Preservation by Record, but for how long?

A lot is being made these days of the phrase ‘Preservation by Record’. This phrase usually comes to the fore in Developer-led or Rescue (ha!) archaeology, where a site is deemed to be of major importance, but the economics and politics of the situation overrule the archaeology, which is then destroyed forever, removing any future prospect of learning more from the site. See the Thornborough Henges for a classic example of this where entire settlements have been (some would say needlessly) quarried away (and subsequently flooded) for the sake of short-term profit.

At the same time, there is a current philosophy of moving towards ‘Open Access’ archaeology – however you define that. For many, it means everything (?) available online, preferably for free, but often at a (prohibitive for some) cost and invariably difficult to find. But the main point is that archives are increasingly becoming digital in nature.

So what does this mean for future historians and archaeologists? The source material is being obliterated – archaeology by definition being a destructive process – and the source records are being digitised, thus also eliminating the primary records.

Now talking about digitised records, I recently came across some 5.25″ diskettes in my attic, some labeled ‘personal documents’. I have no idea what is on these disks, which are some 15 years old, possibly older. Brief enquiries among my ‘geekier’ friends for conversion suggestions came up blank – although one did say he could cope with 8″ or 3.5″ diskettes, but not 5.25″! I am now resigned to having lost these digital records, when I don’t know what they contain.

Yes, I had some of these too! Image © Hannes Grobe via Wikimedia Commons

Fast forward not 15, but 50 years. What digital technologies will exist then? More to the point, what technologies will survive to enable today’s digital records to be read? It is extremely unlikely that today’s formats will still be in use. Even today, some of the earliest versions of PDF documents can no longer be read by today’s sophisticated viewers due to incompatibilities and potential security loopholes. Even more to the point, at a time when funding is constantly being squeezed from all sides, who will pay to maintain and convert the existing digital records in a format that will be readable in 10, 50, 100 years time or more?

© Wikimedia Commons

So it would seem that the answer may be to retain the primary source records, in paper format. But this has its own problem set, not the least of which is space. There was an interesting discussion on this topic at the British Archaeological Trust AGM earlier this year. Again, cost is a major factor but there are opportunities to overcome the space issues, by utilising underground caverns and mines. Deepstore  was specifically mentioned as a facility which many archives are currently investigating, though the fact that it uses a salt mine raised environmental concerns for some of those present at the meeting.

So it seems that although the problem is acknowledged, without ongoing funding the future for our archives would appear to be potentially very bleak indeed.

Archaeology – Enjoy it while it lasts?

If this article is of concern to you, please consider joining and supporting the British Archaeological Trust (RESCUE), who campaign and lobby parliament about such matters.  

Government speaks out at last!

The Government of Belize has condemned the deliberate bulldozing of a 2,300 year old monument as “ignorant and unforgivable” and says that such cultural landmarks should be protected at all costs and that the “disdain for our laws and policies is incomprehensible.”

The millionaire culprit will offer to finance research into what is no longer there and be given a £4,000 fine and a slapped wrist. Oh no, sorry, that last bit applies to the bulldozing of a Priddy Henge, a monument in southern England that’s twice as old!

2,500 giant wind tubines to be erected in the Midlands.

Britain’s requirement for green energy is to be met by the erection of 2,500 giant wind turbines in clusters of 50 across the Midlands. They’ll each be much higher than Blackpool Tower and, thanks to special government rules, they can all be built less than a third of a mile from any house. Protestor Henry Fingleton said: “As we perceive it, the scale of the plan is so enormous that it will be the biggest transformation of the midlands counties since deforestation. It will ruin the landscape”. Nine community associations have banded together to demand “a more socially acceptable scale of wind-farm development“.

**************************************************************

We should perhaps point out though it won’t happen in the Midlands of England but of Ireland – although the power will go to Britain and in fact it’s a British idea, fuelled by subsidies from the British government. Here’s the plan: “UK to outflank objectors with wind farms in Ireland: Faced with fervent and growing opposition to onshore wind farms in the UK, Tory MPs are backing a plan to site those facilities in Ireland – and then export the renewable energy generated back to Britain using cables running under the Irish Sea, to Wales”.

