+- 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 !! - BAJR Host - 4th March 2005
We do have to be careful, and BAJR especially so - As it must remain a place where everyone trusts.
the PI article is damming.. but I will wait until I hear the other side as well. I hope that the IFA or Mr Campling will have something to say.
THere may well be good explanations for a 2% sampling... there may well be a reason behind the statement that ther is little or no archaeology. there may even be a good reason why Tarmac is pushing on with plans for the Moor - when they said they would wait for the EH consultation
(ps I have just been told that the consultation contract has been awarded - although now a year after it was first mentioned, I am sure it has nothing to do with Tarmac taking over 6 months to reply.
We must be careful, but I agree that we can't stand by and watch either - what matters is the archaeology, which is irreplaceable. I will keep my eye on this. :face-topic:
Private EYE !! - Tom21 - 4th March 2005
Have you asked them?
Private EYE !! - BAJR Host - 4th March 2005
Good point Tom21.. I have not asked... but I hope they stand up and explain.
Private EYE !! - drpeterwardle - 4th March 2005
What all the fuss about?
A 2% sample 10 years ago was the norm. A 8-10% sample will give a better indication of what is there but a 100% sample will give an even better idea.
Eh have also commissioned a research project on the area. The sample size is actually irrelevant. The point is - is enough infomation known about the area to make a reasoned planning decision? To my mind a 0% sample is needed for the LPA to refuse the application.
The 2% trenching was following geophysics, field walking et al so not a bad programme of work.
I dont undertstand why Neil Campling has said there is no planning application when there is or why he suggested that people donot sign a petition. The NYCC web site contains a lot of info on the current situation and has set up a working group.
Reading Private eye one would think that this the only major area of neolithic activity in Yorkshire. It is not. The Wolds contain masses of the stuff in many locations. Rudston, Thwing, Kilham, Duggleby Howe to name but a few. There is also Cana Barn. This is not to deminish the importance of Thornborough and the issues involved but....
Not bad publicity though.
Peter
Private EYE !! - BAJR Host - 4th March 2005
I have spent a bit of time tracking down information today.....
I talked to EH today and they have only this day commisioned a consultation... unfortunately.. Tarmac have changed from saying that they will wait for the results of the consultation (March 2004) before even thinking about going into the Moor site... to actually publishing a plan of where they intend to quarry. that is before the consultation is actualy commissioned (a bit previous I guess) it also seems that the 2% strategy is ongoing... though that must be confirmed... 2% nowadays is unacceptable when next to a site such as this. and so I would expect a 10% evaluation followed up with full monitored strippping. - I would however actually oppose quarrying as a county archaeologist on the grounds of the removal of a non renewable heritage resource and the setting of SAMs
Yes Peter I know what you mean about Neo site in Yorkshire... but I must confess I ain't ever seen anything like this before. I hate to say it... but unique and a bit special comes to mind... If we claim we understand the significance, use and evolution of a monumnet that spans 3000 years of use... then... er perhaps stripping and destroying the surrounding area is the best way...
If it is also found that this area was used in the Mesolithic... wellllllllll...... this site will not appear again, and having an isolated henge structure in a landscape that is no longer there (archaeolgoically speaking) I am having trouble dealing with that.
I tend to back EH on this... no quarrying until we actually know what is there - I am sure that Mr Campling would agree that this is an important landscape that requires careful understanding before absolute removal. And Jan Hardings work is part of this understanding.
this is my personal view.. and I would say I need more facts before coming out with a full statement on this.
}
hey we all gotta be careful.!
Private EYE !! - troll - 4th March 2005
Hang about-is it just me or am I missing the point? No quarrying until we know what`s there? If we were talking about a new children`s hospice or similar, I could grasp the nettle but, are we seriously considering:
A. that an evaluation will tell us whats there or worse,
B. we would consider the annihalation of an archaeological landscape so yet another fat suit gets fatter and we all have nice gravel for our drives? Campling-you should be ashamed of yourself, P*** off and manage a layby tea- wagon somewhere. Nice one IFA, thanks for Campling, whats your excuse?
ps the Hom Sap cartoon on page 16 of same private eye issue resembles the IFA disciplinary code/RAOs dont ya fink? Mr Hosty-I will gladly cage my mouth on BAJR however, I`m a little bored with behaving myself for fear of being sued for exposing sewage. May start up http://www.sue-me bitch.com ........
Private EYE !! - the invisible man - 5th March 2005
I'm not supporting the quarrying application Troll, but I would argue that the nature of the application is not relevant. I would no more support an application for a children's hospice, or a home for lost cuddly kittens, than I would a quarry. In some ways a quarry is the lesser evil - it destroys the archaeology of course, but valuable data would be gained and the quarry could be infilled and returned to its early 21st century appearnace (but no more lakes please!)
Secondly, the gravel is not just required for driveways, but is eesential for the construction industry - including the building of children's hospices!
Unfortunately all construction takes place for the profit of men in suits, including children's hospices. No doubt we will one day return to a better way, but I fear I am unlikely to see it.
Private EYE !! - troll - 5th March 2005
Greetings Invisible-Hope you`re well! Of course I do accept what you`re saying however... We are still resigned to destroying a unique landscape. Also, "much valuable data" will I presume,be recovered by a commercial unit under the usual conditions.Great. The north has been on the arse end of London-based Governments for years and has seen minimal investment. The Thornborough landscape should be preserved as a unique asset for the tourism of the north and, be allowed to retain it`s "meaning".Gutting sites and backfilling them with landfill or creating duck-**** filled lakes does`nt pull the whool over my eyes. Of course-gravel can`t be found anywhere else on the planet can it? In short, such a landscape deserves preservation from the ravages of arrogant developers, muppet-driven commercial archaeology and of course, sexually handicapped curators who feel they can make huge decisions armed with tiny amounts of grey matter.
Private EYE !! - troll - 5th March 2005
A parallel would of course be the Stonehenge debacle...watch the sacred landscape disappear beneath endless satelite car-parks and Yank fast "food" outlets.Just as a matter of interest, the archaeological "consultants" in the driving seat of this endeavour lie for a profit, fabricate reports, and are masters of bull****. Competative tendering has a lot to answer for. Campling does not have the right to make the decisions he has-the consultants driving the Stonehenge carnage do not have the right to charge ?800 per day to fabricate and profit from such an internationally unique landscape.Sorry-I`m not interested in handing over nationally-owned assets to consultants and developers.
Private EYE !! - the invisible man - 5th March 2005
Yes cheers Troll, I'm fine, trust you're the same! Well yes, I am rather playing devil's advocate. Ancient landcapes, call them what you will, are indeed as important and the monument and require careful consideration, from a "what is best" rather than a "what can we afford" approach. Can it ever be totally satisfactory - can we really replicate a later neolithic landscape? Even if we could put identical vegatation back, the landscape would have a different meaning to us and thus not be a replica. And which period if the long life of a monument should we aim to replicate? But this is fruitless and fanciful pedantary of course, I know what you mean.
I suspect that you share my increasing view that archaeology is not an appropriate discipline for fully competetive commercial activity -I do not mean to criticise those who make their living in this way, I have nothing but admiration for those who I have met. I just feel that it is un unhappy and "forced" set of ill-considered relationships and procedures, not properly thought out at all. I fear that we are stuck with it now though, and any improvements will be patch-ups.
Development tax perhaps? Fundemental change in law, such that the past belongs to the nation, not to whoever owns the bit of land it's on or under?