2nd March 2006, 11:18 PM
Pixie, You too seem to be assuming much.
This on top of Venutius conjecture that I argue that, ?so long as the developer can show the archaeology is being damaged, then a development should be allowed to go ahead regardless of its importance, (I?d like him to explain how he arrived at this conclusion) as well as his comments that myself and my co-workers have been conducting ?shoddy archaeology? (which he might care to explain also at some point) is rather annoying.
Forgive me if I?m wrong, but there seems to be an assumption that archaeologists employed indirectly via a consultancy firm by the quarry will be in the pocket of Tarmac and not impartial.
You quoted me saying,
"any chance to excavate as much of the archaeology in the area surrounding the Henges should be taken now"
and then you said
?do I need to elaborate??
Yes you do really, since you obviously have not read my very first posting when I said,
?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.? (Posted - 19/11/2005 : 18:11:14)
For the record I believe that a large area around the Henges should be the subject of a long-term study (similar to what is happening around Stonehenge) and that should begin ?now? ie as soon as possible.
And why should this study include excavation? Because we won?t be able to find anything out without it.
And why ?now?? Because the age old human activity of altering the landscape will eventually (and in our speeded up world , sooner rather than later) destroy the remaining archaeology.
You might note that I also suggested careful reading of the evidence gathered in recent archaeological reports (what ever the conclusion of any report) could well help the campaign to save the Henges.
Hence I said, ?the protesters need to 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.? (Posted - 19/11/2005 : 18:11:14)
I think preventing the ploughing should be a high priority for any campaign because the ploughing will destroy the archaeology quickly without any recording.
We cannot know what the future holds, current insane plans to build more and more roads could well continue and pressure on the land is sure to continue not to mention the coming effects of global warming. You only have to look at Australia to see how sheep and cows have destroyed vast tracts of land.
Talk to farmers in Yorkshire to find out how much of the soil is being blown away by the wind each year.
That is why I want the area around the Henges studied and excavated now and believe in situ preservation is a pipe dream.
Now I might be wrong and certainly wouldn?t assume anything, but is it possible that some people who don?t want the quarry are using the unseen and unrecorded archaeology as an argument to stop Tarmac when they don?t want the quarry for other reasons.
Now I don?t want the quarry for these other reasons too, but I think it is dishonest to use the archaeology in this manner.
Therefore if protesters are not giving as great a prominence to the ploughing issue as to the quarry then they are in danger of being a dishonest mirror image of the advocates of quarrying who wish to use the ploughing issue to justify the quarry.
I admit I am not abreast of the tourism proposals, but I have expressed my caution over it because I have seen archaeological sites destroyed by tourism all over the world.
You ask me ?what are you going to do about it??
Well I am arguing my point of view with archaeologist and others whenever I can, I raised the importance of the site at the recent TAG (Theoretical Archaeology Group) conference in Sheffield during a session on Stonehenge, and I recently wrote to the web site Stone Pages to suggest they cover the issue of plough damage in their bulletins.
Frankly after eight hours a day spent digging in frozen soil its about all I can do since at the moment I am also spending whatever spare time I have trying to persuade people to attend the [u]Saturday, March 18th, Bring The Troops Home From Iraq, march in London </u>which I believe is very important too.
I between all this I like to have a laugh, hence my feeble attempts at humour in earlier postings.
But I don?t much like being annoyed by assumptions about my beliefs and you and Ventutius should fully realise that many archaeologists care passionately about the Henges and the potential archaeology surrounding them.
Arthus
This on top of Venutius conjecture that I argue that, ?so long as the developer can show the archaeology is being damaged, then a development should be allowed to go ahead regardless of its importance, (I?d like him to explain how he arrived at this conclusion) as well as his comments that myself and my co-workers have been conducting ?shoddy archaeology? (which he might care to explain also at some point) is rather annoying.
Forgive me if I?m wrong, but there seems to be an assumption that archaeologists employed indirectly via a consultancy firm by the quarry will be in the pocket of Tarmac and not impartial.
You quoted me saying,
"any chance to excavate as much of the archaeology in the area surrounding the Henges should be taken now"
and then you said
?do I need to elaborate??
Yes you do really, since you obviously have not read my very first posting when I said,
?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.? (Posted - 19/11/2005 : 18:11:14)
For the record I believe that a large area around the Henges should be the subject of a long-term study (similar to what is happening around Stonehenge) and that should begin ?now? ie as soon as possible.
And why should this study include excavation? Because we won?t be able to find anything out without it.
And why ?now?? Because the age old human activity of altering the landscape will eventually (and in our speeded up world , sooner rather than later) destroy the remaining archaeology.
You might note that I also suggested careful reading of the evidence gathered in recent archaeological reports (what ever the conclusion of any report) could well help the campaign to save the Henges.
Hence I said, ?the protesters need to 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.? (Posted - 19/11/2005 : 18:11:14)
I think preventing the ploughing should be a high priority for any campaign because the ploughing will destroy the archaeology quickly without any recording.
We cannot know what the future holds, current insane plans to build more and more roads could well continue and pressure on the land is sure to continue not to mention the coming effects of global warming. You only have to look at Australia to see how sheep and cows have destroyed vast tracts of land.
Talk to farmers in Yorkshire to find out how much of the soil is being blown away by the wind each year.
That is why I want the area around the Henges studied and excavated now and believe in situ preservation is a pipe dream.
Now I might be wrong and certainly wouldn?t assume anything, but is it possible that some people who don?t want the quarry are using the unseen and unrecorded archaeology as an argument to stop Tarmac when they don?t want the quarry for other reasons.
Now I don?t want the quarry for these other reasons too, but I think it is dishonest to use the archaeology in this manner.
Therefore if protesters are not giving as great a prominence to the ploughing issue as to the quarry then they are in danger of being a dishonest mirror image of the advocates of quarrying who wish to use the ploughing issue to justify the quarry.
I admit I am not abreast of the tourism proposals, but I have expressed my caution over it because I have seen archaeological sites destroyed by tourism all over the world.
You ask me ?what are you going to do about it??
Well I am arguing my point of view with archaeologist and others whenever I can, I raised the importance of the site at the recent TAG (Theoretical Archaeology Group) conference in Sheffield during a session on Stonehenge, and I recently wrote to the web site Stone Pages to suggest they cover the issue of plough damage in their bulletins.
Frankly after eight hours a day spent digging in frozen soil its about all I can do since at the moment I am also spending whatever spare time I have trying to persuade people to attend the [u]Saturday, March 18th, Bring The Troops Home From Iraq, march in London </u>which I believe is very important too.
I between all this I like to have a laugh, hence my feeble attempts at humour in earlier postings.
But I don?t much like being annoyed by assumptions about my beliefs and you and Ventutius should fully realise that many archaeologists care passionately about the Henges and the potential archaeology surrounding them.
Arthus