For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1870544
Just nosying around Suffolk on Google maps and I came across this:

Image

I am assuming its muck /fertiliser spreading of some description but would like this confirmed or laughed at :D

Rob P
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1870580
They did that to our plot in 2015 before our five new builds were built.

Clipboard lady said if artefacts have previously been discovered within a certain distance (100m from memory) exploration has to take place.

They then came back 3 months later looking for toxic chemicals as there had been a bone mill on the site in nineteenth century.
#1870655
Vampire developers like Banks and Gladman should hang their heads in shame.

They approach land owners and farmers - sometimes relatives who have just been gifted farm land and offer them wild figures if they are allowed to turn it into building land.

We are blighted up here and they are devastating land previously owned by a superb, stoic farmer lady of some reputation. Poor lass will be spinning in her grave....... :twisted:
tr7v8 liked this
#1870760
If they were on the moors I'd say marks from heather burning or mowing to bring on the new growth for birds. Do you lowland dwellers have some equivalent?

I may well be wrong but they don't look like bone digger trenches to me. They are mahoosive marks and if an archaeologist asked me to do so much random speculating I'd tell them to take a hike. On the other hand, some developers don't know what they are doing and take on sites where they let the local council get away with their pointless job creation schemes for otherwise unemployed archaeology (under)graduates.
Sooty25 liked this
#1870787
it would certainly indicate desperation to dig up so much of a field without any previous indication. Sub surface imaging would surely have given them a starting point.
User avatar
By tr7v8
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1870789
eltonioni wrote:If they were on the moors I'd say marks from heather burning or mowing to bring on the new growth for birds. Do you lowland dwellers have some equivalent?

I may well be wrong but they don't look like bone digger trenches to me. They are mahoosive marks and if an archaeologist asked me to do so much random speculating I'd tell them to take a hike. On the other hand, some developers don't know what they are doing and take on sites where they let the local council get away with their pointless job creation schemes for otherwise unemployed archaeology (under)graduates.

This happened at Rochester AIrport with the new development. Archaeologists came in uncontrolled & just run around doing what they wanted. Delayed the project by months & incurred greater costs.
eltonioni liked this
#1870848
eltonioni wrote:If they were on the moors I'd say marks from heather burning or mowing to bring on the new growth for birds. Do you lowland dwellers have some equivalent?

I may well be wrong but they don't look like bone digger trenches to me. They are mahoosive marks and if an archaeologist asked me to do so much random speculating I'd tell them to take a hike. On the other hand, some developers don't know what they are doing and take on sites where they let the local council get away with their pointless job creation schemes for otherwise unemployed archaeology (under)graduates.


Just goes to show how much I know. :lol: Bloor Homes - 210 homes, archaeological investigation.

T
his Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) has been prepared by Archaeology South-East (ASE) on behalf of RPS for an archaeological evaluation at land south of Beyton Road, Thurston, Suffolk (Figure 1; TL 9193 6476).
1.2 The site comprises an irregular parcel of land measuring 7.4ha in extent under arable cultivation located at the southwest fringe of Thurston, near Bury St Edmunds. The site is bound to the north by Beyton Road, to the west by a wooded area, and to the south and east by unnamed road.
1.3 This WSI is for archaeological trial trench evaluation comprising seventy-four 30m x 2m trenches at base (Figure 2). This amounts to a targeted 5% sample of the development area.


From the report to planning, the desktop study revealed no archeology on site and a geophys survey has no indication of archeology. No idea if anything was subsequently found because (as usual) it looks like the report is kept for academic eyes only.

This is the kind of **** we have to put up with and that homebuyers end up paying for.

But, your mystery is solved Rob :?
Rob P liked this
#1870852
Edit, I found the report of the investigation.

Table 1: Quantification of the fieldwork paper archive (evaluation and excavation)

Bulk finds (e.g. 1 bag, 1 box, 0.5 box 0.5 of a box ) <1 box
Registered finds (number of) 0
Flots and environmental remains from bulk samples 5
Palaeoenvironmental specialists samples (e.g. columns, prepared slides) 0
Waterlogged wood 0
Wet sieved environmental remains from bulk samples 0


All that time, money and effort for an 85 page report detailing 68 trenches for the grand total of zero finds. Sodding archaeologists and planners, it's licenced, council sponsored extortion. Don't get me started on Section 106 Agreements.
tr7v8 liked this