Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2008
28th October 2013, 03:50 PM
Just read a slightly odd article in a local paper saying that a development is taking place 'yards' away from the Prittlewell burial site, and that the only archaeological work that has been done (by Wessex) is three augur holes, which apparently is enough to say there's nothing there. While I suspect this is probably just a local journo getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, does anyone have any more info on this? Is it true?
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/10764341._/
\"Whoever understands the pottery, understands the site\" - Wheeler
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
28th October 2013, 04:42 PM
It took me all of 2 minutes searching to find the publicly available geoarchaeological report that accompanied this planning application. Probably less time than redexile took to frame the original question to BAJR forums. Seems Wessex are the good guys here (as for the most part, they are anyway!!)[URL="http://publicedrms.southend.gov.uk/Planning/lg/dialog.page?Param=lg.Planning&org.apache.shale.dialog.DIALOG_NAME=gfplanningsearch&viewdocs=true&SDescription=13/00935/AD"]
http://publicedrms.southend.gov.uk/Plann...3/00935/AD[/URL]
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2008
28th October 2013, 05:05 PM
Er.. thanks, well done you for being super-clever, give yourself a big hug, and thanks for reminding me why I rarely bother with this forum any more. I wasn't actually having a go at Wessex, just summarizing the 'facts' stated in the article. Seems it was the journo either missing out or being unaware of previous work then, which was basically all I was after.
\"Whoever understands the pottery, understands the site\" - Wheeler
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
29th October 2013, 08:05 AM
redexile Wrote:...and thanks for reminding me why I rarely bother with this forum any more...
How do you avoid a dangerously unhealthy bile deficiency??
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
31st October 2013, 01:51 PM
To be fair to the Forum... the question was asked... the question was answered. to be fair to Redexile... it was answered with a sniff. and in fact, if was good to see teh question asked at all, so that others would see both teh question and answer.
To be fair to the forum again.. well... glad you do bother with here
:face-kiss:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
31st October 2013, 05:09 PM
BAJR Wrote:To be fair to the Forum... the question was asked... the question was answered. to be fair to Redexile... it was answered with a sniff....
I guess that is being polite to me....actually being sniffy wasn't my intention, but if the cap fits I'll take it.
My problem wasn't with the question per se, but with the manner it was asked. I know that Redexile has in previous posts spoke of their 30 odd years in the profession...much the same as me. I would imagine that someone with that amount of experience would know where publicly accessible information on the background to an excavation or evaluation was likely to be lodged and as I said a very quick search of the Southend council web-site led me to it in less than 2 minutes....repeating the 'libel' implied in the original article and mentioning the name of the unit involved, seemed to me to be just a little provocative. The question could have been asked in a more subtle manner.....and yes I agree it could have been answered in a more subtle manner as well.
So sorry all round for my part in this misadventure......mea culpa!!
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
31st October 2013, 06:50 PM
as I say... to be fair to you... you actually answered the question
and that is why we loves you
and the reason the wessex bit stayed... was a) it was in the original article and was a not directly saying they were to blame... and b) you said "Wessex are the good guys here"
so we are all lovely apart from them bggrs that want to dig a hole in a Saxon King... sort of
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
1st November 2013, 08:37 AM
There was a WSI on the link given, but no geoarchaeological report.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
1st November 2013, 09:25 AM
Kajemby Wrote:There was a WSI on the link given, but no geoarchaeological report.
My apology- I meant that the WSI gave details of previous evaluation work carried out on the site. The WSI is the basis of course for the geoarchaeological mitigation works detailed in the officers report of Sept 2013....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
1st November 2013, 01:05 PM
Apology accepted.
