+- 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" - troll - 3rd January 2006
That seems to be a much fairer approach 1man-why hav`nt the authorities involved in the Thornborough fiasco considered this?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Thornborough "debate" - mercenary - 3rd January 2006
I would hazard a guess that such schemes require initiation or at least consent of the landowner, who may be more interested in selling up to anyone willing to pay market rates for the land.
Thornborough "debate" - freelance - 15th January 2006
The report on the latest work at Ladybridge is available in pdf format via the following link:
http://www.archaeologicalplanningconsultancy.co.uk/mga/projects/noster/pages/ladyrep.html
Thornborough "debate" - Grubby - 23rd January 2006
So then, nationally important or not? Are the pits on Ladybridge Farm worthy of preservation in situ?
ooo er......
Thornborough "debate" - archae_logical - 23rd January 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Grubby
So then, nationally important or not? Are the pits on Ladybridge Farm worthy of preservation in situ?
ooo er......
It all depends on your interpretation and your motive for same. English Heritage say they are nationally important as part of the Thornborough landscape. As they are the guardians of our heritage who am I to argue with that.
E
Thornborough "debate" - Grubby - 23rd January 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by archae_logical
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Grubby
So then, nationally important or not? Are the pits on Ladybridge Farm worthy of preservation in situ?
ooo er......
It all depends on your interpretation and your motive for same. English Heritage say they are nationally important as part of the Thornborough landscape. As they are the guardians of our heritage who am I to argue with that.
E
I think you have has much right to your own opinion on the matter as everyone else E and you are perfectly entitled to express it here if you wish. Remember that EH also said that the double pit alignment (SAM)was nationally important but allowed that to be dug up by Newcastle University... Are you suggesting that everything in the Thornborough landscape is nationally important and should be preserved? On what criteria? Is being part of the landscape justification in itself? If so how is it defined? WHere are its edges...
Thornborough "debate" - archae_logical - 24th January 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by GrubbyThanks for giving me the right to express my opinion, although I thought I already had that right.
Quote:quote:Originally posted by archae_logical
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Grubby
So then, nationally important or not? Are the pits on Ladybridge Farm worthy of preservation in situ?
ooo er......
It all depends on your interpretation and your motive for same. English Heritage say they are nationally important as part of the Thornborough landscape. As they are the guardians of our heritage who am I to argue with that.
E
I think you have has much right to your own opinion on the matter as everyone else E and you are perfectly entitled to express it here if you wish. Remember that EH also said that the double pit alignment (SAM)was nationally important but allowed that to be dug up by Newcastle University... Are you suggesting that everything in the Thornborough landscape is nationally important and should be preserved? On what criteria? Is being part of the landscape justification in itself? If so how is it defined? WHere are its edges...
Is everything in the landscape of Stonehenge important (it is a World Heritage Site after all), or does it gain importance because of what it is associated with?
Has anyone defined nationally important yet?
Should developers and their archaeologists have more right to say what is and isn't important than someone who lives locally?
So many questions and so few answers.
E
Thornborough "debate" - Grubby - 24th January 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by archae_logical
Quote:quote:Originally posted by GrubbyThanks for giving me the right to express my opinion, although I thought I already had that right.
Quote:quote:Originally posted by archae_logical
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Grubby
So then, nationally important or not? Are the pits on Ladybridge Farm worthy of preservation in situ?
ooo er......
It all depends on your interpretation and your motive for same. English Heritage say they are nationally important as part of the Thornborough landscape. As they are the guardians of our heritage who am I to argue with that.
E
I think you have has much right to your own opinion on the matter as everyone else E and you are perfectly entitled to express it here if you wish. Remember that EH also said that the double pit alignment (SAM)was nationally important but allowed that to be dug up by Newcastle University... Are you suggesting that everything in the Thornborough landscape is nationally important and should be preserved? On what criteria? Is being part of the landscape justification in itself? If so how is it defined? WHere are its edges...
Is everything in the landscape of Stonehenge important (it is a World Heritage Site after all), or does it gain importance because of what it is associated with?
Has anyone defined nationally important yet?
Should developers and their archaeologists have more right to say what is and isn't important than someone who lives locally?
So many questions and so few answers.
E
Because whether a site is national important or not is a material consideration in a planning application and also the basis on which monuments are scheduled, there is a set of criteria by which a site is judged and given value. These criteria are a guide to profesional judgement (what a wonderful term) A site cannot be nationally important just because you want it too, it has to meet the criteria. Stonehenge is an interesting point. Not all the archaeology in the Stonehenge landscape is nationally important. In fact pits, ditches and flint scatters of a neolithic and bronze age date near Stonehenge itself have been scored by EH as being of local importance durng the latest tunnel and visitor centre proposals and will be destroyed if the schemes go ahead!. Surely these are part of that landscape?
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 24th January 2006
Well according to NYCC, English Heritage and the countryside agency, the application is contrary to a lot more policies than just net. important archaeology:
1. No Need for the Gravel - not a policy breach in itself but a serious and important issue - do we want to continue oversupplying gravel?
2. Not in Preferred Area - Policy 3/2
3. Not in Preferred Area of Search - Policy 3/3
4. Not a smale scale extension - Policy 3/4
4. Unacceptable restoration strategy forbest quality agricultural land 4/2
5. unacceptable loss of nationally important archaeology. Policy 4/8
6. Unacceptable impact on the setting of a national monument (The archaeology shows that the remains on Ladybridge were a part of the complex and therefore a specific point of reference within the Thornborough landscape. Policy 4/8
Since there is a consultation, list members may like to present their views to North Yorkshire County Council.
So far, the area of Neolithic pits etc. that Ladybridge is part of now totals in the region of 90 Neolithic features. Maybe if there was just a couple, EH would not be so firm on its judgement, but ultimately NYCC will defer to EH.
It would definately be good for us all to have a clear understanding as to how national importance is defined, after all, it is the responsibility of the on site archaeologist to inform the County Mounties and EH if they think they have found such remains. If there's confusion, there will be mistakes.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - Grubby - 24th January 2006
I thought Timewatch had been arguing that the archaeology at Ladybridge was nationally important. Are you now saying that you dont know why it is or how it has been defined?