To excavate or not to excavate…….

Merlin old bud,

I’m not the man i was so may need at least one dinner break if it goes ahead. :p

it looks like the CA doesn’t have as much control over me as first thought fighterace :diablo:

Hopefully, fingers crossed we can all work togethor and make it a success for all.

Good points

i think his huge email he sent when i gained a point of contact threw me, he basically thought the aircraft was nothing special 😮 and nothing new was to gain so thought it should stay where it was.

Im going down another avenue so he can maybe understand my perspective to dig it up, but points of “you only get one go and needs to be done properly” i must agree with him.

From my understanding of the PMA 1986 as amended, this does not include requiring any county archeologist, i think this is what known as greasing the wheels in goverment departments as its only in the “Guidance Notes for recovery groups”. All the licencee has to do with regards to the act is to complete a returns form for the MOD and any other requests.

I have delt with sereral who are very accomerdating, however there is always one who thinks he running the show. My advise If you are up against it with regards to the project design/reports contact the MOD and ask your position with the licence you may find a happy outcome

Thinking of professional archaeologists at work….my favourite Time Team was the dig to recover Paul Klipsch’s Spitfire. And that took three days with not a spoon in sight. Best of luck with the project….eagerly awaiting more info.

Yes there was. The rather large spoon painted yellow that they like to disguse as a JCB.:D

And as usual if Neil is true to form he will dig a hole with a spade that any JCB driver would be proud of.

After all he is a human JCB.

Isnt that right Neil.

Thinking of professional archaeologists at work….my favourite Time Team was the dig to recover Paul Klipsch’s Spitfire. And that took three days with not a spoon in sight. Best of luck with the project….eagerly awaiting more info.

Out of interest; would the county archaeologist have any input if you just wanted to dig a hole 20x20x20ft that DID NOT contain the remains of a Hawker Tempest? (Or whatever)

Can’t speak for the UK – sorry – but I had to do exactly that to install a fosse tous eaux and the only people I had to satisfy – in France – were the representative of the local water authority and the river technician – and they were only interested in what I put in the hole. Oh, and just in case I get accused of thread keep, I didn’t find any Tempest remains or anything else in the hole!

Cheers Ian

We have had some pretty strong readings to indicate a sizeable chunk is under ground.

Im expecting a representative to be there when the time comes, fingers crossed. Ive been in doubt for a while about the excavation and insurance issues but i think if all parties concerned are up for it, i dont mind doing all the digging! 😀

Hello Neil, I’ve had quite a few dealings with county archaeologists and so far they have all been very reasonable. They want to know what is going on in ‘their’ area and would like to be informed of what is discovered. A couple have been keen to attend digs or to send a represesentative. If you have been granted a licence the MoD will already have contacted the archaeologist to ensure the site does not interfere with historic remains. A Spit near St Athan came down in the same field as a Bronze age burial site. A watching brief was carried out to ensure the JCB did no extra damage than the crash had caused. If you have a problem with your statement of intent there should be an address on your licence for the Defence estates archaeologist. He is happy to help with this.
I hope there is some Tempest there to find!

I think youv’e answered your own question “what is wrong with keeping onboard with the archaeologists! with “guess whos paying”.

A friend of mine had to fork out £20k for them to tell him there was nothing of interest where he was siting his new barn, and when he mentioned that he would need an access road, there were mass bookings at Thomas Cook ; another holliday paid for…..

He should stand for Parliament he could claim it back in expenses 😀

That thread function you showed me works great Stuart 😉 aaaaahhh bliss:D

Yes probably!
A lot of work sites (from small digs to building sites) attract the attention of an archeoligist group and sometimes a conservation group.
St Athan is under redevelopment at the moment and there are archeoligists up the ying yang – guess whos paying aswel?!

I really don’t see the problem here, what is wrong with keeping on board with the archeoligists, they do the same thing and have the same interests and it dosen’t sound difficult to keep them informed and write some reports. If anything surely that must add some interest to the whole project, rather than raise unwantd suspicions of ‘gold digging’ etc.

I think youv’e answered your own question “what is wrong with keeping onboard with the archaeologists! with “guess whos paying”.

