Crannogs and binoculars hang from the head of the mule … | Part I | Introduction & July 2006-December 2010
In November 2016, as soon as they were released, I began making my way through Bob Dylan’s massive 36 CD set The 1966 Live Recordings. As the name suggests, it contains every surviving recording from Dylan’s 1966 world tour of Australia, Europe, and the US. For anyone who’s not a Dylan fan, it should be pointed out that the 1966 tour was the first tour when he ‘went electric’, metamorphosing from his previous incarnation as an icon of the folk scene with acoustic guitar and harmonica. If you know anything about this period of Dylan’s career, you’ll probably know that one fan at The Royal Albert Hall (but actually the Manchester Free Trade Hall) screamed out ‘Judas’. This particular recording has been available as a bootleg for many years and has even received an official release. Before the release of this massive archive or recordings at the end of 2016 you couldn’t really get a decent appreciation of this seminal period in his career from the official releases. True, you could rely on the bootlegs, but there still remained gaps that could only be guessed at. Then along comes The 1966 Live Recordings and suddenly so many lacunae were filled. I’d only ever found about six of the tracks from the Adelphi, Dublin concert (May 5th) – suddenly here were all 15. Others, like his concerts in Belfast (May 6th), Cardiff (May 11th), and Paris (May 24th) were known about, but no recordings had ever surfaced. Even if you’re not a massive Dylan fan (and this collection is not for everyone), there is a much wider importance to this set of performances. At this time The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were playing half-hour sets through the in-house PA systems at sports arenas and halls that were never intended for loud live music. Dylan’s set was divided into an acoustic set of seven songs followed by eight electric numbers and lasted for a full 95 minutes. He also brought his own sound system. If this seems in any way familiar it’s because Dylan set the template that rock bands have followed for the last half century.
One of the things that the dedicated fan can do with The
1966 Live Recordings is order them chronologically and live through the highs
and lows of each show on the tour. You can make your way from White Plains, NY
on February 5th to The Royal Albert Hall on May 27th and experience Dylan’s
growing frustration and exasperation at the negativity his electric set usually
received. Along the way you get to hear the announcer at Bristol (May 10th)
interrupt the concert to call request that “the owner of BNE 176C, the Red
Hillman Imp, to move it please, or we'll have the police tow it away. OK?”;
Manchester’s infamous ‘Judas!’
(‘the most famous heckle in rock & roll’); and even the clearly ‘Jackeen’
accents at Dublin’s Adelphi (not that you can make out what they’re saying).
Even still, these are all backdrops to the music – the developing changes in
lyrical emphasis and the evolving, strengthening performances by both Dylan and
The Band. My point in all this is that while the official releases have their
merit in presenting a cohesive overview, there is much to be said for delving
down into the detailed chronology. That and the fact that I just wanted to talk
about how wonderful this collection is … sue me!
I regularly return to this 36 CD set and listen to it all,
usually in chronological order. I firmly believe that ‘A day without a Dylan
track is a day wasted’, and had begun to go through this collection once again,
starting in the middle of October of this year (2022). Just as I was closing in
on the last few discs, I happened to be alerted to not one but two articles
about the Drumclay crannog appearing within 24hrs of each other and both in
Fermanagh’s The Impartial Reporter. First, a piece by Victoria Johnston
on October 29 [here],
and another the following day by Barney Devine [here].
Whatever their decorative appeal, they served to remind me that back in 2017 –
just as I was coming to the end of my second (or maybe third) detailed perusal
of Dylan’s The 1966 Live Recordings, I received a message on social
media asking if I was behind the FOI request to the Department of Regional
Development for records on their correspondence with the Department of the
Environment on the Drumclay Crannog. Further enquiries as to whether I was the
person behind the request came over the following days.
By that time (February 2017) I was so tired and fed up with
Drumclay. By a quick count, I’d written 24 articles for this blog, written a paper for Archaeology Ireland and co-authored another, appeared numerous times on radio and
television to talk about the site, and generally annoyed the great and the
good. I was tired. I was fed up. And I certainly didn’t have the energy to go
plunging into some labyrinthine collection of emails. I downloaded the files
for further consideration and quietly forgot about it all. Forgot about it all
until the coincidence of the nexus of news about Drumclay and Bob Dylan’s 1966
world tour.
So … what is in this archive?
