On 2012-12-01 19:07, jonm wrote:
From reading one or two books on the subject, Woodhenge was something that wasn't recognised as being of archaeological importance until the developers of the idea got behind it. I think I'm right in saying that the development and archaeological investigation of Woodhenge was funded privately by making it into an attraction. So more or less what's been done at Stonehenge except not by a public body (as far as I can see).

Is there anything intrinsically wrong with developers doing this sort of thing in the forums' opinion?

Not the same as developer led archaeology , where the developer pays , which has had a major impact on the number of excavations a consequent flood of "Grey literature " and also employment for archaeologists in the past twenty years .

On 2012-12-02 07:33, jonm wrote:

Quote:

Not the same as developer led archaeology , where the developer pays , which has had a major impact on the number of excavations a consequent flood of "Grey literature " and also employment for archaeologists in the past twenty years .

Thanks George: I don't know anything much about it than where something is found during works which causes a job to be suspended for a while (which is a very different set of circumstances)

I assume that the number of excavations has increased together with the number of archaeologists employed when developers get involved. Is that a good summary? I haven't come across much in the way of "grey literature" (the "procession" along the cursus came pretty close though): I assume this is all promotional stuff: Seems to me that you get this sort of thing coming out from everyone these days

Developer led investigation has been good thing overall?

On 2012-12-02 18:09, jonm wrote:
Thanks Guys

I've seen a few of those reports (or more precisely been sent a few and then skim read). I see what you mean by 'grey'.

For some reason that escapes me now, I'd assumed that the area surrounding a site could fall under the same rules as the location containing the remains but it wouldn't would it.. that's just ordinary development? I'm so far removed from this sort of thing that I've been assuming that some special rules would apply.

Is there a special term for what was done at Woodhenge, where it's privately funded investigation for some particular aim? (or does it fall into the 'digging up stuff' bracket).

Thanks again

Jon