So it looks very similar to buying cheap trainers from Asia produced in a way that wouldn’t be acceptable over here.

The Bog of Allen, an archaeological and natural treasure described by one Irish public body as “as much a part of Irish natural heritage as the Book of Kells” where 700 turbines are to be built using British Government subsidies to the developers. Each landowner will be paid many thousands to agree so effectively the British government will be providing the bribes to enable Ireland’s landscapes to be ruined.

.

English Heritage erect invisible notices round Silbury!

The problem of unauthorised climbing of Silbury persists. In January Avebury Parish Council noted that “The fence around Silbury Hill had broken down and there was no warning sign ‘do not climb’” and in March the Chairman reported he had attended a meeting there with English Heritage staff and that a decision had been made to mend the fence around the base of the Hill, improve signage and place dead blackthorn branches in selected places to deter access. (It had been put to them that hawthorn hedging could be planted to make access more difficult but EH staff on site were concerned this would give cover for burrowing animals such as rabbits.) As can be seen from our photograph taken last weekend neither fences nor signs nor anything else seem to deter some people.

EH had also noted that “the grass surface of the Hill had recovered remarkably rapidly due to the track to the north side of the monument currently being under water.” However, that’s no great comfort as the water will soon be gone and in any case the issue is not damage to the grass but to the surface of the hill, which will never recover. In addition, as can be seen at the top left of our photograph, yet another new footpath has been formed, leading straight up to the summit.

If anyone has any ideas how to discourage those who do this we’d be glad to publish them. We can’t help thinking the key is in the wording on the notices. The two young fellows on the photograph were being watched by four girls they arrived with and it’s possible there is very often an element of “showing off” involved so our own suggestion for the wording would be this…..

Mynydd y Betws: the response from Dyfed Archaeological Trust (Part Seven)

by Sandy Gerard

In March last year 18 questions relating to the archaeological situation on Mynydd y Betws were asked. During May the answers provided by Cadw were published here. I also asked my local Assembly member (Mr Rhodri Glyn Thomas) to ask the Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT) the same questions and he kindly did this on my behalf. Having had no response in October I asked Carmarthenshire County Council for a copy of the DAT response and this was passed to both Mr Thomas and myself shortly afterwards. A commentary on the DAT response was then produced and sent to Carmarthenshire County Council. This series of articles present DAT’s responses in black and my own comments upon them in green. See part 1 of the series here.

**********************************************

10. The explanation for Evaluation Trench 43 is not consistent with the evidence.
Evaluation trench 43 examined the mining pits. We understand that this had to be abandoned for health and safety reasons as asbestos cement was identified within the mining pits. Cotswold Archaeology had recorded much of the trench before the asbestos was revealed. However, it was clear that they are modern industrial mining features, parts of which could be removed by the development without significant loss to the historic environment of Mynydd y Betws
A truly remarkable answer. The excavation was limited to half-sectioning modern dumped material in these features and no attempt was made to reveal the primary deposits. It is therefore hardly surprising that the conclusion was wrong. A cursory glance at the Royal Commission volume for this area would have provided much more accurate results and an explanation for the depth of dumped material. This excavation was effectively abandoned even before the 1917 turf level was reached.

In the circumstances it is therefore difficult to accept that it is “clear that they are modern industrial mining features” as actually it is clear that they are not. Furthermore, the only matter that is clear is that it is now known that these remains were not recorded at all, with instead the work being devoted entirely to examining the rubbish that had been dumped into them. Given this, it necessarily follows that the Trust have no way of knowing whether a significant loss to the historic environment has occurred. At the very least an opportunity to understand the historic environment has been squandered. Are the Trust at least willing to admit to that? Why is the Trust satisfied that a heritage asset of some considerable age has been damaged without any proper recording?

