The Organisation and Religion to Re-unite All Religions

 

Thornborough Henges

Notes on the Draft Thornborough Henges consultation plan – 6-2-06

Notes on the Draft Thornborough Henges consultation plan – 6-2-06

 

1. Plan Area and zones of concern.

 

The plan does not encompass all the known archaeological remains related to the Thornborough Henges and does not encompass any areas of quarrying either past, present or proposed. In addition, it does not include the landfill site next door to the central henge.

 

In order for the plan to truly manage the heritage site that is the Thornborough Complex it needs as a very minimum to include all of these areas and should ideally encompass the setting of these.

 

Given that there is a petition promoted by TimeWatch and signed by more than 15,000 people asking for a zone of one mile radius around the major monuments to have extra protection from quarrying, and this encompasses the archaeology and immediate setting of the same, it would make sense for this area to be reflected as the management zone of the conservation plan.

 

In addition, it does not include the maintenance of the road that travels between the Central and the Northern Henge , nor the bridleway that passes the southern henge. These are important existing public rights of way that are suffering from neglect in the case of the road, and deliberate obstruction in the case of the bridle way these are important areas of concern that should be addressed by the plan.

 

If one could sum up in one statement the issues that have been central to the concerns raise by the public regarding Thornborough, they could be summarised as follows:

 

1. Quarrying of the landscape surrounding the Thornborough Henges and its impact on the archaeology in this area and it setting, both physical and visual.
2. Proposed future quarrying of the landscape of the Thornborough Henges, especially the extensive Neolithic camp situated on Ladybridge Farm.
3. Proposals to quarry Thornborough Moor which has been put on hold temporarily but are still under threat due to existing ownership and mineral extraction agreements.
4. Impact on the setting of the henges due to past quarrying and in particular the landfill site close to the central henge.
5. Impact on the archaeology of the outer bank and ditch of the henges of the current hedge, which has been planted in places within the ditch. Currently, this impact is minimal but there is a very real need to move this hedge to respect the true extent of the henges.
6. Impact on the archaeology of the surrounding landscape due to continued ploughing from local farmers.
7. Access to the henges and the wider landscape, loss of paths and access-ways due to quarrying, neglect and poor land management. These include access to the henges themselves, poor maintenance and in some cases unlawful loss of public rights of way.

 

Since the plan area excludes the vast majority of these areas, it fails to address the issues that have been the cause of great public concern.

 

Whilst it is fair to say that there are a great many ideas regarding how these issues may be tackled, there is one requirement that has met with widespread support, this is covered by the Thornborough Henges petition, which has received more than 15,000 signatures from a local, national and international public concerned about the devastating impact of quarrying on such an important and large collection of monuments.

 

The wording of the Thornborough Henges petition is as follows:

 

“Declares… It has come to our attention that quarrying activities are destroying important archaeological remains near to the Thornborough Henges, and that current protection for the "ritual landscape" which extends beyond the visible scheduled monuments is inadequate.

The Petitioners .. request ..that all quarrying activities be excluded from within a one mile radius of all the scheduled monuments known as the Thornborough Henges, these include the Central, Southern and Northern Henges , and the Thornborough Cursus.”

 

It is important to note that the conservation plan seems to have shrunk dramatically since the preliminary consultation carried out in 2005. At that time the area proposed was even larger than the one mile radius required by the petition. In fact, the area covered by the plan has shrunk from 16 sq. miles to around 1 sq. mile – just a fraction of the original proposal. It is difficult to explain why this has happened, other then the presence of Tarmac Northern Ltd in a senior position within the consultation group.

 

The proposed conservation area is shown below.

 

 

The blue area shows the area proposed in 2005, the red line shows the current area proposed.

 

The diagram below shows in green the one mile radius protection zone required by the petition.

 

 

 

The conservation plan seems to concern itself entirely with in-situ remains. No reverence is made to setting, or the total extent of the archaeological remains of the Thornborough Complex. Surely any plan to conserve the complex must first identify the full extent of the remains, understand the threats and propose methods of dealing with these.

 

Setting is also important but is very much omitted by the conservation plan. In one place the plan concludes that changes to the henges themselves would have little impact on the setting of the surrounding area. Surely this is inverted logic, the plan should seek to ensure that changes to the surrounding landscape do not adversely affect the setting of the henges?

 

There are numerous references to the important of flint scatters identified by Jan Harding, yet none of the more important scatters identified fall within the plan area.

 

A lay reader could easily get the impression that the plan will seek to preserve all of the flint scatters, not a selected few that happen to fall within the greatly reduced plan area.

 

Even the mortuary enclosure – one of Thornborough’s earliest monuments is omitted from the plan area, yet this actually sits on Thornborough Moor.

 

The plan makes an erroneous assumption that since no Iron Age archaeology has been found in the plan area, there is little known relationship between the henges and the Iron Age. The discovery of the four horse burial and square barrows on Nosterfield quarry has confirmed that Thornborough continued to play an important part in the ritual life of the Iron Age people of the area – the square barrows being of high status and potentially from a visiting tribe. This omission is concerning and illustrates the need for the plan to be driven from an understanding of all of the archaeology of the Thornborough Complex, nit just that within the proposed plan area.

