21st April 2009, 11:12 AM
Troll
'The vast majority of archaeological assets that fall within the planning regime are destroyed. This is in clear contravention of the tenets of PPG 16.'
Not sure where you are heading with this. PPG16 actually states that all archaeological deposits are finite (Paragraph 6). It also states that where nationally important deposits exist, whether scheduled or not there should be a resumption for preservation in situ. Where deposits of less than national importance exist these can be preserved by record (excavation).
Archaeological recording itself destroys the finite archaeological record and therefore whenever I ask for a condition on a planning application rather than refusing it or going for a foundation change in order to preserve it in situ I am in fact signing its death warrant, or as I put it earlier 'allowing the destruction of the finite resource' When this happens we have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that it is recorded by suitably qualified people.
'It is in fact the Curators if anyone-who "allow" this. Not archaeologists.'
I am a curator? Do you imply by this that curators are not archaeologists!!! I have a degree in archaeology, over a decade of field experience running sites all on top of the years I have spent as a curator and YOU decide that I am not an archaeologist. Arrogant f@*k!!
'Vulpes (on another thread) was kind enough to point out that the PPGs may be in for an overhaul'.
Yes and from the heads up we have been given from sources I shall not mention the new PPS could well remove the concept of preservation in situ of nationally important archaeology.
'The vast majority of archaeological assets that fall within the planning regime are destroyed. This is in clear contravention of the tenets of PPG 16.'
Not sure where you are heading with this. PPG16 actually states that all archaeological deposits are finite (Paragraph 6). It also states that where nationally important deposits exist, whether scheduled or not there should be a resumption for preservation in situ. Where deposits of less than national importance exist these can be preserved by record (excavation).
Archaeological recording itself destroys the finite archaeological record and therefore whenever I ask for a condition on a planning application rather than refusing it or going for a foundation change in order to preserve it in situ I am in fact signing its death warrant, or as I put it earlier 'allowing the destruction of the finite resource' When this happens we have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that it is recorded by suitably qualified people.
'It is in fact the Curators if anyone-who "allow" this. Not archaeologists.'
I am a curator? Do you imply by this that curators are not archaeologists!!! I have a degree in archaeology, over a decade of field experience running sites all on top of the years I have spent as a curator and YOU decide that I am not an archaeologist. Arrogant f@*k!!
'Vulpes (on another thread) was kind enough to point out that the PPGs may be in for an overhaul'.
Yes and from the heads up we have been given from sources I shall not mention the new PPS could well remove the concept of preservation in situ of nationally important archaeology.