8th November 2005, 02:22 PM
Its refreshing to see a bit of informed debate on this topic, as I?ve also been quite disappointed by some of the insinuations made regarding the fieldwork at Ladybridge.
As a freelancer who?s worked with FAS, OSA, and MG&A I?m fully aware of the standards that these companies maintain, and having visited the site on a number of occasions I fail to see how the current work at Ladybridge could be made any more transparent.
Regarding accusations that the current work is only focusing on prehistoric remains, there?s a very simple answer. The archaeology at Ladybridge is not particularly inspiring, and what exists has been severely truncated (see the article on plough damage on the APC web site). If the remains were anywhere else they would hardly warrant a mention, but English Heritage is arguing that it is the association with the henges that gives them value. Aside from the fact that there is currently insufficient dating evidence from both Ladybridge and the henges to prove an association, except in the broadest terms, it is inevitable that the investigations will focus on features thought to be contemporary with the henges.
People are entitled to oppose the quarry extension for various reasons, but in my opinion the potential archaeology on the site is not one of them. Even English Heritage have stated that the current research has successfully characterised the archaeology of the area, and that 75% of the Ladybridge site holds no archaeology of significant interest.
As a freelancer who?s worked with FAS, OSA, and MG&A I?m fully aware of the standards that these companies maintain, and having visited the site on a number of occasions I fail to see how the current work at Ladybridge could be made any more transparent.
Regarding accusations that the current work is only focusing on prehistoric remains, there?s a very simple answer. The archaeology at Ladybridge is not particularly inspiring, and what exists has been severely truncated (see the article on plough damage on the APC web site). If the remains were anywhere else they would hardly warrant a mention, but English Heritage is arguing that it is the association with the henges that gives them value. Aside from the fact that there is currently insufficient dating evidence from both Ladybridge and the henges to prove an association, except in the broadest terms, it is inevitable that the investigations will focus on features thought to be contemporary with the henges.
People are entitled to oppose the quarry extension for various reasons, but in my opinion the potential archaeology on the site is not one of them. Even English Heritage have stated that the current research has successfully characterised the archaeology of the area, and that 75% of the Ladybridge site holds no archaeology of significant interest.