Unhenged, undermining thornborough.

[BAJR Host]

What should not be confused... is the moral issue... should Tarmac be allowed to quarry near the Henge... and the legal planning issue... Where Mr Campling is acting within (and in fact IMHO - well within) the requiements set out in the (fair enough wishy washy) PPG16 ... in fact teh ammount of archaeology that has taken place has been in excess of what is normally the case..

Like it or not... archaeology is only on a planning applications conditions through kindness not legal requirement. We... as curators can only advise the council... not force and issue.. the Developer need only fulfil minimum requirements.

So... I can on one hand be appauled at Tarmac and their barely concealed sop to heritage... but on teh other hand can applaud Neil Campling for getting the archaeology done to this standard.

These are not mutually exclusive views.



Another day another WSI?

[mercenary]

I totally agree, and once again we get back to the deeply flawed legal framework under which we work. I personally, and professionally, benefit from this flawed system, but I'm unapologetic. I'd hate all archaeology to be "preserved" in-situ, I want to dig it and add to our stock of knowledge, and the only way I get to is within PPG15 an 16.

As regards Thornborough and any other contentious site( I also worked on "Seahenge" a few years ago) I feel that there's not much point criticising the developers or the contracted archaeologists, or even the planning archaeologists, who are all working within a crappy system. The responsible parties are the government department and their lapdog quango's who won't change a system that allows quarrying of nationally important sites. I'm deeply worried about government claims that it is going to solve the housing crisis among others, by relaxing planning laws. Hmmm...? Which planning restriction is going to bear the brunt of that then? We may soon be looking back at the PPG16 era as "the golden age of UK archaeology".

[Venutius]

My all,

Firstly let me just say that my general assumption is that all archaeologists do the most professional job they can given the resources available and I agree with what you say - it is the system that is not working.

Having said that, I don't know if you have attended any of the Tarmac meetings but the statements made there, including those by archaeologists have been more than a little suspect - only providing information about features in a way that undermines their importance and exagerates the fragility to ploughing. There have also been a number of features that appear to have gone unexcavated and others that went undated with only a percentage of the feature being excavated - I don't think this is the way to work in this archaeological landscape. Most of the hardcore activists are members of local history and archaeology groups - groups that initially wanted to get involved with the work on site and became suspicious of the secrecy.

The archaeological hinterland of henges is of course not simply the surrounding land, it is a widespread collection of ancient monuments, some of these are now proven to be on Ladybridge. I suggest that any archaeological feature, regardless of its proximity to a major monument is potentially of national importance and I would suggest that a significant number of the features found on Nosterfield Quarry sit high on this count. Our County archaeologist and English Heritage tell me they were not informed of these until after they had been lost - surely an organisation that claims to care about archaeology and makes claims of preserving nationally important archaeology in situ should have in the least contacted both of these agencies to discuss the likely importance of such finds.

It is important to me that most features are destroyed before any specialist reports are delivered - so who is deciding what is nationally important or not? And based on what information?

Ploughing is an interesting one - Area 1 had something like 30% of it's pits to a depth of 1m or more below the plough horizon - I notice this is not something that Tarmac will discuss.

As far as I am concerned we need to stop the threat from quarrying, then we can deal with ploughing, we have 20 years according to Tarmac, I'm certain in that time we can come up with a solution now that we have a significant degree of raised awareness.

Nobody wants to see a total stop to archaeology but the current situation is a mess and it must not continue. We can all go around saying don't blaim me but ultimately someone has to take the bull by the horns do they not?


Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org

[mercenary]

I'd should point out that my company has only recently begun work at Ladybridge, and the evaluative work on the consultants website was done by other organiztions. I'm not therefore able to comment on some of the points raised. I've not yet myself been to the site either. I suspect that my views may change when I do.

[troll]

I have to say that I would prefer to preserve in situ as outlined in the IFA guidelines. I am not even remotely reassured when an archaeologist believes that PPG 15/16 are even slightly adequate as a means of "adding to our stock of knowledge". If anything, PPG 16 has done more to distort and muddy the waters of our "knowledge" than Schleiman`s hacking frenzy in Troy. It is bad enough that most archaeology is carried out under commercial conditions-let alone a landscape like Thornborough! Stonehenge has been hit with lots of archaeologists and lots of "schemes" lately in readiness for the road/tunnel thing. Bet any money that the works currently undertaken at Thornborough are miniscule in comparison. It`s the shi*e system. All over the country and every day. I`m currently on a deep-strat urban Roman site and have only yesterday decided on preservation in situ for one area because it is simply too dreamy to dig under commercial pressures. I am not willing to butcher it so, it stays until, some grown-up archaeologists can do it justice in the future. Not sure I like the use of the word "hate" in the context of preservation in situ Mr Mercenary!!! p.s, hope the twin Polo is still purring mate.

[troll]

Sending Tarmac propoganda...sorry, I mean "Neighbourhood News", to Mr Hosty on monday-sorry for delay guys, last few hectic days on site before leggin it off to next one...

[troll]

Just to clarify on a couple of points I made earlier...my decision to preserve in situ two weeks ago was arrived at after consultation with my colleagues (all of us site assistants) who then presented our view to the boss. Luckily, I now work for a unit where communication on site is endemic and decisions can be made jointly! The archaeology in question lay below pile cap depth and time ran out.Hack and slash archaeology (see the thread "two words") aint the way to go. PPG 16 is way overdue for overhaul. I am still amazed that no "grown up" archaeologists (academic prehistorians) have added their voice so far.Why do you think that is?

[the invisible man]

Hmm, not totally convinced about pres-insitu - ok accept you had little choice in this instance, but as a principle it's not always as easy at is seems. Presumably you have seen the structural engineer's drawings in order to know the pile cap levels, but what diameter and at what centres are the piles? Are they driven or bored? In either case, but obviously more so in the case of driven piles, damage is very likely to be caused to the surrounding deposits, and the piles may be as close as 4 or 5 metre centres. Then there's the dynamic loads of construction traffic, and of course service and drainage trenches. Probably the engineering design was done before you did your bit, and the levels may have to be revised if you took lots of dirt away i.e. lowered the existng levels. It's even worse of course with a non-piled building. Finally in years to come, the demolition of the building prior to any hypothetical archaeological excavation may cause further damage.

All in all I'm not convinced that preservation insitu works. Miserable old so-and-so aren't I?

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[BAJR Host]

We (in my curator guise) often take these things into consideration .... so if a foundation is going to be 500mmm deep... we ask for 750mmm deep evaluation... if the client says strip trenching... we ask for 2m wide trenches ... this in our humble opinion mitigates the potential for over enthusiastic building works, and... in the future over enthusiastic demolition... Piles (aprt from being the archaeologist curse) are something of a problem to us all... I remember one site in York, where after months of work, and determination to preserve a fab Roman building standing c. 1 storey high... the piler came in... just nobody had mentioned that the piles were 1.5m wide!! gasp as you watch roman bricks and dust fly inot the back of a tipper truck.... sob as you realise that these nice dots on the plans were the centre of the piles... not the width... But we learn...

Pres in Situ has its place... but I prefer knowing what we have got. And then deciding what to do. However I must remind that PPG is as strong legally as a wet haddock! there can be many many other considerations that blow us out teh water.

In terms of a card game... PPG is the same as holding a duff hand with only one Ace... Development often holds 5 of themB)!





Another day another WSI?

[the invisible man]

Well, a 2m wide strip found won't leave much to be preserved - by definition it is likely to be a traditional structure, and economical spans dictate that the founds will be at quite close centres.

Piles can indeed be a pain in the arse!

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.