Thornborough "debate"

[Grubby]

On another note - I've just been checking out the smartgroup website and it seems to me that the penny has finally dropped. Check out the minutes on the Ladybridge Farm Website for the 4th November.

http://www.archaeologicalplanningconsult...ymins.html

It would appear to me that the local authority have made it pretty clear at that meeting what they thought of the archaeology on the site and whether it should be preserved in situ.

G.

[mercenary]

quote:It would appear to me that the local authority have made it pretty clear at that meeting what they thought of the archaeology on the site and whether it should be preserved in situ.

By "site" you presumably mean the whole area under application. The decision on that is presumably still up in the air, otherwise why do the evaluation? The only preservation in-situ decision made so far appears to be regarding the archaeology in the trenches. A VERY different thing indeed.

[Grubby]

In the context of the minutes the statements on significance appear to refer to the archaeology in the whole development area not just the trenches. From what I can gather the remains in the additional evaluation appear to be the only sort of archaeology on the site (correct me if I am wrong). Unfortunately I wasn't there so I dont know exactly what was said but it sounds to me that they are refering to the whole area.

G
[/quote]

By "site" you presumably mean the whole area under application. The decision on that is presumably still up in the air, otherwise why do the evaluation? The only preservation in-situ decision made so far appears to be regarding the archaeology in the trenches. A VERY different thing indeed.
[/quote]

[Arthus]

New to this method of debate I apologise in advance for writing too much, but the Thornborough Henge Complex and quarry debate raises so many issues.

I wish to sketch out some ?ideal world? solutions, to these issues, fully aware that we don?t live in an ideal world. However, I think one should argue for what should happen even when there appears little chance that it will before adopting a ?fall back position?.

It seems to me that the area around the Henges does contain valuable archaeology, which should continue to be studied and excavated over the coming years.

Therefore, both the quarrying and deep ploughing should be stoped in the area even if it requires legal protection in the form of a new law.

In addition, English Heritage have to stop pretending that they don?t know about the destruction of artefacts by ploughing and admit that preservation in situ is impossible if ploughing continues.

Perhaps English Heritage needs to do less cosy-ing up to farmers (anyone listen to 'farming today, radio 4) and pursuing of badgers (the farmers ?enemy? too!), and actually take a look at how a modern plough compares to a 1960s one. In addition, the boffins at English Heritage might consider a bit of ethnographic research and have a chat with the farmer down the pub!

Then to continue my ?ideal world theme?? then the archaeologists need to acknowledge that the protesters however ignorant about archaeology have had a positive effect by increasing the amount of archaeology done, sample size etc.

And then the protesters need realise that the present dig at Nosterfield (even if one only judges it from its web page) is a neutral and professional operation, as likely to throw up evidence that can support their cause as it might produce evidence which can be used by the Quarry side.

And then we can all get picked up by a herd of flying pink elephants and get taken to a magical land where field archaeologists are millionaires and have heated swimming pools?.

Well, all or part of the above may not happen but it?s nice to dream.

But more seriously.

Pictures from the Nosterfield web site appear to show quite deep features surviving in areas where the 'natural'(the ground below the ploughed soil) is very stoney. I amagine that in the past farmers would avoid wrecking their ploughs on such surfaces. This means that where ever the natural is stoney accross the whole site it has the potential to reveal archaeology. It can be targeted.

But it also means that with modern ploughing methods it won't survive long. To quote from 'A Brief History of The Plough'(Alan Jones) http://www.ploughmen.co.uk/ploughhistory.htm

'... ploughs are longer and heavier today and do not 'jump' over obstacles as in the past - if you were lucky! Modern steels play an important part too, because they have greater resistance to wear and can operate under tougher conditions and at higher speeds without breaking. The old chilled cast iron shares are items of the past and gone forever.'

Food for thought.





