8th November 2005, 07:36 PM
Venutius, in answer to some of the objections made by Timewatch on their website, and by yourself on this message board regarding the Ladybridge Methodology:
?Does not satisfy the 8-10% sample required by the campaign groups and English Heritage.
The area sampled may not satisfy the requirements of campaign groups, but English Heritage have now agreed that the 6% investigated to date has successfully characterised the archaeology of Ladybridge. Increasing the sample area, as I suggested before, is pointless if EH have agreed the archaeology has been characterised, and would simply result in further destruction.
?Focuses on a tiny portion of the site and as such risks damaging an area of known archaeological importance.
This is true, the work has focussed on what was thought to be the very edge of the transition zone; further south and it may have resulted in the unnecessary destruction of more potential features, further north and it would probably not have added anything to our current knowledge. The area of the current trenches was not one of ?known? archaeological importance ? only three datable prehistoric features had been encountered in the FAS evaluation.
?Fails to test for archaeology in more than 75% of the site.
See above, and also my previous post regarding association and value, and why the potential prehistoric activity was targeted.
?Fails to provide wet weather cover for the exposed topsoil meaning there is every chance of archaeology being missed.
Almost all archaeological work is done in the open, even on research projects. If conditions are too wet we simply don?t go onto the site, as walking over the features would result in their erosion. I?ve never come across a rural project that provided wet weather cover, though I?m not sure if other work in the area, such as Jan Harding?s research project, did do so.
?Fails to ensure the constant supervision of an outside group of archaeologists who have no vested interest in the outcome.
See the minutes of the monitoring meetings, held every Friday on site and attended by representatives of English Heritage, NYCC, Tarmac, OSA and MG&A. I believe both Jan Harding and the CBA were invited to attend, but the CBA declined on the basis that there was already a sufficient presence of independent monitors.
?Fails to ensure the topsoil is hand dug and screened, instead heavy equipment is used and any archaeology in the topsoil is ignored.
Again, very few projects, even those research projects run by organisations such as the Landscape Research Centre, who have been funded by English Heritage over a number of years and who three-dimensionally record every artefact they excavate, search the topsoil for artefacts. The use of heavy machinery on projects such as this is almost universal.
Don?t forget that the interpretation of the site is not only based on trial trenches. Cropmark evidence has been looked at, geophysical prospection has taken place, and fieldwalking has been undertaken, all of which contribute to overall evaluation of potential.
Personally I think its fair to say that the methodology is perfectly adequate, and that the work has been carried out to high standards and as transparently as is possible. I'm glad to hear that some other professional archaeologists agree. There may be any number of valid objections to quarrying at Ladybridge, but, at least in the northern 75% of the site, archaeological potential is simply not one of them. Surely its time that objections to the way the work is being carried out are laid to rest.
?Does not satisfy the 8-10% sample required by the campaign groups and English Heritage.
The area sampled may not satisfy the requirements of campaign groups, but English Heritage have now agreed that the 6% investigated to date has successfully characterised the archaeology of Ladybridge. Increasing the sample area, as I suggested before, is pointless if EH have agreed the archaeology has been characterised, and would simply result in further destruction.
?Focuses on a tiny portion of the site and as such risks damaging an area of known archaeological importance.
This is true, the work has focussed on what was thought to be the very edge of the transition zone; further south and it may have resulted in the unnecessary destruction of more potential features, further north and it would probably not have added anything to our current knowledge. The area of the current trenches was not one of ?known? archaeological importance ? only three datable prehistoric features had been encountered in the FAS evaluation.
?Fails to test for archaeology in more than 75% of the site.
See above, and also my previous post regarding association and value, and why the potential prehistoric activity was targeted.
?Fails to provide wet weather cover for the exposed topsoil meaning there is every chance of archaeology being missed.
Almost all archaeological work is done in the open, even on research projects. If conditions are too wet we simply don?t go onto the site, as walking over the features would result in their erosion. I?ve never come across a rural project that provided wet weather cover, though I?m not sure if other work in the area, such as Jan Harding?s research project, did do so.
?Fails to ensure the constant supervision of an outside group of archaeologists who have no vested interest in the outcome.
See the minutes of the monitoring meetings, held every Friday on site and attended by representatives of English Heritage, NYCC, Tarmac, OSA and MG&A. I believe both Jan Harding and the CBA were invited to attend, but the CBA declined on the basis that there was already a sufficient presence of independent monitors.
?Fails to ensure the topsoil is hand dug and screened, instead heavy equipment is used and any archaeology in the topsoil is ignored.
Again, very few projects, even those research projects run by organisations such as the Landscape Research Centre, who have been funded by English Heritage over a number of years and who three-dimensionally record every artefact they excavate, search the topsoil for artefacts. The use of heavy machinery on projects such as this is almost universal.
Don?t forget that the interpretation of the site is not only based on trial trenches. Cropmark evidence has been looked at, geophysical prospection has taken place, and fieldwalking has been undertaken, all of which contribute to overall evaluation of potential.
Personally I think its fair to say that the methodology is perfectly adequate, and that the work has been carried out to high standards and as transparently as is possible. I'm glad to hear that some other professional archaeologists agree. There may be any number of valid objections to quarrying at Ladybridge, but, at least in the northern 75% of the site, archaeological potential is simply not one of them. Surely its time that objections to the way the work is being carried out are laid to rest.