We can see that the original request (DRD/2015-0302) was
received in November 2015 and a response was issued to the individual in
January 2016. In August 2016 the documentation was published to a page
on the DRD website (no longer available). It appears to have sat there in
relative obscurity, until February 2017 when it was brought to my attention by
several interested parties.
The full title of the case is “DRD/2015-0302: EIR Request
asking for information relating to a crannog on the site of the Cherrymount
Link Road in Enniskillen” and the Details section reproduces the individual’s
original request for information. The text, in full, reads:
I request all
information on your side surrounding the facts concerning the DRD as contained
in the co-attached newspaper item (relating to a crannog on the site of the
Cherrymount Link Road in Enniskillen). These facts are to include any
interactions between the DRD and the DOE, as indicated. This is required under
all the terms of both the Freedom of Information Act and the Environment
Information Regulation, both delineated.
In a letter to me
from the DOE, 12 March 2015, it was stating [sic.] that the DOE gave excavation licences to both of the two
consecutive directors of the crannog dig. The DOE confirmed that in both cases
there was no public advertisement by anyone and there was no open competition
for the same post. Both directors were failures. The DRD responses should
include accounts of the involvement of the DRD in the case.
Another point. Has
the DRD at any stage involved in any way with the production of a full
excavation report by anyone involved in this matter, as required under the two
consecutive DOE licences?
The webpage provided three downloadable PDF files. The first
of these reproduced the text of the request along with the DRD’s response of
January 6, 2016. This response notes that the request is being fulfilled under
the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, as opposed to the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. It notes that “the archaeological report is not yet
available, owing to the scale of the exercise and the availability of resource
to complete the post-excavation process.” It also confirms that while “Copies
of all correspondence between DRD and DOE during the course of the project are
enclosed.” some information is redacted as it is not considered to be in the
public interest. This includes the names of some junior staff and direct
contact details for individuals.
The response goes on to reaffirm the position that, while
DRD were aware of a ‘possible crannog’ at the early stages of the process, they
were unaware of its exact location until discovered as part of the progress of
boreholeing through the area. With regard to the employment of the archaeological
site Directors the response notes that the original Director (Declan Hurl) was
employed through Amey plc and were not subject to a separate procurement
service, while the second Director (Nora Bermingham) was employed directly by
the DOE.
The second PDF document is a copy of a letter published by The Impartial Reporter newspaper in
September 2015 under the title ‘Can we have our £2.5m back?’ The letter draws
out the distinction between the Roads Service, DRD statement in the “Notice of
Intention to Proceed” that the Cherrymount Link Road would directly impact the
crannog at Drumclay and a recorded dugout canoe and their later statement to
BBC news on 30 July 2012 that it was not aware of the presence of the crannog
before work began. The author of the letter offers the opinion that “this
latter claim was incorrect”. I would go further and state that this was a
knowing and deliberate untruth, intended to deflect the criticism and scrutiny
that Roads Service, DRD were coming under at that time. The author makes the
point that the excavation licences issued by the DOE stipulate that a full
excavation report must be submitted to the DOE within six months of the
excavation’s completion. As such a report would have been due, at the latest,
in August 2013 the author claims that there is no justification for the £2.5m …
and can these monies not be repaid? The author touches on a particular bugbear
of mine in mentioning the 6 month clause. When I first began directing archaeological
excavations, I was naive enough to believe that this clause was important and
something that would be enforced. Instead, I found that archaeological
excavation licences were not worth the paper they were printed on, and no one
either could or would seek to enforce them. In this regard, I reckon that the
best thing HED (or whatever they’re called this week) could do was ensure that
the licences are printed on nice, soft, and absorbent paper so they may be put
to the best possible use. Other than highlighting the lack of worth of the
excavation licence, it appears that the author’s point is to focus on the
manifold failures of the DOE in contributing to all aspects of the Drumclay
Crannog Fiasco. The author’s name is redacted, but it is clear in my mind (at
least) that the author of this letter is the same as the individual who
requested the documentation from the DRD. I have been unable to find the
published version of this letter and as a consequence am reluctant to share my
theory as to the individual’s identity. If my assumption is correct, they
passed away in December 2015, but were noted for their series of letters to
Fermanagh newspapers, all in a similar vein. The one point that I would seek to
make clearly and publicly is that the individual who made this request to the
DRD is not me. As evidence of this, I would argue that I would never have written
the line “Both directors were failures”. I believe that I have been clear and
consistent in my statements that only one of the archaeological site directors
at Drumclay was a failure … and it wasn’t Nora Bermingham.
