Thornborough "debate"

[archae_logical]

quote:Originally posted by Post-Med Potterer
Why is the top-down archaeology of 'great men' inherently more interesting than the bottom-up archaeology of the peasant? Why?

Maybe because it was always 'great men' wannabees that did archaeology years ago and the habit remained. [:p]
Maybe too this is one reason for Ladybridge to be protected. It is a temporary site (how many of these have been found?) which along with other parts of Thornborough may eventually give us more of an insight into what the ordinary people did there.

Mercenary

Would Thornborough have been more interesting if you could have dug the mesolithic pit alignment or the Roman remains they found? How about the 4 horse burial? The Roman wells?
Would we have known about any of these if they had not been brought to our attention by an archaeologist who gave his opinion.
You say of another site 'nobody will get very worked up by its destruction.' I get worked up about all destruction and seek solutions. Unfortunately I seem to be among a very few who are prepared to put their heads above the parapet to try to preserve our heritage from development.

'They are all important, but they all seem to get preserved by record nowadays.'

This is why some of us get so annoyed. Whose heritage is it that they are destroying with just a paper record left. Why should developers wants be given greater consideration than the wants of the local people and those who have other forms of interest in a place? According to all the books I read, Government is there to protect our heritage not sell it to the highest bidder.
As Venutius says the recent archaeological sampling changes nothing at Ladybridge. Even the planning officers say there are good reasons to deny the application without referring to the archaeology. Let us hope the planning committee listen to them.

E
(Have you seen Venutius' convenience )