8th November 2005, 06:44 PM
Hi Hugh,
Thanks for pointing that out. This is exactly why we said only Neolithic Archaeology was being looked for. Which I believe was an issue levelled against us.
I believe in trying to predict the archaeological potential of a site, evidence from archaeological work in the surrounding area should be taken into account.
On Nosterfield Quarry, there was found Late BA and Late IA archaeology, the evidence being that the area continued in ritual use long after the Neolithic period.
I suggest that it should be assumed that similar remains are likely to exist on Ladybridge and that these could easily be further north than the Neolithic settlement as there appears to be some relationship with the lake edge. I also suggest that a 2% survey has already been shown to be insufficient to locate features at a location just meters away and that the only major piece of research has also suggested that 2% is insufficient. A point made by English Heritage, but now apparently conceded.
The 75% of the site to the north of the "transition zone" is not receiving any further archaeological attention. Therefore this area remains as being evaluated by 2%. It is this that concerns us - why not confirm that there is no archaeology by revisiting this area?
My understanding is that even the Quarry Products Association code of practice says 2% is a minimum. This is a special site, part of a complex of monuments that up until today I have heard few archaeologists arguing that 2% is sufficient.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thanks for pointing that out. This is exactly why we said only Neolithic Archaeology was being looked for. Which I believe was an issue levelled against us.
I believe in trying to predict the archaeological potential of a site, evidence from archaeological work in the surrounding area should be taken into account.
On Nosterfield Quarry, there was found Late BA and Late IA archaeology, the evidence being that the area continued in ritual use long after the Neolithic period.
I suggest that it should be assumed that similar remains are likely to exist on Ladybridge and that these could easily be further north than the Neolithic settlement as there appears to be some relationship with the lake edge. I also suggest that a 2% survey has already been shown to be insufficient to locate features at a location just meters away and that the only major piece of research has also suggested that 2% is insufficient. A point made by English Heritage, but now apparently conceded.
The 75% of the site to the north of the "transition zone" is not receiving any further archaeological attention. Therefore this area remains as being evaluated by 2%. It is this that concerns us - why not confirm that there is no archaeology by revisiting this area?
My understanding is that even the Quarry Products Association code of practice says 2% is a minimum. This is a special site, part of a complex of monuments that up until today I have heard few archaeologists arguing that 2% is sufficient.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org