Exposed Skeleton story in Daily Mail

[moreno]

Had a read of the story, my initial feeling is it seems a bit distorting (intentional, unintentional or otherwise), then had a read of the comments, some which I found amusing. Obviously I'm not privy to the ins and outs of the story, but I was concerned about how archaeology and archaeologists were portrayed in the story. Obviously the archaeological company is abiding by client confidentiality, if comment was forthcoming, perhaps the story may have been reported with a bit more balance. Interesting.

[BAJR]

Am going to wait until Monday to verify everything... and then of course it is "to a certain degree" up to the company named, to decide whether to pursue it, or whether it is better left to wither. So far there has been little chatter on the websites and a small amount on Facebook. PErhaps drawing more attention to the false story, would be counter productive.

Put it this way, gonetopots version has been coroborated by another. and it fits well with what the images and story seem to 'misleadingly' not show. ie The photographs, the type of covering, the local residents perhaps having ulterior motives etc. THe developer will be more furious, as this makes his development look bad, but in reality, it is those that used 'archaeology' as the excuse, that should be shamed. The number of times I have seen communities suddenly get intersted in archaeology when it could be used to stymie a development. Tshk! Care about it when it is not threatened, and you will have a stronger case.

[moreno]

Yep, it's a tough call. I appreciate the need for certainty and the relevance of accuracy. Disingenuous and defaming sort of sprung to mind. Your experience with communities, their interest in archaeology and motive is something I'm familiar with. This "story" will be well represented yet again when the proposed development in South Oxfordshire start to impinge on the small rural village communities.

[archaeologicalbaldy]

Interesting story. The DM is not renowned for its facts. However, the pictures are pretty damaging. The trees that Mr DC states are in leaf are conifers and as such will be in leaf all year round AND green!! The basic rules of evaluations (and Home office rules) state that if 'human remains are identified they should be recorded and back filled ASAP'. Just covering them with harris fencing and tarp (not secured by anything) is NOT adequate!!! If some one was to gain access to the site, and ran across the harris fencing , which broke, the arch company would be liable for any broken bones!!! I am surprised that david adevocates this policy of site welfare!!! (has he insurance??????)

I decided to look at the story and the images with an archaeologists eye... it was then that several inconsistencies appeared, and also another story emerged, one that is more plausible.

Consider the images of the skeletons... do they look like they have been open to the elements for 2 months? No neither did I! Then note the leaves... if this was done in December and open for 2 months, then how did these leaves get in? Plus, lets not forget what a winter we had... or was this area untouched? The herris Fence and tarp over the grave is just eh sort of thing I would do during excavation ( if it went over a couple of days ) planks as well I used on a horse burial last November. So it look like a normal excavation site that has been left at the end of a days work.

Reg and Bee Holles-Perkes ( lets see how they heard about it) : Ah, when they had Tree surgery carried out on their property... so the person was high up and looking into a property that belonged to a developer. So how did the photographs get taken then? Did Reg trespass on someone else's private property and take images of skeletons ? Hmmm... Why is one tarp pulled back.... not blown back, but definately pulled back, you can see where a hand has held it and dragged it over the fence to expose the skeletons.

Now lets consider the story more... a developer gets in an archaeological company to carry out works from a condition placed on a planning application for houses... the next door neighbour objects... Lets see... ah.... Reg and Bee Holles-Perkes They like their property without a new development next door. Do you see where I am going...

If you want to know if Reg and Bee Holles-Perkes did object... guess what!

Think about the whole story... use you archaeological abilities to question and the whole thing falls apart.

A shame on them for using archaeologists as the scapegoats in their own personal battle. !

[BAJR]

Interesting...

The trees that Mr DC states are in leaf

What I actually say is

Then note the leaves... if this was done in December and open for 2 months, then how did these leaves get in?

ie, if you look in the grave, you will see what looks like oak leaves.

Just covering them with harris fencing and tarp (not secured by anything) is NOT adequate!!!

Again... baffled... what I say explicitly is this

The herris Fence and tarp over the grave is just eh sort of thing I would do during excavation ( if it went over a couple of days ) planks as well I used on a horse burial last November.

The site is secure, the area secured and the burials covered. If you run over a blue plastic tarp on herris fencing... hmmmm far fetched in the extreme, you can also see where they have been secured, but the covers are now removed.

Oh and rather than a shock discovery, the intention was to investigate the extent and preservation of the cemetery. (so it seems)

I am surprised that you are surprised... and I have to confess I don't now you at all, but you seem to know me by name. How fascinating. Care to expand on who you really are :face-huh:

[moreno]

There's a tad bit more on this:

http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/news/melton...e_1_826733

Obviously there is more than one side to a story, preferably better to withold opinion, judgement etc. until all the info is in.

[BAJR]

By the Way, it is not the Home Office rules.. it is Ministry of Justice now. and has been for some time. As to your supposed quote...
"'human remains are identified they should be recorded and back filled ASAP'" That's a new one -

Please read this
Statement on burial law and archaeology (PDF 0.04mb 2 pages)

Also this

A Basic Overview of the Recovery of Human Remains from Sites Under Development
updated 2007

It is a general recommendation that human remains are not removed if discovered
during an archaeological evaluation of a site. In this case, the potential scientific
value of remains is not seen as outweighing the importance of retaining an ethical
approach to the disturbance of human remains laid to rest. However, evaluations may
be carried out in a variety of contexts. The decision to remove human remains from an
evaluation trench should be made according to the particular circumstances of the
archaeological evaluation and the nature of the human remains.

[BAJR]

I did like the comment about asking people to come forward who know anything about teh burials that people knew nothing about :face-approve:

[archaeologicalbaldy]

BAJR EDIT
Edited, due to finding out exactly who this is... all we will say it is not Jean Fallows. Ain't that right! LOL!

By apart from your other dodgy allegations... the one I don't mind responding to is your comment about being "ejected from the IFA (sic) "

I think you will find that I left

You may find it harder to sign in, but am sure you will return again, like you often do with your bile and sad little tricks. I really don't care... funny little boy... ! Look forward to your next attack? Britarch perhaps? or what about on a comparison site? I am sure it will keep you busy along with your tiny minded fweinds.

Anyway... back to grown up talk.

[GPStone]

.........errrr........have I missed something?!?! :face-thinks: :face-huh: