9th November 2005, 08:50 PM
Hi all,
Sorry to come late to the party.
As someone who is involved, I may be too close to see the wood. However, the choices for Thornborough seem to boil down to three options:
a)Preservation by record - The application of some sort of mitigation strategy to Tarmac's planning consent (Warching brief, recording brief or open area excavation - a mixture of the latter two might be appropriate). The work paid for by Tarmac. Peanuts to them.
b) Preservation in situ - Tarmac's application is turned down and the land remains in cultivation. However, as has been shown by the green glass experiment recently conducted on site (http://www.archaeologicalplanningconsult...lough.html), plough damage will continue to destroy the archaeology.
c) The scheduling of the entire landscape around the henges. The Department for Culture Media and Sport do not like to schedule areas, nor is it likely that they would in this case. If they do, it sets a whopping precedent and will cost huge sums to compensate the farmers. Paid for by taxpayers.
Since c) is unlikely to say the least, and b) will only ensure thatn the archaeology is destroyed without being recorded, surely a) is the only option if you consider archaeology to be of value?
"So does your partner have a real job?" Asked of me by an interviewer for a supervisor post at a well known unit not that many years ago...
Sorry to come late to the party.
As someone who is involved, I may be too close to see the wood. However, the choices for Thornborough seem to boil down to three options:
a)Preservation by record - The application of some sort of mitigation strategy to Tarmac's planning consent (Warching brief, recording brief or open area excavation - a mixture of the latter two might be appropriate). The work paid for by Tarmac. Peanuts to them.
b) Preservation in situ - Tarmac's application is turned down and the land remains in cultivation. However, as has been shown by the green glass experiment recently conducted on site (http://www.archaeologicalplanningconsult...lough.html), plough damage will continue to destroy the archaeology.
c) The scheduling of the entire landscape around the henges. The Department for Culture Media and Sport do not like to schedule areas, nor is it likely that they would in this case. If they do, it sets a whopping precedent and will cost huge sums to compensate the farmers. Paid for by taxpayers.
Since c) is unlikely to say the least, and b) will only ensure thatn the archaeology is destroyed without being recorded, surely a) is the only option if you consider archaeology to be of value?
"So does your partner have a real job?" Asked of me by an interviewer for a supervisor post at a well known unit not that many years ago...