26th May 2006, 04:29 PM
Mr Host
I find your thread slightly difficult to follow. I think both real job and Mr Barford have hit the nail on the head. The irony is that the archaeology has been preserved in situ only to be slowly eroded away without record where (putting the rights and wrongs of the quarry aside) it would otherwise have been excavated and recorded. Its even more ironic to think that if the archaeology had been less important it would actually have been recorded and the preserved rather than ploughed away.
As to your comment
the creeping destruction is the next problem, and should be dealt with immediately
how are you going to that? All the farmer is doing is making a living doing what he has always done.
The other point is this - a part from recovering even more fragments of flint completely devoid of thier original context and which the recent experiment seems to suggest may have travelled many metres in whatever direction from their point of orign what really is the point of walking the field over and over again? The site has been identified.
As to opposing the quarry - did you oppose the quarry because of the archaeology that would be removed within its limits or did you oppose the quarry because it would put a hole in the ground that would look bad? If it was about preserving the archaeology on the site then real job has made a good point...
I find your thread slightly difficult to follow. I think both real job and Mr Barford have hit the nail on the head. The irony is that the archaeology has been preserved in situ only to be slowly eroded away without record where (putting the rights and wrongs of the quarry aside) it would otherwise have been excavated and recorded. Its even more ironic to think that if the archaeology had been less important it would actually have been recorded and the preserved rather than ploughed away.
As to your comment
the creeping destruction is the next problem, and should be dealt with immediately
how are you going to that? All the farmer is doing is making a living doing what he has always done.
The other point is this - a part from recovering even more fragments of flint completely devoid of thier original context and which the recent experiment seems to suggest may have travelled many metres in whatever direction from their point of orign what really is the point of walking the field over and over again? The site has been identified.
As to opposing the quarry - did you oppose the quarry because of the archaeology that would be removed within its limits or did you oppose the quarry because it would put a hole in the ground that would look bad? If it was about preserving the archaeology on the site then real job has made a good point...