The casual reader may suggest that, as we have Prof
Cooney’s report (Review of the context of the excavation of a crannog in
Drumclay townland Co. Fermanagh on the route of the Cherrymount Link Road) on
the myriad failings of the project and the omnishambles it became, we don’t
need to concern ourselves with the minutia of the correspondence. This is true.
However, like the official release of Dylan’s Manchester Free Trade Hall show,
it gives a great overview of the whole, but doesn’t present the detail. This
release of documents is for those of us who gravitate towards the full 36-CD
behemoth of The 1966 Live Recordings. The other thing is that this hoard
includes certain documents in response to Cooney’s Report that have been
referred to in my interview with Amey’s Rodney Moffett [here],
but not previously seen.
OK … but what of the central cache of documents? It is
presented as a single 262 page .pdf file, and a little over 14Mb in size. It
appears to have been hastily scanned/copied from paper documents and collects,
among other things, the aforementioned Notice of Intention to Proceed
and sundry emails, some with additional handwritten notes. I propose going through
the document with a view to presenting a unified chronology, giving the PDF
page number in brackets after. I will augment the chronology with dated items
from various sources already in the public realm, including Cooney’s report etc.
2006
July 25 (pp 1-4, 258)
Rely from Brian Williams to Stephen McAfee (Environmental
Consultant at RPS Group).
The original letter (July 7) is not included, but the context is clear. McAfee
had contacted NIEA regarding carrying out an Environmental Impact Assessment in
advance on the ‘Proposed Cherrymount Link’, and Williams was responding with
(essentially) a form letter saying that they hold the information sought, but
do not have the internal resources to carry out research on behalf of other
parties. Williams advises that appropriate consultants be appointed, notes the
possibility of discovering previously unknown archaeology, and includes a list
of eight local archaeological consultancies and two individuals.
2008
March n.d. (p 258)
Email from R Moffett (Document 45) mentions an email in
March 2008 from E Gowdy ‘in which she raises concerns about the crannog’. This
email does not appear to be preserved in this archive.
April 9 (pp 7, 258)
Email from K Robb, senior archaeologist at John
Cronin & Associates, to E Gowdy (NIEA). The email acknowledges NIEA's request for a meeting with Roads Service to ‘discuss your concerns with
disturbance/destruction of SMR FER 211:061’ [the Drumclay crannog]. While
noting that the land has been drained and the dugout canoe found in the 19th
century was lost, it clearly states that ‘Road design for the Cherrymount Link
route traverses this site location’. Robb proposes a programme of test trenches
‘to identify sub-surface archaeological deposits (incl. complexity,
preservation and extent; and on-site logistics given the marshy/tree/scrub
environment) which shall inform the need for further investigation/excavation.’
She also notes that the trenching would address the feasibility of changing the
route to allow preservation in situ.
May 27 (p 6)
Email from K Robb to E Gowdy asking for written
confirmation of verbal discussion regarding mitigation strategy for crannog:
‘testing, followed by excavation as required/feasible in consultation with
yourself [NIEA]; potential for post-construction mitigation regarding drainage
etc.’
July 1 (p 5-6)
Email from K Robb to E Gowdy again asking for written
confirmation of verbal discussion regarding mitigation strategy for crannog.
July 4 (p 5)
Email from P Devlin (NIEA) to K Robb confirming
acceptability of trial trenching along route and noting that any archaeological
remains discovered will need to be discussed on site. Email chain forwarded
from K Robb to Stephen McAfee and from McAfee to Paul Braniff.
2009
February (pp 8-22)
Report: A32 Cherrymount Link Road Enniskillen. Notice of
Intention to Proceed. Section 3.12 (p 22) deals with ‘Cultural Heritage –
Existence of Change’. Subsection 3.12.2 notes that the Monuments and Buildings
Record (MRB), along with the relevant OS six-inch map sheets were consulted.
Subsection 3.12.3 mentions that the route was walked by qualified
archaeologists, while the following subsection (3.12.4) notes that some areas
could not be visited, owing to the poor terrain.
Section 3.12.5 is unequivocal and states: ‘The proposed
Cherrymount Link Road will directly impact on two archaeological sites, a
crannog and a dug-out canoe’. I really can’t say this enough – anyone
attempting to peddle the line that there was no reasonable expectation that the
road would intersect with the crannog is – for whatever reason – not in full
possession of the facts.
