Palaeolithic/Pleistocene

[achingknees]

Any of you working in sand/gravel quarries where there is some provision for recording/sampling finds and deposits of this period? Looks to me that most PPG16 conditions seem restricted to the later period archaeology.

[Cautionary Tale]

Worked on two in the last few years, though PPG16 had very little to do with the projects (S106 employed to good use). Not directly involved in either presently, but can point you in the right direction off list if you need up to date info.

Of the Clan Sutton

[mercenary]

Only ever seen it in a brief once, but we ended up investigating the gravel horizon very little due to the unfortunate existence of an unknown LBA settlement on top!

[beamo]

This can lead into a debate that I have had on a number of occasions regarding the application (or not) of PPG16 to sand or gravel quarries where there is the potential for the recovery of redeposited Palaeolithic material but not for any in situ material. Similarly, if there is the potential to recover palaeoenvironmental information but not artefacts or any evidence of human activity, can this be conditioned within PPG16 ?


Beamo

[Weegie]

Achingknees,

It can of course be very difficult to detect surface archaeological remains on gravel, depending on depth of alluvium and other factors - hence problems such as mercenary's unknown LBA settlement. However, it is far more difficult to evaluate the potential for Palaeoloithic material; nearly all of this is redeposited in gravel deposits, with only a handful of cases of primary deposition such as the mammoth butchery site at Lynford in Norfolk. Quarrying is usually the only way that finds of such material, primary and secondary, are ever found at all on dry land, but, of course, only as the deposits are being destroyed.

Add to this the overlapping responsibilities of English Heritage for Quaternary Archaeology and English Nature for Quaternary Geology and we have a big problem area. EN can and have funded excavations of Quaternary remains, such as the woolly rhino from Whitemoor Haye quarry in Staffordshire.

The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund has allowed EH and EN to fund a lot of research in this area, which is looking at a wide range of subjects including better detection and prediction of near-surface archaeology (in major river systems such as the Trent). There has also been a lot of research on the potential of primary and secondary Palaeolithic remains within gravels, including better means of predicting survival and determining potential. Lastly, there has also been a move to create a National Ice Age Network to improve the reporting of finds from quarrying and to provide resources for the archaeological and geological groups that have traditionally been involved in the discovery and reporting of such material. There is a good website for this at http://www.iceage.bham.ac.uk/home.html

To get back to your original question, when I was involved with the ALSF a couple of years ago I was aware of only one case where a PPG 16 condition had been applied to Palaeolithic remains from quarrying, and that was a very occasional watching brief, where an archaeologist went to see what had turned up during quarrying. Not very satisfactory, but better than nothing. It will take some time for the research that is being done to influence planning controls, but it is encouraging that local government archaeologists are involved in most of these projects and leading some of them.

Weegie

[achingknees]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary

Only ever seen it in a brief once, but we ended up investigating the gravel horizon very little due to the unfortunate existence of an unknown LBA settlement on top!

Are you saying that the LBA site was preserved so that the gravel was not quarried? Or do you mean that resources were directed to the LBA site and the gravel left to the quarrying?

[achingknees]

Weegie

Try this for the Ice Age Network...

http://www.iceage.org.uk/

[8D]

[Weegie]

Thanks Achingknees, not least for illustrating the dangers of an uncritical use of Google....[:I]

Weegie

[mercenary]

quote:Are you saying that the LBA site was preserved so that the gravel was not quarried? Or do you mean that resources were directed to the LBA site and the gravel left to the quarrying?

Wasn't a quarry site. The LBA site took precedence and was excavated, and the, in my opinion, long shot that there was anything in the gravel was abandoned by the curator. I think he was pleased that a speculative evaluation looking for Palaeolithic material panned out, just not in the period he was expecting. It is unclear whether potential Palaeolithic material was removed by the development, which was urban commercial. Maybe, maybe not.

[achingknees]

"Wasn't a quarry site."

Please see my original question [:o)]