+- 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" - BAJR Host - 26th May 2006
Salvage archaeology is where we are just now Paul.... not my favourite at the moment I have to say. I would point out that a detectorist, like most people has a struck flint detector and pot detector... they are endearingly called..... eyes
I feel that when archaeologists and detectorists work together and record the patterns then useful work can be done.
Here I would agree that the potential for metallic artefacts in the ground is very very low, therefor the best use of people would be to record horizontal patterns of flint and ceramic scatters. This would also help to understand better the plough damage issue.
Another day another WSI?
Thornborough "debate" - mercenary - 26th May 2006
Quote:quote:therefor the best use of people would be to record horizontal patterns of flint and ceramic scatters.
The conclusions I was actually referring to were the ones about the value of recording suface scatters. Which, IMO have not been particularly helpful at Ladybridge or with some of the projects I have been involved with, other than to give a very general indication of the type of site which may lie under a particular field. I must stress however that my experience with fieldwalking projects is limited, so I stand to be corrected.
Thornborough "debate" - Paul Barford - 26th May 2006
Sorry, I totally disagree [edit- that was a reply to David, but mercenary got a post in while I was composing my thoughts]. Either we say we stand for "preservation in situ" and [u]all</u> that entails or we do not.
What was being highlighted in the Nosterfield experiment was the damage to subsoil deposits and not whether or not the loose finds get recovered.
Surely if we are claiming to be in any way "managing" the resource and at that by "preservation in situ"... this entails reducing or stopping damage to sites like this (especially those like here declared of 'national significance'). Surely we need to pay more attention to managing the cause rather than the effects.
Merely saying we (or artefact hunters and collectors) can pick all the finds out of the soil after the destruction is not "managing" the heritage (by which I have in mind the buried archaeology), its just a cop-out.
And if we admit that we can do nothing to halt such destruction, then as a means of 'preservation by record', picking the loose scattered and contextless finds out of the topsoil is absolutely no substitute for full and careful excavation of the threatened archaeology. "Better than nothing" is not an argument that we should be trying to use to justify our inability to come up with effective policies to actually protect what it is we claim to be protecting.
Anyway, how exactly would you see this mitigation policy being operated David? Who would finance it, how would the results and finds be archived, who would ensure the continuance of the "recording" alongside the annual deterioration of the archaeological resource under the ploughsoil? How would you see this "conservation measure" being co-ordinated on a county or regional basis?
Paul Barford
Thornborough "debate" - mercenary - 26th May 2006
Paul,
disagree with my comments or David's?
I'm with you on this one. Top of my list of problems in archaeology is the way all and sundry use the concept of "preservation in-situ" to justify a position when it means nothing of the sort.}
Thornborough "debate" - BAJR Host - 26th May 2006
Its OK merc... Paul is not wanting to agree or disagree with us... he just wants to have a go at detectorists .
I would love to debate this - but it can be difficult.
The detectorists have offered to help... It is an option, and we need all the help we can get.... from detectorists, from amateurs, from anyone who spends their time in the field (so to speak)
All help welcome as far as I am concerned, lets collect information (in a formalised and organisaed way - yes) and use it. Are their scatters, are their scatters where before there were none, is the plough going deep? are the fragments smaller or larger fragments, is their a clear plough orientation to the scatters... etc etc...
as to money and who organises.. I would be happy to put up funding if Paul organisises it...
Afer all the aim of us all is to preserve that which we can preserve and record that which we can't, to seek out new sites and new civilisations and to boldly...er hang on....yes... we are there to learn as well... you can't pickle the past, and we should learn from it... after some of us have forgotten what being an archaeologist is..
Quote:quote:The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and potteryPreservation is situ is very important.. but lets not forget why we are here.. to study the past, and with the help of others to learn from the material evidence.
Another day another WSI?
Thornborough "debate" - garybrun - 26th May 2006
If you need help and what to document the situation with detectorists, field walkers and others my partner and I would be willing to film the co-operation David and to show the problems being faced etc.
If someone would maybe like to put together a little script on this area and what things would like to be covered. Maybe some multimedia content could help.
Just because I'm a detectorist and a film maker doesn't make me an ogre... you've been offered help do you want to take it??.
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.
