12th December 2005, 11:25 AM
Venutius,
What I personally think about the status of the archaeology is not going to make one bit of difference to the outcome. I have been lucky enough to have dug far more substantial and interesting neolithic settlement sites than this one appears to be. The thing that EH seems to be saying is that it is the association with the Henges that makes it nationally important irrespective of the type of archaeological remains. Madness in my opinion.
A hengiform monument and barrow site, in a ritual landscape with a very interesting iron age/Romano British component, that I recently dug is going to reveal much more about prehistoric activity in the region than the Ladybridge pits ever can. Because it is not associated with Thornborough henges it will not be called nationally important by EH and nobody will get very worked up by its destruction. (thankfully at present only by the long slow death of ploughing)
Any objective assessment of the two sites would leave Ladybridge a very distant runner up. A similar example would be the recent Millfield sites. How about the Ferrybridge Henge excavations?
I just don't understand what makes the Thornborough environs more important than the ritual landscapes around some of the other northern henges. They are all important, but they all seem to get preserved by record nowadays. What makes Thornborough different?
What I personally think about the status of the archaeology is not going to make one bit of difference to the outcome. I have been lucky enough to have dug far more substantial and interesting neolithic settlement sites than this one appears to be. The thing that EH seems to be saying is that it is the association with the Henges that makes it nationally important irrespective of the type of archaeological remains. Madness in my opinion.
A hengiform monument and barrow site, in a ritual landscape with a very interesting iron age/Romano British component, that I recently dug is going to reveal much more about prehistoric activity in the region than the Ladybridge pits ever can. Because it is not associated with Thornborough henges it will not be called nationally important by EH and nobody will get very worked up by its destruction. (thankfully at present only by the long slow death of ploughing)
Any objective assessment of the two sites would leave Ladybridge a very distant runner up. A similar example would be the recent Millfield sites. How about the Ferrybridge Henge excavations?
I just don't understand what makes the Thornborough environs more important than the ritual landscapes around some of the other northern henges. They are all important, but they all seem to get preserved by record nowadays. What makes Thornborough different?