Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
23rd February 2006, 08:57 PM
It isn't about the quality of workmanship, its about the time and money available during the development process surely. No-one is suggesting that you are doing shoddy work, but I am suggesting that the level of investigation done during development archaeology can be less than ideal given the archaeology in question.
You can't tell me that you would not have preferred to have waited until you got the professional analysis back from a dig before deciding whether to go back and do more work or not. You also can't deny that since I've been around there's been quite a bit more money available for archaeology on this site either.
I 100% support archaeologists, I do not always support what is done with their work or the situations under which they are expected to work.
Assuming you are who I think you are. We are both very aware of the situation at Thornborough I'm sure - there is a fundamental difference in opinion. As far as I am aware, you do not believe any of the features found at Nosterfield or Ladybridge are of national importance. I disagree with that. My appologies if I am misinterpreting you here.
That difference in opinion is always going to mean there is a difference in opinion regarding how that archaeology should be treated.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex -
http://www.timewatch.org
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
23rd February 2006, 09:30 PM
Quote:quote:You can't tell me that you would not have preferred to have waited until you got the professional analysis back from a dig before deciding whether to go back and do more work or not.
What? Is more evaluation work possible? I thought all were happy that the latest evaluation had answered the questions about the size of the site. How can specialist reports or lack thereof possibly affect a decision like that? Decisions about "going back" are not in the hands of commercial archaeologists, or even in the hands of the consultant archaeologists employing them I suspect. Would it even have made any difference on a research project? I'm not sure, but I doubt it.
Were any of the specialist results surprising? It doesn't look like it. Surprising that they didn't contain more environmental evidence possibly.
They simply confirmed earlier work from which a well though out methodology was employed to deal with the expected archaeology. That's the system working well.
As to whether I agree with the thankless role of archaeology within the planning system.. that's a different question entirely.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
24th February 2006, 12:09 AM
I'm not talking about the evaluation of Ladybridge, I'm talking about the archaeology on Nosterfield.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex -
http://www.timewatch.org
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
24th February 2006, 09:03 AM
Venetius
Iam interested in what you are saying but am slightly worried where ths is going. I appreciate that the application has been refused on the basis that the remains will preserved in situ - the issue on which Timewatch EH, CBA and NYCC campaigned on. Whether current land use is a material factor in these matters is another issue and one which I am sure will continue to be debated. But the fact remains (outside any planning application) that you have stated that the archaeology on Ladybridge Farm is nationally important and worthy of preservation. The threat of quarrying has now gone for the time-being but the continuing destruction from ploughing has not.
This is a fact.
As a campaign group who has recognised and campaigned to preserve this stuff what are you now going to do to properly preserve it before it is ulimately gone without record? From what you have said on these pages you wont be approaching EH to recommend it for scheduling even though you said that it merits it. Why not? You have talked about management agreements with farmer that owns the field - have you spoken to him or approached him about the options? Have you asked EH or any other body to do the same? Surely this must be where the campaign must now be focussed. Its no point sitting back and talking about the politics and policies when on the ground this stuff is just going to disappear. If it does go and there was an opportunity to preserve it by record, on purely archaeological grounds this would be a tradgedy. Its almost as though now that the committee has made their decision no one is interested any more - surely a lot has been said - now must be the time to deliver.
Grubby
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
24th February 2006, 02:24 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Grubby
Venetius
Iam interested in what you are saying but am slightly worried where ths is going. I appreciate that the application has been refused on the basis that the remains will preserved in situ - the issue on which Timewatch EH, CBA and NYCC campaigned on. Whether current land use is a material factor in these matters is another issue and one which I am sure will continue to be debated. But the fact remains (outside any planning application) that you have stated that the archaeology on Ladybridge Farm is nationally important and worthy of preservation. The threat of quarrying has now gone for the time-being but the continuing destruction from ploughing has not.
This is a fact.
As a campaign group who has recognised and campaigned to preserve this stuff what are you now going to do to properly preserve it before it is ulimately gone without record?
Grubby
The question isn't so much what the campaign group is going to do but what
everyone is going to do.
E
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
24th February 2006, 02:27 PM
Hi Grubby,
To answer your question, land use is not a material consideration - this was confirmed by Council Officers on the day.
Preservation on the archaeology in-situ is only going to an addressible issue once the threat of quarrying is gone. Until then, it is in the the interests of those that stand to benefit from the quarrying to big up these issues as much as possible and certainly not to enter into any discussions regarding modification of farming practices at the site.
Right now we are in limbo until any appeal is determined or until Tarmac give categoric assurances that they have no intention of quarrying Ladybridge or Thornborough Moor at any point in the future.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex -
http://www.timewatch.org
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
24th February 2006, 02:27 PM
Grubby
You say
Iam interested in what you are saying but am slightly worried where ths is going. I appreciate that the application has been refused on the basis that the remains will preserved in situ -
No - see my earlier post on this issue. The application has been refused on the grounds that the LPA will not approve an application that precludes preservation in situ - this is the only action that the LPA can take if they are convinced that pres. in situ is required. As they (the LPA) admit, they cannot guarantee pres. in situ as they do not have any powers to control actions that may harm the archaeological remains as along as those actions do not require planning permission.
What is required in order to achieve pres. in situ is either Scheduling (with appropriate class consents) or some form of DEFRA-funded / monitored land management scheme.
With regard to your suggestion that Venutius should talk to the farmer, does the farmer own the land, or rent it from Tarmac ? If the latter, I would think that Tarmac are unlikly to enter into any agreement with DEFRA that restricts their chances of putting in further applications for extraction here.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
24th February 2006, 04:13 PM
Beamo
as I said in last post, putting aside the issue of preservation in situ as a material consideration the fact remains that this archaeology is going to get trashed whether you like it not. My point is this - having highlighted both its importance and vulnerability then surely the people on the ground who campaign in this area and have attracted the support of so many archaeologists will continue to try to save these pits whether they are subject to a planning permission or not.
As you rightly point out there are ways in which they can be secured. Pressuring EH to schedule is one and chasing DEFRA and EH to secure a management agreement with the landowner is another. It seems to me however that if no one is actually going to push for either then you might as well have dug it up and recorded it while you had the chance. Presumably Venetius must know whether the quarry company owns the land or not?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
25th February 2006, 01:15 AM
Both the farmer and Tarmac will benefit from quarrying the land.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex -
http://www.timewatch.org
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
27th February 2006, 07:50 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Venutius
Both the farmer and Tarmac will benefit from quarrying the land.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
That is fairly obvious, but do you know who actually owns the land?
