26th July 2012, 09:48 AM
From the Facebook campaign...
These are the questions that some of the excavation team could never get answers for:
Questions RE: Cherrymount Crannog
Licence number: AE/10/199
SMR: FER 211: 061
Townland name: Drumclay
1. Why was it decided that it would be acceptable to lay a road through an SMR site?
2. Why was the director employed by an engineering company when this is a prima facie conflict of interest and has never occurred before?
3. Why was the test trench which was excavated in early 2011 only c.05m deep?
4. Why was it claimed that the timber observed in that test trench was a ?construction layer??
5. What does the term ?construction layer? refer to given that a crannog is entirely man made?
6. Who was it that decided and why was it decided that it would be sufficient to excavate the habitation layers and merely measure the ?construction layer??
7. Why was the site left exposed for a year and a half before excavation began?
8. Why was the excavation not started sooner?
9. On who?s authority and on what basis was it decided that 4-6 weeks would be sufficient to excavate a crannog?
10. Why and how and by whom were two thirds of the crannog demolished before excavation began?
11. Why were those responsible not charged with the destruction of a national monument?
12. Why was it claimed by the director that the new limits of the site were the original limits?
13. Why was there no excavation methodology or strategy in place when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
14. Why were no timber sheets available to the crew when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
15. Why was there no written record of photographs taken when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
16. Why was there no site camera when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
17. Why was there no context register when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
18. Why was there no sample register when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
19. Why were the crew not allowed to fill in context sheets when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
20. Why was there no level provided on the site for the first two weeks when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
21. Why were no adequate storage facilities provided when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
22. Why were specialists and experts not invited to visit the site when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
23. Why was it decided by the director that only three environmental samples would be taken when this was totally insufficient?
24. Why was almost every layer exposed by the crew claimed to be a ?construction layer? by the director when this was patently not true?
25. Why was there no investigation when a female employee quit because she alleged she was being bullied?
26. Why was an employee fired because that employee sent photographs to a personal blog?
27. Why was a monolith not taken when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
28. Why was a supervisor denied access to the site when she had volunteered to come in at her own expense to take a monolith and deliver it to Queens University Belfast?
29. Why was the excavation concluded even though the excavation had not reached the foundation level?
These are the questions that some of the excavation team could never get answers for:
Questions RE: Cherrymount Crannog
Licence number: AE/10/199
SMR: FER 211: 061
Townland name: Drumclay
1. Why was it decided that it would be acceptable to lay a road through an SMR site?
2. Why was the director employed by an engineering company when this is a prima facie conflict of interest and has never occurred before?
3. Why was the test trench which was excavated in early 2011 only c.05m deep?
4. Why was it claimed that the timber observed in that test trench was a ?construction layer??
5. What does the term ?construction layer? refer to given that a crannog is entirely man made?
6. Who was it that decided and why was it decided that it would be sufficient to excavate the habitation layers and merely measure the ?construction layer??
7. Why was the site left exposed for a year and a half before excavation began?
8. Why was the excavation not started sooner?
9. On who?s authority and on what basis was it decided that 4-6 weeks would be sufficient to excavate a crannog?
10. Why and how and by whom were two thirds of the crannog demolished before excavation began?
11. Why were those responsible not charged with the destruction of a national monument?
12. Why was it claimed by the director that the new limits of the site were the original limits?
13. Why was there no excavation methodology or strategy in place when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
14. Why were no timber sheets available to the crew when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
15. Why was there no written record of photographs taken when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
16. Why was there no site camera when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
17. Why was there no context register when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
18. Why was there no sample register when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
19. Why were the crew not allowed to fill in context sheets when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
20. Why was there no level provided on the site for the first two weeks when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
21. Why were no adequate storage facilities provided when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
22. Why were specialists and experts not invited to visit the site when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
23. Why was it decided by the director that only three environmental samples would be taken when this was totally insufficient?
24. Why was almost every layer exposed by the crew claimed to be a ?construction layer? by the director when this was patently not true?
25. Why was there no investigation when a female employee quit because she alleged she was being bullied?
26. Why was an employee fired because that employee sent photographs to a personal blog?
27. Why was a monolith not taken when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
28. Why was a supervisor denied access to the site when she had volunteered to come in at her own expense to take a monolith and deliver it to Queens University Belfast?
29. Why was the excavation concluded even though the excavation had not reached the foundation level?