Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
30th August 2005, 05:12 PM
Every time a superlative is used about Thornborough you increase the chances that the same type of henge hinterland at Dorchester on Thames will be quarried.
David please send me the mit strat.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
30th August 2005, 11:23 PM
First... give us details of the henge ... lets get this one out there!
second... mit stra on its way...
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
1st September 2005, 12:12 AM
I`m liking this a whole lot! Sounds like you grown-ups are showing us whippersnappers how it`s done...I`m definately liking this. I can see a Batman searchlight in the night sky-only i`ts a giant trowel! I can see County Mounties and Consultants rushing down firemen`s poles and dashing to futuristic vehicles whilst strugglin to wear their underpants on the outside. Yep, I`m liking this.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
1st September 2005, 12:01 PM
Pant always worn exterior to tights... learnt that while working in York... people could be very unkind though while I walked the streets
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
1st September 2005, 02:43 PM
"Every time a superlative is used about Thornborough you increase the chances that the same type of henge hinterland at Dorchester on Thames will be quarried."
Why Peter? Surely gravel demand is local. If you are talking of the hinterland I'm thinking of, then it too is of national importance. Surely, a campaign that is trying to stop an archaeological landscape of national importance from being quarried, if successful, would only help similar debates in other regions?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex -
http://www.timewatch.org
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
1st September 2005, 09:14 PM
I have posted at length about the treat to the Dorchester Landscape on Britarch and the Thornborough Websites.
There is a basic issue about the methodologies for dealing with strategic planning for gravel which I have discussed elsewhere.
The basic point is that bad master planning is going to rob us of the hinterland of half of class 2A henges if we are not careful and thus perhaps the chance to ever understand them.
The mitigation strategy is what I would expect in many ways. The consultant working for Tarmac has worked in the area for 30 years. The plough damage argument they use is an interesting one and they have a point.
There are some fundamentals I would disagree with ie the notion that preservation by record, by implication of ASNI, is accepted practice. I think the issue of sustainability is key here and in particular the issue of sustainability as discussed in the EH document.
EH have consultants retained on this project as it is for them ot address these points as I am sure they will. The mit strat does not rubbish the EH statement it suggests that the site is not following the analysis they have previously presented. This may or may not be correct. The system for determining if a site is NI is far from perfect and there are frequent debates about this.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
1st September 2005, 11:02 PM
I'm not sure you've answered the question.
I think we can all agree that the current system is less than perfect but I see no logic in the argument that highlighting that there are sites like Thornborough surrounded by archaeology that needs to be saved in any way puts other similar sites in jeapardy.
Surely what we are fighting for is recognition that sites such as these need special consideration - preservation in situ needs to be a core priority backed off with a high quality research strategy. This cannot be delivered by way of development archaeology and so long as there is gravel to be had elsewhere (as identified within the Minerals Local Plan for example) then ritual landscapes such as these need to be left alone.
Regarding Dorchester, it is a shame that there are no informed people willing to keep us all aware of what is happening. The last I heard the MLP was going to reduce gravel requirements but that was a long time ago. I did offer help to PAGE, and had a meeting with them but afterwards our communications got a bit woolly, then I heard about the MLP and thought it was all sorted. Is this not the case?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex -
http://www.timewatch.org
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd September 2005, 12:37 PM
Dorchester is far from sorted but the current situation is as follows -
8.16. As regards the SBWB area itself, a number of local objections challenged the basis of its selection. English Heritage maintained that this was one of the most significant areas of archaeological remains in the Thames Valley. While not offering a detailed ?ranking? of the candidate areas, EH gave us to understand that SBWB would be far from their first choice for mineral working. Clearly the importance of archaeological assets within this or any other area cannot be known for certain without a detailed assessment, and even then discoveries in the ground may cause any assessment to be reviewed later. There is therefore some risk that, if SBWB is pursued as a strategic resource area, the yield may be compromised by archaeological issues. The County Council argued that the County Archaeologist had confirmed that the SBWB area contains substantial mineral resources that could be worked without affecting archaeological remains of national importance. We have not, however, seen the advice that was given, or what the view was in relation to the other candidate areas.
8.17. One of the arguments to emerge was that, while the County Council had taken as decisive the uncertainty over production levels caused by birdstrike risk and the limited restoration options at WCSM, they had not taken a similar view of the uncertainty caused by the archaeological issues at SBWB.
That is the inspectors have accepted my arguments that the uncertainty and economics means that the Dorchester area is a bad choice for gravel extraction.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
2nd September 2005, 02:18 PM
Peter, I think it was last year that you posted on the Friends of Thornborough list about Dorchester. I think at that time you were making the point that there are other sites of similar importance that are equally under threat.
It was the previous year that I suggested you get involved with the campaign to save Thornborough, If I remember correctly you declined saying you did not like to work with campaign groups and would campaign regarding Thornborough in your own way.
I'm therefore concerned when you say that the campaign to save Thornborough is putting Dorchester under increased threat and I would like to get to a better understanding of your reasoning.
Regarding Dorchester, I'm about to launch a new online magazine called World Heritage Alert! We would welcome an article from yourself regarding the threat to Dorchester.
As you may be aware, I do not believe that any campaign to save a heritage site can work without making as much information available to the public as possible. If Dorchester is under threat but the information available regarding this threat is minimal, its not fair to blame this possible loss on other campaigns that are actively raising awareness.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex -
http://www.timewatch.org
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd September 2005, 08:03 PM
Venutius,
I will make my position clear to you and spell it out. Like most of the people contributing to this forum I am an overworked badly paid archaeologist. I am concerned about the fate of the Yorkshire Henges - a subject very close to my heart.
No I will not be willing to write an article about Dorchester for your magazine unless you pay me. No I will not get actively involved with the various groups - I am too busy trying to earn a living.
EH have highered consultants NYCC have their own archaeologists.
Peter
