Thornborough "debate"

[Arthus]

Well, sorry to raise this again but when George Chaplin becomes concerned about ploughing (which is good) one wonders if Venutius and Pixie would care to say something now?

After all they have been very silent rencently.

I mean good god what are they doing about the Henges!!

Where have all their campaigning gone???
Do they not care anymore?
What have they been doing?
Too busy?

I MEAN IF THEY CARE SO MUCH WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN DOING??????

See below the article which appeared on stone pages.
---------------------------------------
Source archaeo-news@stonepages.com

Ploughing at Thornborough: a new problem?

TimeWatch have been contacted by locals at Thornborough (North
Yorkshire, England) asking why the central henge has been quarried.
During a recent talk, they were led to believe that the area within
the hedge that surrounds the henges was subject to a land management
deal that meant this area would not be ploughed. However, TimeWatch
can confirm that the area between the hedge and the bank of the
central henge has been ploughed in the last week or so. This is the
area that holds the outer ditch of the central henge and is therefore
part of the nationally important site. TimeWatch contacted English
Heritage regarding this, who said they were looking into the exact
terms of the land management deal.
"It seems odd that Tarmac have allowed this to happen on its
land, especially at a time when the company is keen to point out the
threat to archaeology from ploughing in the area" Said TimeWatch
Chairman, George Chaplin "The farmer had previously argued that it
was important to preserve as much of the henges as possible, this
commitment to the henges must now surely be in doubt. Tarmac have
been very keen to highlight the threat of ploughing at Ladybridge,
yet have made no effort to address this issue on the land it owns and
now it seems ploughing has returned to the henges themselves. I hope
that there is a reasonable explanation for this, but I would have
though English Heritage would have been involved in any decision to
plough this area"
TimeWatch are keen to hear the results of the English Heritage
investigation of this matter.

Source: TimeWatch Press Release (5 April 2005)
Great to se ploughing has finely become an issue for TimeWatch
-----------------------------------------
"ploughed in the last week or so"[?]

What do you mean?? George?? Its been ploughed since the begining of ploughing.

It is a threat isn't it.

So you agree now.

So given that you and your fellow comrades are now moving to an appreciation of the problem of the acceptance of the problems of ploughing, etc ,etc.

How about a totally honest reply (from V and P .. lets pretend George is someone else) to my previous postings?

Or do you Pixie and Venutius wish to contininue to behave like totally dishonest politicians??

Note read my previous postings and note that I wish to save the Henges and protect the area for study arround the Henges and do not want a quarry.

And Note if you start saying stuff which avoids or twists my previous postings, I will immediately point it out

So please reply with honesty.








Arthus

[BAJR Host]

This article has just been recorded by BAJR for podcasting....so ....... the news about the plough damage potentail is going out.

However... It may help people that have come late to this.... exactly what the problem is...

remember the AUP

Another day another WSI?

[freelance]

quote:...TimeWatch can confirm that the area between the hedge and the bank of the central henge has been ploughed in the last week or so.

I went for a walk out there yesterday, and this area has been disked, not ploughed. The turf has been disturbed, apparently for re-seeding, but only the top three or four inches of ground has been disturbed.

[Grubby]

quote:Originally posted by freelance

quote:...TimeWatch can confirm that the area between the hedge and the bank of the central henge has been ploughed in the last week or so.

I went for a walk out there yesterday, and this area has been disked, not ploughed. The turf has been disturbed, apparently for re-seeding, but only the top three or four inches of ground has been disturbed.

All this talk about ploughing and it seems that some people dont know the difference between ploughing and disking. Perhaps it might actually be worth asking the farmer next time before going to the press. I cant see how you can mount a credible campaign without checking the facts. How is anyone going to convince farmers to enter schemes to protect the archaeology when they are publically slated at the first opportunity for legitimately (I presume) breaking the turf!

[BAJR Host]

Thank you for both pointing this out and also saying what is in fact the problem with the 'whole'

People don't ask or tell.... the communication has broken down. Result...



Another day another WSI?

[Grubby]

so the farmer gets slated and everyone walks away. I dont see anyone posting anything on his behalf on the newsblogs. I suppose the headline

"Farmer disks grass for new seeds" doesnt really have the same impact or
"Heritage groups blast farmer for growing grass"

As far as the outside world is concerned the damage has been done and the henges ploughed....

[freelance]

There's a follow up to the plough damage monitoring at Ladybridge:
http://www.archaeologicalplanningconsult...lough.html

[mercenary]

This is fascinating stuff.

I'm a bit worried about the value of fieldwalking in light of these results. Although I was already coming to much the same conclusions as the report.

[garybrun]

quote:Conclusions
The experiment has shown that subsoil deposits are being compromised by the current normal agricultural regime in an area of archaeological potential on Ladybridge Farm. The differential impact of ploughing appears to be related to the depth of soil cover across the field. The experiment has demonstrated that in areas where the ploughsoil cover is around 0.25 metres over 20 millimetres of subsoil deposits have been truncated by a single episode of ploughing. It is clear that if archaeological deposits are present within this area of Ladybridge Farm then they are not in a static state of preservation but are continuing to be eroded and lost without record.

Is this a good argument for bringing in the metal detectorists to help out??

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

quote: It is clear that if archaeological deposits are present within this area of Ladybridge Farm then they are not in a static state of preservation but are continuing to be eroded and lost without record.

Is this a good argument for bringing in the metal detectorists to help out??

Can a metal detectorist record those [u]archaeological deposits </u>from under an opaque level of ploughsoil before they are plouged, or merely recover the metallic component of the debris afterwards? Anyway, at the least if you were only just going for the artefacts, what a "detectorist" would need to do the job properly on this (primarily Neolithic) site would be non-existant 'potsherd detectors' and 'struck flint detectors'. But then, as we keep saying, its not the artefacts alone that is the important thing, but in their context, as is expressed in the Second Aim of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (though Ido not see UKDFD making any reference to it).

Surely the whole point of preservation in situ is to aim for that "static state of preservation" and not merely leave the site to deteriorate or be damaged by increments and merely practice salvage-style reaction to the results. I think the Nosterfield experiments are an interesting contribution to the debate and look forward to more work of this type being done and published as part of trying to work out what to do about situations like this.

Paul Barford