30th April 2007, 03:07 PM
There was an NAU PO (who was an assistant PO at the time)on site at all times, and the job was monitored by the County Council(NLA, Norfolk Landscape Archaeology)(although not physically during the actual machining event. As far as I know, EH were not actively involved, although presumably there would have been contact over briefs and section 42 stuff etc.
As far as I know, the crux of the matter is that there was a difference of opinion between NLA and NAU over (something like) the phrase 'a machine may be used to take off deposits to the first significant horizon', as stated in the brief, and deposits (other than topsoil) were taken off to get down to negative features. When the monitor, David Gurney (NLA), inspected the site (after the machining) he felt that the machining had already taken off, and therefore destroyed without record, 'significant layers'. This point is still contended by NAU, who supported their on-site member of staff very well.
My take on the sitation (as an informed outsider) is that NAU maybe should have checked in advance on this potential point of interpretation before/during the machining , but also that the wording of the NLA brief could have been clearer, and perhaps the machining should also have been physically monitored by NLA if they knew, and were worried, that important subjective decisions were going to have to be made (I would be interested to hear it this ever does happen on other Scheduled sites).
Finally, for this matter to be brought up by the press a year later seems to be a bit unhelpful and will hopefully not lead to bad feelings between two parties (NLA and NAU) who have to work together with one another on a daily basis.
Hope this is AUP freindly, I have no axe to grind, but just know a couple of people involved.
As far as I know, the crux of the matter is that there was a difference of opinion between NLA and NAU over (something like) the phrase 'a machine may be used to take off deposits to the first significant horizon', as stated in the brief, and deposits (other than topsoil) were taken off to get down to negative features. When the monitor, David Gurney (NLA), inspected the site (after the machining) he felt that the machining had already taken off, and therefore destroyed without record, 'significant layers'. This point is still contended by NAU, who supported their on-site member of staff very well.
My take on the sitation (as an informed outsider) is that NAU maybe should have checked in advance on this potential point of interpretation before/during the machining , but also that the wording of the NLA brief could have been clearer, and perhaps the machining should also have been physically monitored by NLA if they knew, and were worried, that important subjective decisions were going to have to be made (I would be interested to hear it this ever does happen on other Scheduled sites).
Finally, for this matter to be brought up by the press a year later seems to be a bit unhelpful and will hopefully not lead to bad feelings between two parties (NLA and NAU) who have to work together with one another on a daily basis.
Hope this is AUP freindly, I have no axe to grind, but just know a couple of people involved.