Archaeological Potential

 

 

I object to the proposed development on the grounds of archaeological potential.

 

 

I find the desk study provided by Border Archaeology to assess the archaeological significance of the proposed development site, is inadequate to merit the conclusions that are drawn from it. Thereby,

 

 

the recommendation that there is no archaeological reason to prevent the proposed development from proceeding is unsubstantiated.

 

 

I would like to share with you some parts of Border Archaeology’s report to explain my own conclusions written above.

 

 

In Section 1.1.4 of this study, it is stated that: ‘no further archaeological investigation will be required…’

 

 

Yet in the same section, it is also stated that:

 

 

‘It should be noted that there is a paucity of archaeological data reflecting the lack of previous fieldwork in the immediate and wider setting.’

 

 

Again, in section 1.2.10 of the study, it is stated that ‘based on the available resources’- (which the study has admitted are extremely limited), ‘the archaeological potential of the site does not present an impediment to development.’

 

 

As a scientist who has undertaken research and subsequently written a PhD thesis, I can categorically state that if there is insufficient existing data within a data set, then a strong conclusion cannot be made. Such work would be judged as falling short of the requirements to pass in a formal examination and therefore would not be given formal recognition by peers. Any conclusions that are made by a study lacking sufficient data, will be very tenuous indeed and unsatisfactory, as is the case in this study.

 

 

Further into the study, in Section 4.0.2, it is absolutely clear that the work is purely a desk study and again the paucity of data gathered from such a desk study is very evident:

 

 

4.1.3 ‘very little prehistoric archaeological data is recorded on Lancaster HER…..’

 

 

Again, there is an acknowledgment of the likely link between lack of field research and lack of finds, 4.1.3;

 

 

‘lack of evidence for prehistoric activity within the vicinity of the site may be a result of the general lack of invasive archaeological work undertaken within the designated study area.’

 

 

and another such acknowledgment in section 4.1.6.

 

 

In contradiction to the conclusion made in section 1.1.4, where it is stated that ‘no further archaeological investigation will be required’, in section 4.1.6 it is suggested that more ground-based studies would be beneficial:

 

 

‘The site is poorly understood’ and ‘further discovery could therefore contribute to a better characterisation of prehistoric habitation in this area.’

 

 

The section on the Romano British period, section 4.2.3, again mentions the fact that there is ‘very little evidence recorded ….and ..this may be due to a general lack of invasive archaeological work undertaken in the designated study area…’

 

 

Even after another acknowledgment of a lack of field work (4.2.3), the conclusion (4.2.4), is made that:

 

 

‘Potential for finds from this period is assessed as ‘LOW,’

 

 

If there has been little work undertaken in the wider area of the site, or the site itself, this conclusion is unsatisfactorily weak.

 

 

In the remaining sections discussing Medieval and Post Medieval archaeology, there is a shift away from any acknowledgement of a lack of field based archaeological surveys that could result in a lack of finds to another unsubstantiated explanation for lack of finds.

 

 

In these sections, (4.3.5) it is argued that due to the location of the proposed development site being located at the periphery of the ancient villages of Slyne and Bolton le Sands, then the land would be unlikely to contain any significant finds, as the area was used for agriculture.

 

 

The fact there is a listing for a lime kiln in the neighbouring field, a matter of around 100 metres from the proposed site boundary, demonstrates that the fields were used by village inhabitants, not only for farming as the ancient hedgerows demonstrate but for industrial purposes too.

 

 

I discussed the potential for archaeological finds for land lying on village peripheries with an experienced and well-known local metal detectorist. The detectorist has recently found very significant artefacts covered in the media, from the medieval period on land in Bolton le Sands. I was informed by them that:

 

 

‘Yes I have found places of interest and found coins and artefacts in areas outside villages or on the border of a village. Lovely coins and artefacts have been found.’

 

 

In the study’s Recommendation section, 4.5.8, the direct conflict between both a ‘paucity of archaeological data from both the immediate and wider vicinity’ and ‘lack of previous fieldwork to this locality’ with the ability to form any credible conclusions as a result of this fact, is again reiterated.

 

 

It is very evident from Border Archaeology’s desk study that there is a clear lack of field-based research within and around the proposed development area. Without such research, no firm conclusions regarding the archaeological potential of this area can be made.

 

 

In order to safe guard the area in terms of archaeological finds and significance, it is imperative that a thorough and peer recognised on site survey of the area should be undertaken before any development can be considered.

 

 

To my understanding, past requests to search the land and the surrounding fields south of the proposed development boundary have been declined by the land owners.

 

 

The current proposal for development should be rejected on all the above grounds.