Section 3.12.5 notes something that had crossed my mind
previously, but doesn’t appear to have entered the public discussion. It says
that ‘Two areas of archaeological potential were also identified in Knocklough
and Drumclay townlands’ and that these should be investigated. It appears that
the potential site in Drumclay is different to the crannog, but the
excavations.ie website only holds Hurl’s initial report on the crannog
trenching. Whatever happened to these other areas? Were they investigated? No record
of them appears in excavations.ie, the database of Irish Excavation Reports.
February 6 (pp 26-29)
Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland: The Trunk Road T10
(Cherrymount Link, Enniskillen) Order (Northern Ireland) 2009. Attributed to R
Sherman (‘A senior officer of the Department for Regional Development’). The
document does not specifically reference archaeology or the need for
archaeological investigations.
February 17 (p 25)
Above document forwarded by Sherman (Roads Service) to P
Doherty (Divisional Roads Manager) with cover letter. A stamp indicates that it
was received by SRI Team, Western Division on 19 February 2009.
February 18 (p 30)
Copy of ‘Environmental Statement: Notice to Proceed’ as
published in the Fermanagh Herald. Archaeological issues are not
specifically mentioned.
February 19 (p 30)
Same as previous, but from The Impartial Reporter.
2010
November 24 (pp 36-7)
Document entitled ‘Cherrymount Link Enniskillen – Watching
Brief Fee Estimate’. A handwritten note identifies this as Document 8 and dates
it to November 24, 2010. The document, prepared by John Cronin &
Associates/RPS notes ‘the remains of a recorded SMR (crannog & logboat)
site.’ in the opening paragraph. The document describes E Logue as the previous
archaeological caseworker and P Devlin as the current caseworker. Paragraph 2
indicates that NIEA are satisfied with the archaeological mitigation measures,
and Paragraph 3 sets out the plan of 1) Apply for a licence 2) two on-site
archaeologists (Site Supervisor & Site Assistant), along with an
office-based Project Officer. The requirement for two mechanical diggers with
toothless/sheugh buckets is established as well as the need for full
investigation of any archaeological remains uncovered (Paragraph 6). Paragraph
7 reads in full: ‘This particularly relates to the possibility of revealing the
remains of the crannog site which shall require detailed mitigation programme
in consultation with NIEA. In this regard it is recommended that the
archaeological works for the scheme be carried out at the earliest possible
date in advance of any construction works’.1 The second page of the
document notes that the estimated fees (redacted) are based on an expectation
that test trenching will be complete within 10 days, but leaves room for it
being either above or below that amount of time,
November 25 (p 31, 212-3)
Email from D Brennan (Amey) to E Logue noting that as the
full drawing was bounced back, he’s sending on ‘a copy of the road alignment to
Irish Grid co-ordinates’
November 29 (p 31, 212, 258)
Document 9 (p 38) mentions ‘that a meeting about
archaeological considerations took place with David Brennan (Amey) and a
representative of Roads Service’ on this date.
Email from E Logue to D Brennan attaching 1st edition OS
six-inch map. Logue states that ‘The overlay on the 1st ed map shows that the
location of the crannog seems to be beneath the proposed road. On the modern
vector maps there appears to be a circular enclosure marked (that may indicate
the crannog) at roughly the same location as the crannog on the 1st ed map. The
green dot on the overlay shows the location of the crannog as noted in our SMR
…’ The images of the road layout overlaid on the 1st edition map (p
33) and over the vector map (p 34) are also presented.
Much has been made of this ‘green dot’ and quite a bit of
the fiasco that emanated from this project could, in all likelihood, have been
avoided if Roads Service, Amey, et al. understood that this was a general location, not an exact position. I’ve said
it before, and I feel doomed to keep repeating it, but all the evidence
available to Roads Service and Amey repeatedly told them that the crannog would
be impacted by the road. As far back as June 2009 The Notice of Intention to
Proceed with the Cherrymount Link Road said it. In September of the same year the
‘Cultural Heritage’ section of the Environmental Statement prepared by John
Cronin and Associates said it. Although Logue’s statement doesn’t explicitly
mention the accuracy of the placement of the green dot, it is clear from the
context and only the most foolhardy could read it and believe that it was a
statement indicating that the road would not touch the crannog. It genuinely
boggles the mind to think that supposed professionals at both Roads Service and
Amey could be presented with all of this data and only take from it not only the
outcome that pleased them best, but one that wasn’t actually presented.
