Was this based on observation of the earthwork or simply a guess to show one type of henge?
It was pure guesswork. The reconstruction was for illustrative purposes only to show what the earthwork might have looked like. All of our judgements about this site were speculative. The truth is that it needs more work doing on it. You sound much more doubtful than you appeared in the programme. Is that so? I’m a natural sceptic. I feel as though you don’t just stumble across an unknown henge monument in this way life isn’t like that. It’s also not really where we’d expect to find a henge. At the same time, I can’t think what else it could be. The judgement we made was based on the form of it. The outer bank was dumped on top of a buried land surface and had been dug out leaving the ditch on the inside. I don’t know of anything other than a henge that fits that description. We are left with the probability that it is a henge, but it needs more work to be certain. When the test trench was dug on the henge site, Tony’s commentary said that they had discovered some ‘archaeology’. There
Related Questions
- I charge a variety of hourly and flat rates based upon the type of case and the activity. How would Interbill handle this?
- When is a liability assessment based on a phase I environmental site assessment acceptable (Type C liability estimate)?
- Was this based on observation of the earthwork or simply a guess to show one type of henge?