 

There is no mention the hedge that surrounds the central and southern henges – this has been planted on top of the outer ditch of the henges, the outer bank of these henges is therefore being ploughed and the roots of the hedges are likely to be causing damage to the archaeology of the ditches.

 

The quarried portion of the Thornborough Cursus is also omitted and as a result the plan fails to address how to restore this – Thornborough’s first major monument. This means that the first monument in Britain aligned to the constellation Orion is forgotten.

 

This is a significant opportunity missed since it is these quarried areas that could possibly be used for archaeological reconstructive measure in the future.

 

There is also a possible cursus Upsland – potentially a early sign of great significance for Thornborough – three cursuses, prior to the three great henges. This should be referenced within the plan and since this has been a target for a failed quarry application in the past there are significant grounds for this to be included as an extension of the plan area.

 

2. Conservation Aims

 

Because the plan area has been so significantly reduced, there is a significant impact on the overall plan as very few of the issues identified previously have been addressed. As a consequence much of the remainder of the plan is unable to deal with the primary issues at Thornborough and it therefore fails to be relevant for a significant portion of its contents, however, it is still worth commenting on this as even in its greatly reduced form there are concerns regarding how this tiny area is to be conserved.

 

The first comment is that the term “preservation in-situ” seems to have been omitted for much of the plan. This surely should be a prime requirement of any conservation plan for such a major monument. Instead the term “conservation” is used lavishly, but in ways that are open to many interpretations except preservation in-situ.

 

For example, there is much space given to a supposed need for the archaeology of Thornborough to contribute to further study in order for its importance to be established. Surely the area has already proven its importance and due to the dramatic loss of archaeology seen so far, any further deliberate loss of this resource must be strictly controlled and approved by English Heritage. This is especially the case since the methods currently available are failing to provide a reasonable understanding of the extensive collection of archaeology that remain in the ground without wholesale excavation.

 

The plan also invents its own method of ascertaining the importance of the remains and features within the proposed conservation area, these seem to be somewhat dubious, for example the only henge stated as being of undoubted national importance is the northern one.

 

Surely, given the importance of Thornborough, English Heritage should be the prime adjudicator of the importance of any features – the difficulty of interpreting the importance of the archaeology has been clearly demonstrated at Nosterfield Quarry and at Ladybridge Farm. This is a nationally important complex that has great potential for world heritage, it is only right that Britain’s prime authority on heritage should have the final word on importance, instead of making up an unusual methodology that is open to wide interpretation.

 

For example, the Orion connection is regarded as essential, yet at the time of writing it was not proven, and furthermore the cursus, which is the first monument aligned to Orion is not included in the plan.

 

There is also areas of wording that need to be stated more clearly, for example the plan says that whilst all archaeology within the plan area is of national importance, some of it may not be of national importance in its own right. As has been shown at Ladybridge, the archaeology is related to the Henges and the wider complex and thus gains in importance due to proximity and relationship. Therefore there is no need to confuse the plan by saying is the archaeology was found elsewhere it might not be so important.

 

All archaeology with potential to have a relationship with the henges and the wider monument complex should be regarded as nationally important within the plan.

 

The plan area should not be a focus for archaeological work, is must be a focus for preservation in situ – any research should be geared around ensuring continued preservation and not simply for the sake of further research.

 

The importance of the wider visual setting is not referenced within the plan, this again needs to be addressed since there are already proposals to dramatically change this in some areas and any conservation plan for a landscape monument such as Thornborough must take this into account and suggest what would be acceptable.

 

Furthermore, the landscape character of the land within the plan is deemed of having little or no contribution to the character of the area. Surely this is of critical importance since this not only is the physical setting of nationally important archaeology but also it forms the immediate visual setting of the monument complex?

 

Setting is an integral part of any management or conservation plan, without it, the plan will do little to protect this monument and many important aspects of the overall complex will be overlooked by a determination to avoid setting.

 

The consultation appears to have addressed only a small cross section of those concerned with the henges – local people only. There appears to have been little attempt to understand the views of the wider interested community, especially those with a keen interest in ancient heritage. It would be a mistake not to address this, especially since the plan concerns itself so much with the potential of the complex for future tourism.

 

One of the prime stated aims of the plan is conservation and identification of below ground archaeology. This is not appropriate and should be preservation in- sutu of known archaeology and through none intrusive means, identification of currently unknown archaeology with a view to its preservation in-situ.

 

The outer bank for the three henges has not been ploughed out as stated in the plan, it has been flattened but is still detectable and should be given priority regarding its removal from the ploughed areas of Thornborough Moor. Similarly, the outer ditch needs to be protected from the root action of the recently planted hedges.