December 13 (pp 38-39)
Printed pages identified as
‘Document 9’ indicate that ‘A meeting took place on Monday 13th
December at 10:00 in NIEA’. Handwriting and an arrow pointing to the date
indicates ‘2010’. Present were C Foley & E Logue (Built Heritage) and D
Hurl (Amey). Hurl says that he intends to visit the site to carry out a GPS
survey but, based on his reading of the maps, he estimates that it is only c.
15m in diameter. Hurl indicates his intent to open a small (c. 1 x 3m) trial
trench ‘to determine the potential for archaeological survival’, while Foley is
pressing for a much larger (c. 5x 5m) trench. Foley also wanted a trench ‘to
extend into the bog to investigate possible external piling’. Hurl countered
that, to complete such a trench, the area would have to be coffered, possibly
damaging the archaeology. Foley, quite reasonably, argues that if the site really
is only 15m across, it should be able to enclose the lot (crannog and external
piling) in a coffer of 25m diameter. Hurl countered ‘that this would be
extremely prohibitive in terms of time, money and resources.’ Instead, he
suggests another borehole be drilled through the crannog to determine the
site’s construction. His reasoning is that ‘if it was largely composed of
stone, gravel and clay, [it] might be stable enough to survive incorporation
into the road foundations’. When this was met with opposition from Foley, Hurl
suggested what is described as ‘a piling regime around the crannog’, which was
again opposed by Foley. Despite the calm, measured language of the minutes,
this was clearly a fraught encounter! The minute of the meeting ends with an acknowledgment
that the site visit and GPS survey would go ahead and that these would inform
the design of the test excavation phase.
December 16 (pp 39-40)
‘Document 9’ continues and notes that ‘A second
meeting took place … between Claire Foley and Declan Hurl. By this date Hurl
had prepared a research design for test trenching and had completed the
excavation licence form. Foley notes that she has discussed the case with John
O’Keeffe, the Assistant Director. They go on to discuss the research design,
where Hurl initially planned on cutting the 5 x 5m test trench through the
gravelled access path. Foley instead suggested a smaller (3 x 3m) trench
directly to the west of the path as it would alleviate health and safety
concerns as well as being ‘a more practical approach’. Hurl agreed to the
changes and undertook to emend the licence application to reflect this change.
He also outlined four possible construction options:
a) Spanning of the bog and crannog by a single span bridge;
b) Establishing an adequate buffer zone around the crannog and piling around it to allow the road to pass over the site;
c) Sealing the monument within the road foundation, should it be technically and archaeologically feasible;
d) Fully excavating the crannog, involving coffering and pumping, and complete investigation to the base of the monument.
Hurl acknowledged that option c
(sealing the site with the foundations of the road) would not appeal to Foley,
though she had also objected to the idea of piling around the site (option b)
at the meeting four days earlier. The final page of these minutes contains two
illustrations, apparently reproduced from Hurl’s emended research design. Fig 1
shows the relationship between the known position of the crannog, the
north-south running access track, and the proposed line of the road, all
superimposed on an aerial photograph. Figure 2 is a scaled schema that shows
the crannog (as a perfect circle) and the locations of the original proposed
trench, the new proposed trench, as well as the gravel track across the site.
Once again, it is clear that the line of the road goes completely across the
location of the crannog – there can be zero doubt about the relationship
between these two things to anyone looking at Fig 1.
