8th June 2005, 01:23 PM
My all,
Firstly let me just say that my general assumption is that all archaeologists do the most professional job they can given the resources available and I agree with what you say - it is the system that is not working.
Having said that, I don't know if you have attended any of the Tarmac meetings but the statements made there, including those by archaeologists have been more than a little suspect - only providing information about features in a way that undermines their importance and exagerates the fragility to ploughing. There have also been a number of features that appear to have gone unexcavated and others that went undated with only a percentage of the feature being excavated - I don't think this is the way to work in this archaeological landscape. Most of the hardcore activists are members of local history and archaeology groups - groups that initially wanted to get involved with the work on site and became suspicious of the secrecy.
The archaeological hinterland of henges is of course not simply the surrounding land, it is a widespread collection of ancient monuments, some of these are now proven to be on Ladybridge. I suggest that any archaeological feature, regardless of its proximity to a major monument is potentially of national importance and I would suggest that a significant number of the features found on Nosterfield Quarry sit high on this count. Our County archaeologist and English Heritage tell me they were not informed of these until after they had been lost - surely an organisation that claims to care about archaeology and makes claims of preserving nationally important archaeology in situ should have in the least contacted both of these agencies to discuss the likely importance of such finds.
It is important to me that most features are destroyed before any specialist reports are delivered - so who is deciding what is nationally important or not? And based on what information?
Ploughing is an interesting one - Area 1 had something like 30% of it's pits to a depth of 1m or more below the plough horizon - I notice this is not something that Tarmac will discuss.
As far as I am concerned we need to stop the threat from quarrying, then we can deal with ploughing, we have 20 years according to Tarmac, I'm certain in that time we can come up with a solution now that we have a significant degree of raised awareness.
Nobody wants to see a total stop to archaeology but the current situation is a mess and it must not continue. We can all go around saying don't blaim me but ultimately someone has to take the bull by the horns do they not?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Firstly let me just say that my general assumption is that all archaeologists do the most professional job they can given the resources available and I agree with what you say - it is the system that is not working.
Having said that, I don't know if you have attended any of the Tarmac meetings but the statements made there, including those by archaeologists have been more than a little suspect - only providing information about features in a way that undermines their importance and exagerates the fragility to ploughing. There have also been a number of features that appear to have gone unexcavated and others that went undated with only a percentage of the feature being excavated - I don't think this is the way to work in this archaeological landscape. Most of the hardcore activists are members of local history and archaeology groups - groups that initially wanted to get involved with the work on site and became suspicious of the secrecy.
The archaeological hinterland of henges is of course not simply the surrounding land, it is a widespread collection of ancient monuments, some of these are now proven to be on Ladybridge. I suggest that any archaeological feature, regardless of its proximity to a major monument is potentially of national importance and I would suggest that a significant number of the features found on Nosterfield Quarry sit high on this count. Our County archaeologist and English Heritage tell me they were not informed of these until after they had been lost - surely an organisation that claims to care about archaeology and makes claims of preserving nationally important archaeology in situ should have in the least contacted both of these agencies to discuss the likely importance of such finds.
It is important to me that most features are destroyed before any specialist reports are delivered - so who is deciding what is nationally important or not? And based on what information?
Ploughing is an interesting one - Area 1 had something like 30% of it's pits to a depth of 1m or more below the plough horizon - I notice this is not something that Tarmac will discuss.
As far as I am concerned we need to stop the threat from quarrying, then we can deal with ploughing, we have 20 years according to Tarmac, I'm certain in that time we can come up with a solution now that we have a significant degree of raised awareness.
Nobody wants to see a total stop to archaeology but the current situation is a mess and it must not continue. We can all go around saying don't blaim me but ultimately someone has to take the bull by the horns do they not?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org