+- 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 - 9th December 2005
A large area of one of the scheduled monuments here was de-scheduled when EH realised that it had been ploughed, and had been since before the original scheduling. This wasn't in response to development pressure though, just that they didn't wan't to protect an area of undefined archaeology. However this was a medieval site and things are a little different for prehistoric sites, but not different enough to schedule a huge area of undefined landscape when it probably wont even protect it from destruction (e.g. by ploughing).
On the subject of new legislation, it won't happen. There is currently a review going on about changing the heritage legislation but if you hold your breath you will suffocate long before anything happens [xx(]. As far as I know they haven't even booked time for the house of parliment to discuss any suggestions of change, let alone produce a draft document.
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 11th December 2005
"Difficult position they have placed Themselves in. They seem to be the only archaeologists directly involved that are shouting archaeology of national importance."
I take it you do not think this archaeology is of national importance? Could you explain why?
Personally, I can't see how a settlement related to the Thornborough Henges could not be regarded as nationally important.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - charlie farnsbarnes - 11th December 2005
Quote:quote:actually, I've never seen either of the two bodies that protect our heritage take up against developers and show some true grit. Can anyone tell me otherwise?
Castle Tioram. The ruinous castle was bought up by an offshore company, owned by a millionaire businessman, which produced a Conservation report that reached the conculsion that the best way to ensure the survival of the monument for future generations would be to convert it into a private dwelling for the company's owner, 'generously' allowing limited access to members of the public. The Scottish Ministers, under advice from HS, refused to grant Scheduled Monument Consent for this scheme, concluding that consolidation of the castle was both viable and preferable to reconstruction from a conservation point of view, as the work involved would offer similar economic benefits to the community, and would allow full public access to be restored. The developer appealed against this refusal, but the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Session. HS stuck to its guns in this case in the face of a concerted campaign in the media and the Scottish Parliament, and deserves some plaudits in this instance.
Thornborough "debate" - Hi Vis - 12th December 2005
So do you think that the remains on Ladybridge should be scheduled? Surely someone must have pushed for thsat already, espec considering the stated views of EH, CBA Timewatch etc. Is this a possible Avebury Avenue to follow....
- keep away from the light......H
Thornborough "debate" - mercenary - 12th December 2005
Venutius,
What I personally think about the status of the archaeology is not going to make one bit of difference to the outcome. I have been lucky enough to have dug far more substantial and interesting neolithic settlement sites than this one appears to be. The thing that EH seems to be saying is that it is the association with the Henges that makes it nationally important irrespective of the type of archaeological remains. Madness in my opinion.
A hengiform monument and barrow site, in a ritual landscape with a very interesting iron age/Romano British component, that I recently dug is going to reveal much more about prehistoric activity in the region than the Ladybridge pits ever can. Because it is not associated with Thornborough henges it will not be called nationally important by EH and nobody will get very worked up by its destruction. (thankfully at present only by the long slow death of ploughing)
Any objective assessment of the two sites would leave Ladybridge a very distant runner up. A similar example would be the recent Millfield sites. How about the Ferrybridge Henge excavations?
I just don't understand what makes the Thornborough environs more important than the ritual landscapes around some of the other northern henges. They are all important, but they all seem to get preserved by record nowadays. What makes Thornborough different?
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 12th December 2005
Hi M,
As I see it, a portaloo used by the Queen and found in the gardens of Buckingham palace is arguably far more important than my own convenience, regardless of its more substantial and impressive nature.
The settlements used by those attending Thornborough is part and parcel of the Thornborough complex, it is not a separate feature and cannot be judged in isolation.
Claiming one monument to be nationally important does not undermine any other monuments claim and I do not think it is wise to argue that just because some monuments are being ignored that all monuments should be.
There are indeed a large number of monuments being lost, many of whom are certainly of national importance and should not be destroyed for the convenience of the developer. That does not mean this one should go that way too.
By the looks of things, the situation for Ladybridge is unchanged from the point prior to the latest archaeological work:
1. There is no need for the gravel.
2. The proposed quarry is neither in a preferred area for quarrying or a preferred search area.
3. The current application will destroy nationally important remains.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - Post-Med Potterer - 12th December 2005
Quote:quote:As I see it, a portaloo used by the Queen and found in the gardens of Buckingham palace is arguably far more important than my own convenience, regardless of its more substantial and impressive nature
Oh dear. Haven't we spent the last 20 years in archaeology trying to get away from this sort of nonsense. Why is the top-down archaeology of 'great men' inherently more interesting than the bottom-up archaeology of the peasant? Why?
Indeed surely the fact that your toilet is more substantial and impressive than HM the Q's does itself provoke a whole series of questions about the symbol and meaning of toilets in the early 21st century. I shall not speculate here on why you would need a particularly substantial or impressive toilet...
Edited to remove a statement at the end that was probably not in line with the AUP, apologies.
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 12th December 2005
Maybe I picked a dodgy analogy, my point is that seemingly minor features can be just as important as more impressive ones, especially if related to features of established importance.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - archae_logical - 12th December 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Post-Med Potterer
Why is the top-down archaeology of 'great men' inherently more interesting than the bottom-up archaeology of the peasant? Why?
Maybe because it was always 'great men' wannabees that did archaeology years ago and the habit remained. [:p]
Maybe too this is one reason for Ladybridge to be protected. It is a temporary site (how many of these have been found?) which along with other parts of Thornborough may eventually give us more of an insight into what the ordinary people did there.
Mercenary
Would Thornborough have been more interesting if you could have dug the mesolithic pit alignment or the Roman remains they found? How about the 4 horse burial? The Roman wells?
Would we have known about any of these if they had not been brought to our attention by an archaeologist who gave his opinion.
You say of another site 'nobody will get very worked up by its destruction.' I get worked up about all destruction and seek solutions. Unfortunately I seem to be among a very few who are prepared to put their heads above the parapet to try to preserve our heritage from development.
'They are all important, but they all seem to get preserved by record nowadays.'
This is why some of us get so annoyed. Whose heritage is it that they are destroying with just a paper record left. Why should developers wants be given greater consideration than the wants of the local people and those who have other forms of interest in a place? According to all the books I read, Government is there to protect our heritage not sell it to the highest bidder.
As Venutius says the recent archaeological sampling changes nothing at Ladybridge. Even the planning officers say there are good reasons to deny the application without referring to the archaeology. Let us hope the planning committee listen to them.
E
(Have you seen Venutius' convenience
)
Thornborough "debate" - mercenary - 12th December 2005
Venutius and E,
All good points, but my original question stands. Why is the Thornborough environs, and more specifically the Ladybridge part of it, more important than the other examples that I listed? This is what English Heritage appears to be saying by applying the nationally important label to Ladybridge, but not the other sites.
The difference does not appear to be related to the type of archaeology that is present, and the association with the henges explanation does not wash when compared with the treatment of other northern henge environs. I can see good reasons to preserve all these sites, but the EH position is non-sensical.