify then he can receive paymments. The archaeological components on the list is only small when compared to other components such has environmental ones. These include beetle bannks, set aside etc. The entry level scheme is about environmental enhancement not management. It is possible therfore to adopt options which are beneficial to the environment and detrimental to the archaeology eg. beetle banks and not get paid. There is no consultation with archaeological bodies at this stage.
In order to qualify for a higher level scheme a farmer has to produce a management plan assessing his whole farm. Options chosen at this stage are converted into pounds. Applications for higher level schemes are sent to the local authority and EH for consultation. Again the higher level schemes are temporary and voluntary and difficult to qualify for. Whilst they offer respite they do not offer a solution.
As to the other comments raised, modern ploughs work off hydraulics and can be lowered to specific depths. Their weight, therefore is predominantly held by the tractor (this is why they have large metal weights on the front). Reduction in soil cover can also be caused by other factors such as wind and water erosion and the loss of organics from the soil.
Sometimes its quite useful being the son of a farmer!
As to EH producing a management plan for Thornborough does anyone have any more details
Good points, but it's back to the old "better than nothing". Plus from the farmers I have talked to, they consider it easlier to get some point from the archaeology as it often requires doing as little as possible
At the moment Local authority archaeologists are consulted on entry level because of faults with the Defra conputer system, but your right in saying we won't be.
Interesting to hear facts about tractors. Do your parents have any problems with soil compaction?
Thornborough "debate" - Alfie - 29th November 2005
Sorry to go off on a tangent in an important and interesting discussion but...the phrase:
"Do your parents have any problems with soil compaction?"
is fantastic.The best I have come across this year.
Thank you Hugh.
Thornborough "debate" - Paul Belford - 29th November 2005
Darwin's volume on earthworms is available as a free e-text (via Project Gutenburg (http://www.gutenberg.org/) at
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2355