Absence of evidence..

The Thornborough Henges 71

Rhiannon May 26, 2005 12:35:24

.. is not necessarily evidence of absence. Or something.
Looking at your news post, Jane
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/37325
Tarmac are saying that not much has been found round about the henges. Well I've just been reading about henges, and isn't it the POINT that around them very little is found. That is to say, people behaved in a different way around and in them - rather like the way you tend not to drop fag ends in a cathedral. When things are found, they are particularly special, because they are special 'satellite' sites around the henge where people (presumably) conducted ceremonies or whatever. I was just reading about Durrington Walls, and south of there archaeologists discovered the 'woodland pits' site containing special items like unused axes, arrowheads, bone pins, marine shells..
Isn't it a fact that you wouldn't expect to find much, apart from at certain spots (which may be difficult to find) - so Tarmac is saying ;ooh there's nothing in this field' and inferring there's nothing anywhere around. But in fact there could be something extra important lurking.
Gah.

goffik May 26, 2005 12:56:11

Replying to Rhiannon

Not sure of the facts myself, but it does seem logical to me... I think the "no fag butts in cathedral" image is accurate!

It's frustrating, though, isn't it? They say it's alright because they've not found anything (I'm sure that's not quite the case though, is it, Tarmac?) but it's still Thornborough fkn Henges, innit?

Just cos, for example, you may not be able to find any archaeological remains at somewhere like, oh, Stonehenge - would that make it acceptable to build a bloody car park there, or something? Eh? If you started quarrying near there, there'd be a right old bloody fuss, I'm sure, even if you couldn't find any bloody bollocking archaeology.

Blimey.

>puff, pant<

G x

Jane May 26, 2005 16:15:11

Replying to Rhiannon

I couldn't believe what I was reading when I posted it!

BrigantesNation May 27, 2005 10:10:25

Replying to Rhiannon

When Time Team went looking for a Saxon graveyard, out 10 trenches covering about 2% of quite a large area, they only found one extra grave. Did they assume that there was not much there? No, they highlighted the fact that they had confirmed the existence of the archaeology they were looking for and suggested that a more extensive survey would uncover a significant number of additional features.

If you think about it, seven pits from a 2% survey means that for all we know there could be another 350 pits in the 98% that was not sampled - does that sound like "no archaeology"?

So, what constitutes a major site when we are talking about the short term camps of those that came to visit the henges? Do we have large short term camps around Stonehenge? I know one was found close to Avebury - what did that look like? Are we happy that we know so little about these short term camps that we are willing to allow Tarmac to consume this one?

I think you will find that camps such as these are extremely rare, this rarity means we know very little about them and it is this factor that Tarmac are trying to exploit. "We can tell you little about it so it can't be important", a bit like cursus monuments.....

Tarmac appear to have quarried both of North Yorkshires Cursuses.........