 

The plan wastes much time worrying about potential impacts of future visitor numbers, when this clearly is not a current issue since there is no public access. It would be preferable for tourism to be addressed in a separate document should it be decided that this would help with the conservation of the area. This way a clear statement of conservation priorities can be given without confusing the plan by looking at various tourism options and impacts.

 

The tourism discussion within the plan appears to undermine much of the ideal conservation priorities, this is largely because the plan area is too small and therefore tourism developments are focussed on virgin archaeological areas that should remain untouched.

 

It is concerning that the plan accepts that Gravel quarrying may take place within the plan area and that this may have a significant impact on the henges but simply suggests the decision is up to the council – it makes no judgement on the issue. Surely the plan should address this significant threat by clearly stating a strong preference for no further quarrying and also that the plan should recommend that it should be used as supplementary guidance for planning officers.

 

The constant use of the term “conserved” regarding the remains is worrying, this term if it is to be used requires further definition as in many contexts it means “digging up”, it would preferable for the plan to use more appropriate terms such as “preservation in-situ” and “restoration” rather than “conservation” and “enhancement”.

 

Comments Conservation Principles:

 

Principal One – should be rewritten to say that all archaeology regarded as critical or important possibly related to the complex must be cared for in a way so as to ensure its long term existence in-situ. This must be the first priority of the conservation plan.

 

Whilst there may be ongoing monitoring and investigation of archaeological remains on a small scale, it needs to be emphasised that the current conservation area is too small to allow significant archaeological research and ensure a long term sustainable resource.

 

Emphasis needs to be on long term preservation in-situ rather than answering a set of questions that current techniques may never be able to answer

 

In addition, principle one needs to address the impact of developments on the setting of the henges – structures may not damage archaeological remains, but they can very easily destroy the setting of the site – especially one with potential astronomical alignments and which a flat landscape as at Thornborough. The Complex is not simply the three henges, it is a collection of monuments, many of which are poorly understood. Changing the landscape character of this area should be avoided.

 

The plan must deter any thought of major development within the plan area – large scale intrusive archaeological investigations must be considered as highly undesirable.

 

Principle Two – This needs to change to: Decision making regarding the plan area needs to be informed by research conducted so far and upon widespread public consultation in advance of serious proposals.

 

Principle Three – The archaeological significance of the monument complex that includes the Thornborough Henges and is partly covered by the plan area should be interpreted and be communicated to a wider audience.

 

Given the lack of access to the site and issues related to parking etc. as previously mentioned, any widespread communication will be to inform a wider public, not to draw visitors.

 

Should in future access be granted, that information related to ensuring best public cooperation with the conservation work will also be made available.

 

The plan should also try to secure public access to the monuments via some form of permissive right of way or other free-access relationship. There should be no head long rush towards creating a major tourist centre, the site should be allowed to develop organically depending on visitor demand, rather than attempting to draw large numbers as would happen if any manned visitor attractions were created.

 

Principle four – there is no need to enhance the landscape character of the plan area, with the exception of the quarried areas which should be restored to the surface levels enjoyed prior to quarrying.

 

There are serious landscape character issues outside of the plan area which are much more significant, these include the aesthetics and odours of the landfill site and the areas that have been affected by quarrying.

 

Principle Five. Habitat enhancement is a controversial issue when used as an excuse to deliver significant changes to the areas surrounding the henges. There is no need to include this remit within the current diminished plan area. Should the plan area be expanded to include quarried areas then this may be a viable option.

 

Principle Six – Habitat creation should take place only where there is minimal impact on the archaeology and setting of the henges.

 

Principle Seven – There should be room for local representation within the conservation plan management team.

 

Principle Seven – what about the huge number of people with a keen interest in history that would form the vast majority of potential visitors? There are large numbers of people who cannot visit Masham at the drop of a hat – many in the local area – there views need much better representation.

 

Tourism Options

 

Option 1 or two are what the site needs now and for most that visit, that would suffice. A further option of having a loyalty box at the car park is overlooked and may have some merit. However, forcing people to pay for car parking will no doubt simply mean the creation of parking problems elsewhere. This is a significant site, however, one can think of similarly significant earthworks elsewhere that have very little need for parking.

 

Of course any proposals to open the henges up to the public will change things, and the plan will need to ensure that it maintains conservation as its key theme – this may mean ensuring the site is not overwhelmed with visitors.

 

If the plan had covered the true extent of the monument complex at Thornborough, then such an issue could have been dealt with by (1) reinstating the quarried out section of the Thornborough Cursus, and (2) providing parking in the quarried out area close to the River Ure. Whilst there are issues relating to vehicular access, these are not insurmountable and using this area as a development focus means there will be no impact on the archaeology of the henges, and there is potential for parking to share access to the Ure riverside and other heritage remains in that area that could be used to create a low key visitor corridor, with a “ritual walkway” that led from the henges to the River Ure and West Tanfield.

Copyright Ancient Europe 2002

ORRAR wishes to thank George at Ancient Europe for allowing us the use of the above material.  Please do not copy this material unless you ask permission first from Ancient Europe