+- 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" - Hugh - 29th November 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Alfie
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.
Sorry to go off thread on an important thread but I thought this statement needed answering to address the ongoing ignorance to the problems caused by compaction. Soil compaction, as many of you know, is a major cause of marital difficulties, forfty percent of breakups occure as a direct result of it
Thornborough "debate" - Grubby - 29th November 2005
...and such a personal question!
Sorry to go off thread on an important thread but I thought this statement needed answering to address the ongoing ignorance to the problems caused by compaction. Soil compaction, as many of you know, is a major cause of marital difficulties, forfty percent of breakups occure as a direct result of it
its a good job they farm a dairy herd!
Getting slightly back to the point, the only way of dealing with soil compaction as far as I am aware is to break it all up, usually with a subsoiler - it is the farming equivalent of relate.
Thornborough "debate" - freelance - 3rd December 2005
If anyone is interested, the last fieldwork update to the diary page is now posted:
http://www.archaeologicalplanningconsultancy.co.uk/mga/projects/noster/pages/lady_diary.html
Thornborough "debate" - idontdodinos - 3rd December 2005
my heart breaks :face-confused: good thing the features were fully excavated in the end
Thornborough "debate" - Real Job - 4th December 2005
Quote:quote:good thing the features were fully excavated in the end
Yes, its quite a relief! To be fair though, all parties involved agreed to that as soon as it become clear that the farmer was going to subsoil the area (even if they thought he would replace the topsoil first!)
Does this mean the farmer is likely to subsoil again when the topsoil is replaced in order to break up the topsoil that will have become compacted from lying in a big heap and having machines drive over it? Will he also subsoil the areas where the topsoil has become compacted by machines entering and leaving the site?
Thornborough "debate" - BAJR Host - 4th December 2005
very sad indeed....
but also... another idea.... the washers used to 'seed the feature... perhaps different ones (coloured) could be used at different levels... that way the depth of movement could be analysed.
just a thought
Another day another WSI?
Thornborough "debate" - Arthus - 5th December 2005
Re: the glass and washer filled features being ploughed up.
The old gods must be confused.
Pleased to see archaeologists giving things back for a change, but slightly miffed at the green glass and washers instead of weapons and gold.
But then they knew that things must be geting back to normal when the offering was smashed up with a bloody great plough.
Hardly linear is it. Time I mean. Seems to be spinning in circles around Thornborough.
What a pity the green glass and washer instalation didn't survive, would have given future archaeologists quite a puzzle trying to work out why the humans of 2005 had constructed sculptures of strange many eyed green jelly fish in a turnip field.
In fact, if you check out http://www.Paralleluniverse.com you can see that in one future reality the argument about what these things were for (if they were 'ritual' or used for scraping hard skin off feet)led to the first killings in the 'Great Archaeology War of 3245 AT (After Television).
Just shows dangerous it is to mess with the mud
Arthus
Thornborough "debate" - Grubby - 7th December 2005
Having just read the last diary entry on the Ladybridge website - what I want to know is if English Heritage are saying that this stuff is nationally important then why dont they just schedule it? That would solve the problem, end of story and there wouldn't be a need for all this bother...
Thornborough "debate" - mercenary - 7th December 2005
A very good question indeed. Maybe it's got something to do with their sudden interest in above ground heritage, something I think reflects the interests of Simon Thurley more than the below ground stuff.
Thornborough "debate" - Arthus - 8th December 2005
Serious again (couldn't find a suitable Smillie).
English Heritage have got themselves into a muddle.
Because if they say this site is of national importance and should be scheduled (which doesn't always prevent ploughing anyway I was told)They lay themselves open to demands for the same scheduling for countless archaeological sites of various periods across the whole of Britain.
And we all know of sites in an 'ideal world' that could be scheduled.
And of course if they were brave enough to schedule Thornborough (and I think they should) I guess they would face a lengthy court battle with Tarmac with an uncertain outcome.
But I don't think they have got the guts.
They could also (if they were a dynamic heritage and archaeological site lobby group) tap into the European Unions policy of taking land out of production and press for a new law preventing ploughing around important archaeological sites (at the very least until the multinationals who are now running most farms pay for the archaeology).
But I don't think they will do any such thing.
I have not been working in British archaeology very long, so I will stand corrected if I have got the wrong idea. But it appears to me that EH however much good work they do, are basically a government quango tied to the governments support for development and therefore dependent on government funding[?]
I don't know I haven't been here long.
But they don't seem to conducting a very coherent argument against the quarry.
I think I could produce a better argument against the quarry than they do.
They just seem to keep shouting "National Importance" and not expanding on their argument.
Or have I got the wrong impression?
Arthus