11. The excavation strategy employed by Evaluation Trench 43 is very curious.
We do not agree with Dr Gerrard that the positioning of the trench in anyway affected the interpretation of these feature.
A trench that included at least one dump could have provided dating evidence and information on the character of the material being mined. The positioning of the trench meant that this potentially crucial information could not possibly be recovered. These features include three main elements – the pit, its fill and dump. The decision to look at only two is rather like excavating the ditch of a barrow but ignoring the mound itself. The decision to excavate these features in this manner may have contributed to the erroneous result.

12. The mining pits extend into the area of Turbine 16.
See 10 above
See 10 above.

The historic coal workings were largely ignored during the process. Why?

____________________________________

For all previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.

See also this website and Facebook Group

Mynydd y Betws: the response from Dyfed Archaeological Trust (Part Six)

by Sandy Gerrard

In March last year 18 questions relating to the archaeological situation on Mynydd y Betws were asked. During May the answers provided by Cadw were published here. I also asked my local Assembly member (Mr Rhodri Glyn Thomas) to ask the Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT) the same questions and he kindly did this on my behalf. Having had no response in October I asked Carmarthenshire County Council for a copy of the DAT response and this was passed to both Mr Thomas and myself shortly afterwards. A commentary on the DAT response was then produced and sent to Carmarthenshire County Council. This series of articles present DAT’s responses in black and my own comments upon them in green. See part 1 of the series here.

**********************************************

7. Why was no evaluation trench placed across the three cairn-like features between Evaluation Trenches 38 and 39?

This area was subject to an archaeological examination which demonstrated that the stone features were the eroded remains of natural bedrock and are not archaeological in origin.

I await the results of this work with interest. I was surprised that it did not form part of the Preliminary Statement. At least the remaining two features will be available for comparative study. My main point is why were these features not examined as part of the initial mitigation exercise? They were not in area of heather, were very close to two previous interventions and were obvious anomalies.

8. Why was the bank with associated ditch near to Evaluation Trench 40 not examined?

The trench location had been agreed between Cotswold Archaeology and the Trust in order to examine peat deposits.

This response does not answer the question. This historic bank and ditch has clearly been truncated by the development and yet no work was conducted to provide information on its character and date.

Length of historic bank and ditch destroyed without record

9. Why after the discovery of the stone row and a request for a full survey to be conducted was this not carried out?

The discovery of the stone alignment, which we considered to be unverified in terms of Dr Gerrard’s interpretation of date and function, did not merit a full survey, particularly as the overwhelming length of the linear feature lay outside of the permitted development and would not be adversely affected. With the presentation of the Cotswold Archaeology report we consider that Cadw or the Royal Commission can now assess whether a fuller survey is required.

Dr Gerrard affirms that ‘further archaeological remains are known to have been damaged’, but provides no evidence for this.

The full context of the question which DAT have clearly seen indicates that the request relates to the development area and not the row itself. However as the Trust have chosen to answer this question in this way it is worth briefly exploring an obvious contradiction. In this response DAT have chosen to say that it “did not merit a full survey” whilst in an e-mail to Carmarthenshire County Council they state “The alignment of stones needs accurate plotting and description. As the line is not consistently the same along its length, the feature should be characterised.” So did it merit a survey or not? It would appear not as no survey appears to exist but why did DAT choose not to press for a survey which could have resolved or at least informed the ongoing debate?

Evidence of damage to further archaeological remains is provided in the Heritage Journal.

They may not approve of that particular web-site but the evidence and further questions are there and documentation released under a FOI request indicates that DAT are aware of this evidence.

____________________________________

For all previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.

See also this website and Facebook Group

Mynydd y Betws: the response from Dyfed Archaeological Trust (Part Five)

by Sandy Gerrard

In March last year 18 questions relating to the archaeological situation on Mynydd y Betws were asked. During May the answers provided by Cadw were published here. I also asked my local Assembly member (Mr Rhodri Glyn Thomas) to ask the Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT) the same questions and he kindly did this on my behalf. Having had no response in October I asked Carmarthenshire County Council for a copy of the DAT response and this was passed to both Mr Thomas and myself shortly afterwards. A commentary on the DAT response was then produced and sent to Carmarthenshire County Council. This series of articles present DAT’s responses in black and my own comments upon them in green. See part 1 of the series here.

