5th March 2005, 07:34 PM
I agree that enough sampling to preserve the landscape would be the preffered option... but that does not look like it is going to happen... The land belongs to Tarmac.. the application can be approved with no archaeology if they wanted. the fact is this whole landscape will disappear.. the only question is when - but to suggest there is no arcaheology there with a 2% sample... which then means... off you go and quarry... it does not strike me as all that good.
As I say... perhaps I am wrong, and perhaps Jan Hardings and English Heritages assesment of the area over the past 14 years is wrong as well. It is unique and worthy of protecting... a 2% sample that 'proves' there is nothiing there prior to quarrying away is not protecting or preserving.
As I say - I could be wrong, and Tarmac might go... hold on, we now realise that this is part of a massive ritual landscape that we do not fully understand we will now look for other places to quarry (as is there right and business) - but I suspect they want teh archaeology out the way so they can quarry. We (as the colletive archaeologist) do not get another shot at this ....
I still await some comment from those that can answer some of these questions.
As I say... perhaps I am wrong, and perhaps Jan Hardings and English Heritages assesment of the area over the past 14 years is wrong as well. It is unique and worthy of protecting... a 2% sample that 'proves' there is nothiing there prior to quarrying away is not protecting or preserving.
As I say - I could be wrong, and Tarmac might go... hold on, we now realise that this is part of a massive ritual landscape that we do not fully understand we will now look for other places to quarry (as is there right and business) - but I suspect they want teh archaeology out the way so they can quarry. We (as the colletive archaeologist) do not get another shot at this ....
I still await some comment from those that can answer some of these questions.