8th February 2006, 12:58 PM
Thanks for that.... the English Heritage report is nice and clear as well as being unbiased opinion.
as to the FOT statement... we have been in discussion ...
the important thing is the protection of the area around the Henges as well as the Henges themselves, and perhaps the wording of the FOT release gave the wrong impression that the archaeology was deliberately done to destroy evidence and that Neil Campling was somehow part of a council conspiracy, detracted from the main issue. As troll said, this may be because of a failure to explain the ?way things work? in 21st century archaeology (answers on a postcard please!)
Anyway?. With both the CBA and EH placing strong importance on the landscape, it would be an interesting call for NYCC to ignore it. The archaeologists who worked at Ladybridge, IMHO, did a good job, from reading and viewing the site diary?. What is done with the results is a different matter.
More explanation of what archaeology actually is ? perhaps that?s a descent sized BAJR Guide??? Anyone??
Another day another WSI?
as to the FOT statement... we have been in discussion ...
the important thing is the protection of the area around the Henges as well as the Henges themselves, and perhaps the wording of the FOT release gave the wrong impression that the archaeology was deliberately done to destroy evidence and that Neil Campling was somehow part of a council conspiracy, detracted from the main issue. As troll said, this may be because of a failure to explain the ?way things work? in 21st century archaeology (answers on a postcard please!)
Anyway?. With both the CBA and EH placing strong importance on the landscape, it would be an interesting call for NYCC to ignore it. The archaeologists who worked at Ladybridge, IMHO, did a good job, from reading and viewing the site diary?. What is done with the results is a different matter.
More explanation of what archaeology actually is ? perhaps that?s a descent sized BAJR Guide??? Anyone??
Another day another WSI?