The Thornborough Henges forum 71 room
Image by Steve Gray
The Thornborough Henges

Thornborough on the Beeb

close
more_vert
BrigantesNation B
BrigantesNation Feb 11, 2006 12:46:10
Replying to nigelswift

English Heritage have already confirmed 75% of the site does not have nationally important archaeology. Given that no further work have been carried out in this area and Tarmac are saying that the evaporation process for the glacial lake apparently went on hold for 3,000 years I find this assumption rather dubious.

However, the argument is at last getting to the core of the issue - as you rightly suggest - what do we regard as setting?

The settlement on Ladybridge is very likely to be the largest discovered in Britain - Larger even than the one announced at Millfield the other week. This is the archaeology that covers 25% of Ladybridge. I expect Tarmac to say they will not quarry the deposits, but will quarry the rest on the site.

How does this affect the setting? I suggest that setting for such a large structure must include a significant part of its landscape - after all, how would we apply the term setting to the Thornborough Henges themselves? I think most would agree that us ordinary people regard the setting of a henge to cover at least a 100m radius of the structure and when you get to a site such as Thornborough, several hundred meters at least.

But, how do English Heritage interpret setting? Is it hundreds of meters or nothing at all, which I think Tarmac will suggest - purely the land holding the archaeology.

Maybe we should send some letters to EH asking for clarification of this point? I think it has a big impact on a lot of sites.

N nigelswift
nigelswift Feb 11, 2006 13:45:29
Replying to BrigantesNation

"But, how do English Heritage interpret setting? Is it hundreds of meters or nothing at all, which I think Tarmac will suggest - purely the land holding the archaeology."

As I think I've mentioned before, in the minutes of EH's meeting a year or two ago there is a clear record in the discussion about Thornborough of the Commission specifically directing that their officials should develop a viable definition of setting. If they have done so, it's there for the asking.

Even if it's a work in hand I would contend that such an important definition should be arrived at by reference to ALL ancient sites, not just one, since it will in future be of universal significance and could affect hundreds of heritage matters. In addition, such an important matter should be open for all to comment upon I suppose but the greatest influence on it ought to come from the professionals in archaeology, planning and EH in particular.

If we hear a quarrying company or even their professional advisors, taking upon themselves more than a very small expression of opinion on this matter, or in any way claiming they should have an input into it that's equivalent to EH's, it'll be cause for great complaint.

If the whole issue has come down to this single clear issue George, a simple yes/no, you are due for universal admiration, whatever happens. You've been accused of all sorts elsewhere, including misleading the public. Let those critics now show their colours - what do THEY reckon constitutes a setting? A blind man in a cellar would know the whole of the Ladybridge site is part of Thornborough's setting. Let them stand up and say otherwise if they dare!