Urgent for Thornborough

[troll]

Venutius, Thanks for keeping us all updated-please keep it up. I think the Thornborough issue really illustrates two major themes for me: the often banded about "commandment" saying that preservation in situ is the preferred option-this is rarer than an honest MP. In the world of commercial archaeology it`s an urban myth that is largely ignored. Second, in our little world, "client confidentiality" ignores the opinion of the public at large by denying them the information with which they could (and in my opinion SHOULD) form an opinion. In my view, archaeology as a profession does not belong in a commercial environment-frankly it`s nothing more than a reflection of the state washing it`s hands of responsibility to the voting citizen. Go get `em........

[Venutius]

Thanks Troll,

I think Thornborough is a good example of this but as you indicate, its not the only one. I'm now looking for other good examples.

A strict intepretation of the NYCC Mins Local Plan says this:

1. All nationally important archaeology will be preserved in situ.
2. All locally and regionally important archaeology will either be preserved in situ or recorded.

An interpretation that I think is more likely to be the case is as follows:

1. Nationally important archaeology could be preserved in situ but is more likely to be recorded.

2. Locally and regionally important archaeology can be recorded, but might not be. Most archaeology, even that on nationally important sites, is treated in this way.

This second interpretation is I think contrary to the spirit of PPG16 and also to the letter of the Local Minerals Plan.

Would you agree?

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

[mercenary]

quote:1. Nationally important archaeology could be preserved in situ but is more likely to be recorded.

2. Locally and regionally important archaeology can be recorded, but might not be. Most archaeology, even that on nationally important sites, is treated in this way.

This has been my experience also. But how does the importance (National/Regional/Local) of a site get decided. Very subjective surely, and dependent on research interests of local curator and EH.

Also, the importance of a site cannot be decided without destructive evaluative work. Is that not what is happening at Thornborough at present?

[1man1desk]

Troll/Venutius/Mercenary,

I agree with you in most respects, but I think you may be underestimating the frequency of 'preservation in situ'.

The thing is, most people working on the contracting side of archaeology never get to hear of it when this option is chosen, precisely because it doesn't lead to the commissioning of an archaeological project. It does get into the public domain, but usually only in the form of an Environmental Statement chapter, which isn't exactly wide publicity.

I know of several projects where decisions were made to alter scheme designs or alignments, sometimes in ways that had very big price-tags, in order to avoid nationally-important (or sometimes only regionally-important) archaeological sites.

Two examples:
1. an upgrade-to-motorway road scheme, on which a previously-unknown nationally-important site had been identified. The HA project manager was shown the lie of the land (the site itself being invisible), and he immediately decided to realign his proposed motorway 500m to the east, although this created significant costs and other difficulties.

2. a County Council highway scheme whose route crossed a SAM. The SAM is long and narrow, and there is no way round without trashing an equally-important SSSI. The Council agreed to put in a bridge (price - ?1.5-?2 million) instead of their proposed culvert (price - circa ?100K), completely spanning the monument - all negotiated and agreed with EH.

Just two out of several examples.

Looks like the planners in NYCC may be taking a similar attitude at Thornborough.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Venutius]

You are right in terms of interpretation - It's an issue that I'm surprised is not very high on the agenda for change.

Interpretation of course is also the issue at Ladybridge, something which is playing out right now. I'd suggest that without public pressure, the common interpretation would apply - nothing that is not scheduled is worth saving.

As I indicated, Thornborough is just one example where I think nationally important archaeology is being lost without reference to higher authorities. I'm absolutely certain its not the only one. Hopefully we will not have to go through the pain of another Thornborough to prove the situation is widespread. But if I have to, then so be it (warning shots already fired in DPM's direction).

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

[troll]

Venutius-agreed wholeheartedly. Regardless of what is written as law/codes of practise/guidelines or otherwise-corporate lobbyists usually win the day. 1man1desk-whilst I accept that on rare occasions, preservation in situ is enforced, when you compare "several" known examples of this to the frequencies of day to day fieldwork carried out in the UK where no such thing virtually ever happens, the "several" seem rather insignificant. In the case of Thornborough, I very much doubt that a commercial evaluation will do the site credit. Stonehenge for example, has been explored intrusively for donkies years and if the truth be known, only recent evaluatory endeavours have shown just what a complex and unique environment the area is. I suppose that Tarmac are hoping that ppg driven fieldwork will tip the scales in their favour...why not, ppg has been doing just that for 20 years unchecked. Leave Thornborough alone.Commercial archaeology and the pathetic "laws", guidelines and pseudo legal wrangling that leave loopeholes big enough to drive a million developers through, is just inept, contrived and innapropriate in such a landscape. You may as well just send slime team in..........

[mercenary]

Anyone have any news on the big public meeting today?

[1man1desk]

Troll,

I sympathise entirely on Thornborough. On preservation in situ, though - my 'several' preserved sites of National importance were only ones from my own personal experience.

I'd say that, on schemes that I have personal knowledge of, probably all of the previously-known Nationally-important sites have been preserved in situ, together with around 80-90% of those (very few) discovered during development of the project. However, you have to recognise that most archaeological sites are not of National importance (or else abandon all grading of importance). Sites of lesser importance are usually only preserved in situ if the costs/risks of not doing so (to the developer) are greater than the cost of doing so.

The point of the specific examples I gave was to illustrate the willingness of some developers (both public bodies in these examples) to accept substantial cost or other difficulties on their project to permit preservation in situ. They are human beans, just like us, and not all bad you know!

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[sniper]

it was on the local news earlier, the decision has been deferred apparently, but it didn't say until when.

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[mercenary]

Possibly until all the archaeological evaluations are completed?