Re: Setting | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

nigelswift Feb 22, 2006 17:37:49

Replying to FourWinds

I think you'd struggle to argue that it does.

True, but at least the contemporary stuff gains wait. At present, Tarmac are taunting EH saying a couple of buckets of flint and pottery from the Northern bit of Ladybridge don't amount to much, whilst EH are saying they interpret it as part of the use of the main monument. Who's right? If EH could claim it was right to adopt a presumption that a thin scatter, being evidence of occupation in connection with a super-henge, was rather important then their case is stronger.

FourWinds Feb 22, 2006 20:51:18

Replying to nigelswift

>> If EH could claim it was right to adopt a presumption that a thin scatter, being evidence of
>> occupation in connection with a super-henge, was rather important then their case is stronger.

Yes it would and they should be doing so if they aren't

BrigantesNation Feb 23, 2006 00:07:38

Replying to nigelswift

For the sake of clarity of understanding I feel I should point out that the "thin scatter" was exactly what all of us to find from a set of trenches positioned so as to be on the very edge of the settlement area.

EH did not design this last excavation to assess the importance of the archaeology - they knew that from the first bit of work. EH wanted to know its extent - which is why they put in such large trenches well away from the core of the settlement.

Tarmac of course have portrayed this as being representative of the site - which is why they were so keen to get people to go round and see there was so little there.

They have also protrayed everybody - EH, NYCC officers and at least one councillor, myself, Dr Jan Harding, the CBA, FoT and no doubt anyone else that values this site as being disonourable.