**********************************************

4. Why despite the fact that Evaluation Trench 36 was cut straight across the row it was not identified

The stone alignment is by its nature intermittent and it is perfectly feasible that a standard evaluation trench could miss this feature. Subsequent archaeological work in this area found only three stones and none in the area of T36 – please refer to the report- and therefore it was not identified because there was nothing to identify.

Agreed. Do any records beyond those on the planning portal exist for this intervention?

5. Was the possibility of protecting the stone row below the new road considered?

Yes, this was a consideration. However, it was decided that it would be better to archaeologically excavate this small area with a view to seeking information on the presence, date and function of the stone alignment. This information could then be used to determine whether the overwhelming remaining length of the stone alignment (c 700m) could be afforded protection as a scheduled ancient monument under the 1979 legislation.

That is good news. Is there a record of the decision making process? The planning condition notes that “in the event of any previously unidentified or undisclosed archaeological remains being identified during the course of the development the works on the Site which may affect the said remains will cease until a further programme of works in respect of the said remains has been agreed in writing between the local planning authority and the developer and that scheme shall thereafter be implemented.”

Why has this agreement in writing not been released? Does it exist and if not why not as this would clearly be in breach of the planning conditions.

6. Why was no evaluation trench placed across the obvious linear hollow labelled on the map as a hollow-way?

This is a post-medieval/modern feature and did not require evaluating.

How can DAT be sure that this feature is of post-medieval or modern date? It clearly continued in use into the modern period but without evaluation how can DAT know that it did not have earlier origins? This policy (if indeed that is what it is) is somewhat reminiscent of the early barrow diggers who were interested only in the central burial or Roman archaeological digs where the medieval remains were dismissed as unimportant and not worth recording. Who decides what is worth evaluating and what is the assessment process?

Length of hollow way destroyed without record

____________________________________

For all previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.

See also this website and Facebook Group

Heritage bites back at windfarms

People and organisations who oppose wind farms are sometimes portrayed as being anti-planet and unable to appreciate how vital it is to move towards green energy. However, there are surely cases where the damage is simply too great and should be opposed? There have been some recent instances which show English Heritage and The National Trust are working on that basis.

Remember Lyveden New Bield, where an Inspector ruled that damage to a scheduled monument’s setting caused by four 126 metre high turbines would be “less than substantial”?

EH, NT and East Northants Council have successfully appealed the decision. “The effect of the proposed turbines on one of the most important, beautiful and unspoilt Elizabethan landscapes in England would be appalling. This is why we pressed this case” said Simon Thurley. “We very much hope that this will be the end of the matter.” Indeed – and for several reasons, including the fact that the Inspector had said the damage to the asset was reduced by the temporary nature of the planning permission (25 years) and its reversibility. “Don’t worry it’s only for 25 years” is neither convincing nor consoling. There are numerous important landscapes and settings of all periods that don’t deserve wrecking on the basis it would only be for 25 years.

But apart from that does the reversal of this decision bring any further advantages? In particular, does it put a mark in the sand whereby other heritage assets of this calibre will be safe? Sadly no. It seems that precedents don’t play a part in many decisions despite English Heritage’s attempt to provide a rational basis for assessing the balance between energy needs and heritage conservation and their development of a database of previous decisions. Thus Mr Smith, deputy chief executive RenewableUK, which represents the wind farm industry, said: ‘It would be wrong to suggest that any kind of precedent has been set on this occasion, as each wind farm application is considered on a case-by-case basis”.

He seems to be saying the significance of heritage assets is open to a fresh battle every time. If true it’s a shame. It’s hard to see how it can be right for decisions to be independent of guidance through precedents or reference to any sort of “heritage significance scale”. Inspectors aren’t Gods with impeccable, consistent judgement on every “one-off” occasion, nor should the fate of high value heritage assets be dependant upon how well a particular barrister performs rather than how valuable the asset is. Put baldly, Mr Smith seems to be reassuring his wind farm entrepreneur colleagues that it’s always worth a try lads,  as sometimes you’ll get lucky!” We can only hope Inspectors will still take a sneaky peak at EH’s guidance and database of previous decisions so that consistency prevails.