A friend of mine had to fork out £20k for them to tell him there was nothing of interest where he was siting his new barn, and when he mentioned that he would need an access road, there were mass bookings at Thomas Cook ; another holliday paid for…..

I think if anything the CA will keep me or anybody else in this situation on the straight and narrow.

If i put together a decent plan then the CA wont have much to complain. ive already stated today that i will be carrying out stage one, the field walk and will deliberate after each phase on whether i will continue to the next step.

Out of interest; would the county archaeologist have any input if you just wanted to dig a hole 20x20x20ft that DID NOT contain the remains of a Hawker Tempest? (Or whatever)

Yes probably!
A lot of work sites (from small digs to building sites) attract the attention of an archeoligist group and sometimes a conservation group.
St Athan is under redevelopment at the moment and there are archeoligists up the ying yang – guess whos paying aswel?!

I really don’t see the problem here, what is wrong with keeping on board with the archeoligists, they do the same thing and have the same interests and it dosen’t sound difficult to keep them informed and write some reports. If anything surely that must add some interest to the whole project, rather than raise unwantd suspicions of ‘gold digging’ etc.

No matter you experience over the last 20? years, this comment shows a breathtaking arrogance.

OR 20 years of breathtaking arrogance on the part of “the professionals”?

I feel that we are getting alittle carried away with the requirements of the MoD/County archaeologist (CA)…..

the reason we now need to contact them is because they need to know what is going on and where just in case they have anything to offer or disagree with. They have an interest so it is also to inform them. But remember, it is like building an extension, a neighbour can object but if they do not have reasonable grounds to do so then it carries no weight. I believe it is sensible to have to include the CA so that we dont dig a hole right in the middle of something important. This is just like the procedure for digging foundations for a big building…if it interferes with a known site of archaelogical importance, the CA may wish for archaeology to be done.

I wrote my project definition, sent it off, followed it up with a phone call and ticked that box.

It is though (with due respect to the CA) not the CA’s remit to decide whether an aircraft site is historic/worthy or whatever. The fact that someone died in the aircraft doing his duty and the fact that you are doing something to remember him is reason enough.

Regarding your Hadrian wall digs, I am sure that you could even make a case to explore them with the necessary archaeological CA support (just like they do in any big city where even significant archaeological sites wont stop building like Canary Wharf or a big car park).
Neil, your dig sounds fantastic and a chat with the chap, even possibly at the site would show how serious you are. Only my suggestion as ever….

Out of interest; would the county archaeologist have any input if you just wanted to dig a hole 20x20x20ft that DID NOT contain the remains of a Hawker Tempest? (Or whatever)

What an interesting point!

Out of interest; would the county archaeologist have any input if you just wanted to dig a hole 20x20x20ft that DID NOT contain the remains of a Hawker Tempest? (Or whatever)

[QUOTE=pagen01;1406795]There weren’t any, thats why the post seems to be the general anti lets do everything by the book brigade.QUOTE]

Slip of the mouse,

Sorted:D

To answer your question recover that Tempest as (from our point of view) it’s a rare and interesting type sadly lacking in many museum collections.
Cheers

Cees

Well it is not intended as such, thanks to the emoticons.;)
Cees

There weren’t any, thats why the post seems to be the general anti lets do everything by the book brigade.

Neil, I think whether you dig up this wreck is entirely down to you. No amount of comments here can change whether you think this Tempest is worth your time, effort and money to raise it, and what you may do with it afterwards.
I would definately keep the archeoligist on side, I would imagine he knows what he is doing and that he would be genuinely interested in any dig in ‘his’ area.
That said it dosen’t mean that his non understanding of your interest in this site should influence your final descision as to if you dig or not – just treat it respectably and professionaly.
It sounds to me like you are doing what yu can to do this the right way, to have contacted and maintained contact with archeoligist.

No matter you experience over the last 20? years, this comment shows a breathtaking arrogance.

Well it is not intended as such, thanks to the emoticons.;)

Cees

Good points

i think his huge email he sent when i gained a point of contact threw me, he basically thought the aircraft was nothing special 😮 and nothing new was to gain so thought it should stay where it was.

Im going down another avenue so he can maybe understand my perspective to dig it up, but points of “you only get one go and needs to be done properly” i must agree with him.