Arthus

[BAJR Host]

The plough damage experiment is a good start... ther are still lots of 'factors' not dealt with... but most important... this is a single experiment... it must be repeated in several areas, by other people to see if the test can be replicated... glass balls are loose, the matrix is different, etc etc.

there is no doubt that ploughing does damage... but for example.... on a heavily ploughed site in East Lothian... only one plough event (the dreaded potatoe!) caused damage and dragged skellies to the surface.... before that..... no damage.

Another day another WSI?

[freelance]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

it must be repeated in several areas, by other people to see if the test can be replicated... glass balls are loose, the matrix is different, etc etc.

Rat,
As an initial investigation I find the results of the plough damage experiment to be very interesting, but can see scope for refinement if similar experiments are undertaken in the future (which I hope they are). Paul Barford?s comment (britarch) on compaction which you also allude to is a valid one, though given the fact that multiple blades are attached to a single boom of the plough, I presume that the degree of ?bite? will be dictated by the overall compaction of the ground across the length of the boom. If the other blades are travelling over compacted subsoil/natural, effectively supporting the blade that encounters the soft spot, then the effect of one small soft spot should not alter the distribution of marker artefacts to a high degree. This cannot be said of larger features or backfilled evaluation trenches.

Because the feature was backfilled purely with beads, recompaction was impossible. Future experiments might consider mixing the marker artefacts with material derived from the feature, which could then be compacted to the same level as the remaining fill. A further refinement might also be to use marker artefacts of different colours at different depths. There is certainly scope for further work, and it will be interesting to return to the current investigation area after the next ploughing to see if beads are dragged up from the backfilled features.

[Real Job]

quoteloughing causes damage at a variety of scales, from individual artefacts to whole sites and entire landscapes. Some of our most fragile monuments and landscapes are suffering badly.
In the intensively farmed east of England few sites have escaped mutilation... The distinctive prehistoric archaeology of our Downs and Wolds has also been devastated. Hundreds of burial mounds... have been ploughed away or damaged. Prehistoric field systems, once a common feature on our chalk hills, now survive only as isolated fragments. Even apparently robust sites, such as masonry-built Roman villas, are suffering serious damage as the mechanical power of farm equipment continues to increase.

From EH's 'Ripping up history' http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/uploa...istory.pdf

quote:Nevertheless, the schemes [the various countryside stewardship grants] have been largely unsuccessful in dealing with sites under arable cultivation, mainly because payments were unattractive compared to farm subsidies for continuing and intensifying production

From the IFA Yearbook 2004. http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...04trow.pdf

Given that there is no means currently of preventing farmers from ploughing sites (even scheduled monuments), is 'preservation in situ' a viable option on any arable site, not just at Ladybridge Farm?

Preservation in situ is intended to protect archaeological remains for the forseeable future. As has been said already on this thread, we have all worked on sites crossed by plough scars and with truncated archaeology, but the point is that such sites were excavated and preserved by record not left to be slowly destroyed.

I know that EH want the law and/or the stewardship grant system changed to protect archaeology, but is such a change imminent (does anyone know?)? Can we preserve in situ sites on the assumption that something may be done at an unknown date in the future to protect them from plough damage?

Unless something more encouraging is forthcoming from EH or the government about the prospects for changing the law, I would rather excavate now than lose archaeology forever.



"So does your partner have a real job?" Asked of me by an interviewer for a supervisor post at a well known unit not that many years ago...

[historic building]

the stewardship scheme is well on its way. I also understand that EH are preparing a conservation management plan for the Thornborough area the continued ploughing of the area must be an issue covered in that.

[troll]

Have worked on plenty of sites where plough damage was obvious.Equally obvious was the completely undisturbed archaeology between and around said plough marks. We work other sites around the country that have been damaged by plough action and come up with some superb and important archaeology.Perhaps we can expect to see an experiment to judge the effects of worm poo next.Any more desperate attempts anyone?

[leg11aug]

Quote. "...Perhaps we can expect to see an experiment on the effects of worm poo..."
There goes my dissertation then.

throwing in the trowel..