(pp 41-69)
Document 10 is the Application for Licence to Excavate:
‘Cherrymount Link – Archaeological Assessment’. It is dated on the cover as
‘December 2010’ with signoffs on December 16th by Hurl, S McKinney,
and R Moffett. Section 2: Methodology, notes that a desktop survey had been
carried out (2.1.1) and that a ‘walkover survey’ had also been carried out
(2.1.3) and although some areas were physically inaccessible, they could be
viewed from the distance of ‘adjacent fields and laneways’. Section 4:
Archaeological and Historical Context (4.3.5) notes that two crannogs are
known within the study area: Drumclay and another at Knockalough, Moneynoe, as
well as the recorded discovery of a dugout boat at Drumclay. In Section 7:
Field survey we get the details of the ‘walkover survey’. The wording of the
report, aiming toward the unornamented and professional, cannot mask what must
have been an exceptionally awful visit: they ‘found the bogland occupying the
drained lough site completely frozen over, permitting safe access to the site
of the crannog but rendering it impossible to define the edges of the crannog
by selective probing’ … what a fun day out that must have been! However, Hurl
was able to make some informed inferences about the size and location of the
crannog. The geotextile and hardcore access track – dug to allow access to
drill boreholes across the site – hadn’t sunk quite so much into the bog in the
vicinity of BH4c and BH5c as it had done elsewhere. In the same area the
vegetation was more grass than reeds. There also appears to have been a
distinct slope between the upstanding crannog mound and the lower, iced over,
surface of the bog. All these, taken together, allowed Hurl to position the
crannog with some degree of accuracy as well as estimate its size as c 15-16m,
around the same diameter he had proposed, based on his reading of the maps. Hurl
was, of course, vastly underestimating the actual size of the crannog, but this
was a decent estimate, based on the available information. Using a
‘Significance of Impact on Archaeological Sites’ table, apparently based on England’s
Highways Agency guidelines, Hurl says that ‘The central portion of Area 2 [the
location of the crannog] is deemed to be of very high archaeological value,
given the … existence of the crannog site FER 211:61. Since the road route
passes through the drained lough and across the site of the crannog … there is
potentially major impact with resulting very large significance.’
(8.3.2) (emphasis in original document). Again, this is followed up in Section
8.5: Summary which states that ‘A crannog (FER211:061) at Knocklough is located
along the proposed route … The site will be directly impacted by the proposed
link road’ (8.5.2). In Section 9: Proposed mitigation, it is suggested that the
majority of the route be topsoil stripped under archaeological supervision
(9.1.3). However, the area of the crannog will be investigated with a 3 x 3m
test trench and the results will form the basis of any further works on the
site (9.1.4). Again, the four mitigation options laid out to Foley (see above)
are stated here. Section 9.1.9 indicates that options a-c would be broadly
within the ‘preservation in situ’ policy favoured by NIEA, while full
excavation (option d) ‘would also be the costliest and most time-consuming
option, depending on the extent, quality and complexity of the remains’
(9.1.10). Finally, Hurl suggests that a borehole be sunk ‘within the footprint
of the test trench to investigate the make-up and depth of the crannog
foundations’ (9.1.11). In case anyone was intimidated by the size of the
report, it’s all handily restated in Section 10: Conclusions: ‘The proposed
Cherrymount Link Road will directly impact a recorded archaeological site at
the junction of three townlands: FER211:061, a crannog and find of a dugout
canoe’ (10.1.1). Once again, it’s restated that test trenching the surface of
the crannog will ‘determine the extent, nature, quality and complexity of the
surviving features and artefacts’ and that further works will have to be agreed
between NIEA and Roads Service (10.1.2). Section 11.2.3 provides detail that it
is expected that an excavation crew of three persons will be necessary to
excavate the 3 x 3m trench and that it may take up to four weeks to complete.
In a worrying statement, Hurl adds that ‘The trench might also accommodate a
monitored engineering pit to determine the stratigraphic makeup of the crannog
to determine the suitability of it being incorporated into the road foundation;
if this is possible, it would allow the crannog to be retained beneath the road
(with suitable protective sealing), saving considerable time and expense.’ To
his credit, he prefaces the next sentence with an asterisk for increased
visibility: ‘It should be realised, however, that, should preservation … not be
possible/practical, then full excavation may be required.’ The investigation of
the crannog area is estimated to cost £11,508.80, out of a total estimated
expenditure for archaeological monitoring of £18,099.00. I mention this purely
as an observation on the repeated line from several parties that the crannog
wasn’t known until the road was almost on top of it, and even if they knew,
they didn’t understand the significance of the archaeology … they’re not
archaeologists, after all. Quite apart from the fact that Hurl called it out on
repeated occasions withing this document, should someone not have noticed that
nearly 64% of the archaeology monitoring budget was going on one particular
spot? You may not be an archaeologist, but you might want to question the money
… or not … Lastly, I’ll note that the figures reproduced in the previous
document – of the road clearly running over the location of the crannog and the
proposed trenching layout – are reproduced here and are the most likely source
for the previous document.
(p 70)
Letter from Foley to Hurl stating her desire to reduce the
test trench from 5 x 5m to 3 x 3m.
December 17 (pp 71-72)
Licence to Excavate for Archaeological Purposes granted to
Hurl with all standard clauses etc. The licence is to run from December 17,
2010, to June 16, 2011. The signature of the Authorised Officer is redacted.
Comments
Post a Comment