24th February 2006, 04:13 PM
Beamo
as I said in last post, putting aside the issue of preservation in situ as a material consideration the fact remains that this archaeology is going to get trashed whether you like it not. My point is this - having highlighted both its importance and vulnerability then surely the people on the ground who campaign in this area and have attracted the support of so many archaeologists will continue to try to save these pits whether they are subject to a planning permission or not.
As you rightly point out there are ways in which they can be secured. Pressuring EH to schedule is one and chasing DEFRA and EH to secure a management agreement with the landowner is another. It seems to me however that if no one is actually going to push for either then you might as well have dug it up and recorded it while you had the chance. Presumably Venetius must know whether the quarry company owns the land or not?
as I said in last post, putting aside the issue of preservation in situ as a material consideration the fact remains that this archaeology is going to get trashed whether you like it not. My point is this - having highlighted both its importance and vulnerability then surely the people on the ground who campaign in this area and have attracted the support of so many archaeologists will continue to try to save these pits whether they are subject to a planning permission or not.
As you rightly point out there are ways in which they can be secured. Pressuring EH to schedule is one and chasing DEFRA and EH to secure a management agreement with the landowner is another. It seems to me however that if no one is actually going to push for either then you might as well have dug it up and recorded it while you had the chance. Presumably Venetius must know whether the quarry company owns the land or not?