4th March 2005, 10:28 PM
I have spent a bit of time tracking down information today.....
I talked to EH today and they have only this day commisioned a consultation... unfortunately.. Tarmac have changed from saying that they will wait for the results of the consultation (March 2004) before even thinking about going into the Moor site... to actually publishing a plan of where they intend to quarry. that is before the consultation is actualy commissioned (a bit previous I guess) it also seems that the 2% strategy is ongoing... though that must be confirmed... 2% nowadays is unacceptable when next to a site such as this. and so I would expect a 10% evaluation followed up with full monitored strippping. - I would however actually oppose quarrying as a county archaeologist on the grounds of the removal of a non renewable heritage resource and the setting of SAMs
Yes Peter I know what you mean about Neo site in Yorkshire... but I must confess I ain't ever seen anything like this before. I hate to say it... but unique and a bit special comes to mind... If we claim we understand the significance, use and evolution of a monumnet that spans 3000 years of use... then... er perhaps stripping and destroying the surrounding area is the best way...
If it is also found that this area was used in the Mesolithic... wellllllllll...... this site will not appear again, and having an isolated henge structure in a landscape that is no longer there (archaeolgoically speaking) I am having trouble dealing with that.
I tend to back EH on this... no quarrying until we actually know what is there - I am sure that Mr Campling would agree that this is an important landscape that requires careful understanding before absolute removal. And Jan Hardings work is part of this understanding.
this is my personal view.. and I would say I need more facts before coming out with a full statement on this.
}
hey we all gotta be careful.!
I talked to EH today and they have only this day commisioned a consultation... unfortunately.. Tarmac have changed from saying that they will wait for the results of the consultation (March 2004) before even thinking about going into the Moor site... to actually publishing a plan of where they intend to quarry. that is before the consultation is actualy commissioned (a bit previous I guess) it also seems that the 2% strategy is ongoing... though that must be confirmed... 2% nowadays is unacceptable when next to a site such as this. and so I would expect a 10% evaluation followed up with full monitored strippping. - I would however actually oppose quarrying as a county archaeologist on the grounds of the removal of a non renewable heritage resource and the setting of SAMs
Yes Peter I know what you mean about Neo site in Yorkshire... but I must confess I ain't ever seen anything like this before. I hate to say it... but unique and a bit special comes to mind... If we claim we understand the significance, use and evolution of a monumnet that spans 3000 years of use... then... er perhaps stripping and destroying the surrounding area is the best way...
If it is also found that this area was used in the Mesolithic... wellllllllll...... this site will not appear again, and having an isolated henge structure in a landscape that is no longer there (archaeolgoically speaking) I am having trouble dealing with that.
I tend to back EH on this... no quarrying until we actually know what is there - I am sure that Mr Campling would agree that this is an important landscape that requires careful understanding before absolute removal. And Jan Hardings work is part of this understanding.
this is my personal view.. and I would say I need more facts before coming out with a full statement on this.
}
hey we all gotta be careful.!