Thornborough "debate"

[Hugh]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
It is interesting to see just how complicated archaeology has become now, with judgement calls and methodologies that are no longer fully transparent to the 'non archaeological' observer. Is this a failing in archaeologists or the system they inhabit?

Probably a bit of both, if it is a problem. Maybe the summaries could be more easily understood, but it is difficult to understand what non-professionals can grasp when it has been so long since many of us have been in that position.

quote:The Thornbourough 'debate' is really on two levels..
1) should a monument such as this and the landscape it inhabits be under the threat of total quarrying (though I would be 99.9% sure the Henges will never be subject to this) without full record. As the areas which are requested for quarrying will be 100% removed it could be argued that we must recover 100% archaeology. (and we can't forget that this phase of archaeological investigation is due to pressure and refusal of application in the first place - correct me if I am wrong here)

But surely the groundworks associated with most modern industrial uses also obliterate 100% of the archaeology (at least if it's less than 2m down), and I doubt most of us curators would get 100% samples on those sites. Also would a 100% sample tell you anything more?
On another point, surely the long term watching brief applied to the Nosterfield Quarry would recover samples of most of the archaeology, and there will probably be a similar programme for this area.

quote: 2) the ability of archaeological organisations to interpret the same data in different ways and also be unable to explain clearly to the public why they are doing something like that. For example..... artefact retrieval from topsoil... (often this is argued by detectorists - and rightly so in my opinion - that why oh why if they detect artefacts from the topsoil and archaeologists never look at it anyway... they get so bothered about detectorists who detect the topsoil.) Has anyone thought to explain... I would love to hear myself.... why topsoil artefacts are not recovered... or why we don't use handtools but JCBs... and how that is just as good.

Personally I don't mind detectorists detecting in the topsoil, what I do mind is the fact that almost none of the PA finds in my area have grid references, making them next to useless. With a grid reference, even 6 figure, we could make more accurate settlement maps. Several of my Parishes have over 50 finds; did they come from the same field? in which case which field? Sorry should leave this for another thread.
Topsoil artefacts are rarely recorded as they cannot be guaranteed to have come from the underlying deposits.
Mechanical diggers are used so that we don't spend half the time stripping topsoil for relatively little gain (see above statement).
etc etc etc.

quote: I sure we could explain it... but has anyone actually done it before.?? A new BAJR guide could be useful...

perhaps called...." But I thought you used toothbrushes..." )

So... a) any takers to write a guide to modern archaeology practices?
and b) It may be a well dug site... buts let not forget the end purpose... to clear the way for Tarmac to quarry next to the Thornborough Henges..

I would be willing to contribute, but don't think for a second that I could write the whole thing.
It is a shame that these areas are being quarried, but it gives a chance to excavate and understand a previously unknown archaeological landscape that would otherwise be slowly destroyed by ploughing, without us even realising.

BTW I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I'm probably wrong on a few points