19th November 2005, 07:11 PM
New to this method of debate I apologise in advance for writing too much, but the Thornborough Henge Complex and quarry debate raises so many issues.
I wish to sketch out some ?ideal world? solutions, to these issues, fully aware that we don?t live in an ideal world. However, I think one should argue for what should happen even when there appears little chance that it will before adopting a ?fall back position?.
It seems to me that the area around the Henges does contain valuable archaeology, which should continue to be studied and excavated over the coming years.
Therefore, both the quarrying and deep ploughing should be stoped in the area even if it requires legal protection in the form of a new law.
In addition, English Heritage have to stop pretending that they don?t know about the destruction of artefacts by ploughing and admit that preservation in situ is impossible if ploughing continues.
Perhaps English Heritage needs to do less cosy-ing up to farmers (anyone listen to 'farming today, radio 4) and pursuing of badgers (the farmers ?enemy? too!), and actually take a look at how a modern plough compares to a 1960s one. In addition, the boffins at English Heritage might consider a bit of ethnographic research and have a chat with the farmer down the pub!
Then to continue my ?ideal world theme?? then the archaeologists need to acknowledge that the protesters however ignorant about archaeology have had a positive effect by increasing the amount of archaeology done, sample size etc.
And then the protesters need realise that the present dig at Nosterfield (even if one only judges it from its web page) is a neutral and professional operation, as likely to throw up evidence that can support their cause as it might produce evidence which can be used by the Quarry side.
And then we can all get picked up by a herd of flying pink elephants and get taken to a magical land where field archaeologists are millionaires and have heated swimming pools?.
Well, all or part of the above may not happen but it?s nice to dream.
But more seriously.
Pictures from the Nosterfield web site appear to show quite deep features surviving in areas where the 'natural'(the ground below the ploughed soil) is very stoney. I amagine that in the past farmers would avoid wrecking their ploughs on such surfaces. This means that where ever the natural is stoney accross the whole site it has the potential to reveal archaeology. It can be targeted.
But it also means that with modern ploughing methods it won't survive long. To quote from 'A Brief History of The Plough'(Alan Jones) http://www.ploughmen.co.uk/ploughhistory.htm
'... ploughs are longer and heavier today and do not 'jump' over obstacles as in the past - if you were lucky! Modern steels play an important part too, because they have greater resistance to wear and can operate under tougher conditions and at higher speeds without breaking. The old chilled cast iron shares are items of the past and gone forever.'
Food for thought.
Arthus
I wish to sketch out some ?ideal world? solutions, to these issues, fully aware that we don?t live in an ideal world. However, I think one should argue for what should happen even when there appears little chance that it will before adopting a ?fall back position?.
It seems to me that the area around the Henges does contain valuable archaeology, which should continue to be studied and excavated over the coming years.
Therefore, both the quarrying and deep ploughing should be stoped in the area even if it requires legal protection in the form of a new law.
In addition, English Heritage have to stop pretending that they don?t know about the destruction of artefacts by ploughing and admit that preservation in situ is impossible if ploughing continues.
Perhaps English Heritage needs to do less cosy-ing up to farmers (anyone listen to 'farming today, radio 4) and pursuing of badgers (the farmers ?enemy? too!), and actually take a look at how a modern plough compares to a 1960s one. In addition, the boffins at English Heritage might consider a bit of ethnographic research and have a chat with the farmer down the pub!
Then to continue my ?ideal world theme?? then the archaeologists need to acknowledge that the protesters however ignorant about archaeology have had a positive effect by increasing the amount of archaeology done, sample size etc.
And then the protesters need realise that the present dig at Nosterfield (even if one only judges it from its web page) is a neutral and professional operation, as likely to throw up evidence that can support their cause as it might produce evidence which can be used by the Quarry side.
And then we can all get picked up by a herd of flying pink elephants and get taken to a magical land where field archaeologists are millionaires and have heated swimming pools?.
Well, all or part of the above may not happen but it?s nice to dream.
But more seriously.
Pictures from the Nosterfield web site appear to show quite deep features surviving in areas where the 'natural'(the ground below the ploughed soil) is very stoney. I amagine that in the past farmers would avoid wrecking their ploughs on such surfaces. This means that where ever the natural is stoney accross the whole site it has the potential to reveal archaeology. It can be targeted.
But it also means that with modern ploughing methods it won't survive long. To quote from 'A Brief History of The Plough'(Alan Jones) http://www.ploughmen.co.uk/ploughhistory.htm
'... ploughs are longer and heavier today and do not 'jump' over obstacles as in the past - if you were lucky! Modern steels play an important part too, because they have greater resistance to wear and can operate under tougher conditions and at higher speeds without breaking. The old chilled cast iron shares are items of the past and gone forever.'
Food for thought.
Arthus