Thornborough "debate" - Real Job - 26th May 2006
Quote:quote:as to money and who organises.. I would be happy to put up funding if Paul organisises it... Afer all the aim of us all is to preserve that which we can preserve and record that which we can't, to seek out new sites and new civilisations and to boldly...er hang on....
I trust the irony of this statement will not be lost on all those who have been involved in the farce that has befallen Ladybridge...
We had the chance to 'record that which we can't' by excavating the entire area in advance of quarrying, which (regardless as to the rights and wrongs of the quarry) would have preserevd the archaeology by record ( it has long been known that it was being ploughed aweay in this area, before any glass experiments were carried out to prove the obvious).
That chance was not taken - due in part to the opposition of some archaeologists, who didn't seem to realise that they were condemning the remains in this area to the slow death of the plough. Unfortunately Host you have ended up in the position of having opposed the chance to excavate properly (by opposing the quarry) and now having to suggest fieldwalking (think I am right in saying that the area has been done twice already) and metaldetecting (of dubious value for lithic scatters and pottery!).
If the remains are too important to allow development (EHs position) then they are certainly too important to be recorded by the wholly inadequate means of non-intrusive methods alone (I assume you are not offering to fund full open area excavation?!).
Thornborough "debate" - BAJR Host - 26th May 2006
blx... just wrote a massive reply and lost it
crux of it......
Irony can be lost on forums...
I intend to fund it as mcuh as I expect Paul to organise it.
Quote:quote:Unfortunately Host you have ended up in the position of having opposed the chance to excavate properly (by opposing the quarry) and now having to suggest fieldwalking (think I am right in saying that the area has been done twice already) and metaldetecting (of dubious value for lithic scatters and pottery!).
read my posts carefully.. I do not suggest that detecting would be any real use, neither do I suggest that field walking is the best replacement why I opposed the quarry was
a) This was to important a monument to rush through ... I am sure people would be quite upset if a quarry would surround Avebury or Stonhenge.?? If we want to understand the landscape, lets take our time, lets protect it... (ie ploughing must stop)
I supported the archaeologists working on the site, even when not supporting the application (which failed... becasue it did not prove that quarrying was over-riding the importance of the site) You talk about we had a chance to excavate the entire site... which suggests 100%... but as we know thats not quite the case... the percentage of excaavtion of featrue is high, but not total... so to correct your statement, we would would know quite a bit about much of the site.
Quote:quote:then they are certainly too important to be recorded by the wholly inadequate means of non-intrusive methods alone (I assume you are not offering to fund full open area excavation?!).
They are classed as important ... and so I will say again, they need protected.. and the field walking would not REPLACE further work but ENHANCE and ADD to further work... these 2 previous fieldwalks, have you looked at correspondance of locations ? would it be good to have another field walk? ... would it be good to preserve the entire site so that generations of archaeologists can tease information from the site, rather than have an impending deadline before it is TOTALy DESTROYED... the creeping destruction is the next problem, and should be dealt with immediately...
phew.... wait till we all get together and talk face to face...
and no Real Job... I don't remember offering to pay for an area excavation.... but I do remember placing a toungue into my cheek
Another day another WSI?
Thornborough "debate" - Grubby - 26th May 2006
Mr Host
I find your thread slightly difficult to follow. I think both real job and Mr Barford have hit the nail on the head. The irony is that the archaeology has been preserved in situ only to be slowly eroded away without record where (putting the rights and wrongs of the quarry aside) it would otherwise have been excavated and recorded. Its even more ironic to think that if the archaeology had been less important it would actually have been recorded and the preserved rather than ploughed away.
As to your comment
the creeping destruction is the next problem, and should be dealt with immediately
how are you going to that? All the farmer is doing is making a living doing what he has always done.
The other point is this - a part from recovering even more fragments of flint completely devoid of thier original context and which the recent experiment seems to suggest may have travelled many metres in whatever direction from their point of orign what really is the point of walking the field over and over again? The site has been identified.
As to opposing the quarry - did you oppose the quarry because of the archaeology that would be removed within its limits or did you oppose the quarry because it would put a hole in the ground that would look bad? If it was about preserving the archaeology on the site then real job has made a good point...
Thornborough "debate" - m300572 - 26th May 2006
>how are you going to that? All the farmer is doing is making a living doing what he has always done.<
By peruading the farmer to enter the land into Environmental Stewardship and paying him for the beneficial management of the site -reduced ploughing depth is an option.