[If any of the above is wrong we'd be pleased to hear from anyone qualified to explain things].

Mynydd y Betws: the response from Dyfed Archaeological Trust (Part Four)

by Sandy Gerrard

In March last year 18 questions relating to the archaeological situation on Mynydd y Betws were asked. During May the answers provided by Cadw were published here. I also asked my local Assembly member (Mr Rhodri Glyn Thomas) to ask the Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT) the same questions and he kindly did this on my behalf. Having had no response in October I asked Carmarthenshire County Council for a copy of the DAT response and this was passed to both Mr Thomas and myself shortly afterwards. A commentary on the DAT response was then produced and sent to Carmarthenshire County Council. This series of articles present DAT’s responses in black and my own comments upon them in green. See part 1 of the series here.

**********************************************

Dr Gerrard’s specific points

(It should be noted that Dr Gerrard’s questions are based on the premise that he has discovered a rare prehistoric stone row of national importance – an assertion that could not and has not been verified) How can DAT know what premise my questions are based on? If they had asked I would have told them. They are based on the premise that the archaeological response to the development on Mynydd y Betws has been inadequate. Most of the issues flow from the single fact that the area being developed was not at any time properly looked at or surveyed. No attempt was made to look for archaeological remains and no consideration was given to the possibility of removing vegetation to make sure that nothing important had been overlooked. Whilst my assertion that this feature is a prehistoric stone row has indeed not been verified on the basis of available evidence it still seems a more likely explanation than the alternatives offered by CAT and DAT which incidentally have also not yet been verified.

 1. Why was no earthwork survey ever conducted?
In terms of this development a considerable amount of pre-determination work was undertaken, including a walk-over survey by Cambrian Archaeological Projects in 2005. This work concentrated on the proposed development area and was no doubt hampered by vegetation. The work concluded that no major archaeological asset would be disturbed along the line of the proposed development. As no archaeological asset would be disturbed by the development an earthwork survey was not necessary.
An interesting shift in emphasis in this response. To start with DAT points out that “the work concluded that no major archaeological asset would be disturbed”. But by the next sentence the word major has been dropped and now no archaeological asset was going to be disturbed. This is untrue unless of course DAT now believe that early coal mining remains described by the Royal Commission are no longer to be considered as archaeological assets.
Furthermore and perhaps most significantly the Planning Inspector observed that there was unrecorded archaeology within the development area and despite this no measures were taken to rectify the situation. Why was the Planning Inspector’s guidance not heeded?

2. Why was no watching brief carried out when a fence was erected on the very edge of a scheduled monument?
The posts were sited, following Cadw’s advice, 10m beyond the limit of the Scheduled Monument in order to protect the monument from unauthorised or accidental encroachment. It is not normal practice for archaeological watching briefs to be carried out when fence posts are being driven into the ground as there is no opportunity for observation.
Would this explain why posts have been driven into the centre of the feature identified adjacent to Turbine 5? I think in the circumstances it would be very easy to argue that the statement “there is no opportunity for observation” is clearly wrong. In this instance there were clearly considerable opportunities for observation.

3. No archaeological watching brief was being conducted on 16th January 2012.
It was agreed that watching briefs would be carried out in sensitive areas as part of Stage 4 of the mitigation strategy and where the previous stages (augering and evaluation) had determined possible archaeological presence. The previous stages had proved entirely negative as did the subsequent watching brief work during geotechnical operations. With the developers cooperation a more extensive watching brief has been maintained throughout a large proportion of the subsequent development works but has not identified any archaeological features nor recovered any artefacts. The Trust is confident that the development has not needlessly destroyed significant archaeology without record. Indeed, Dr Gerrard provides no evidence that this happened.
The area in question is now depicted in the Preliminary Statement as having benefitted from a watching brief. The DAT officer who asked the developers to stop machining this area is also aware that no watching brief was being carried out and yet DAT are satisfied that this work was carried out. Why?
The use of the term “significant archaeology” is clearly intended to confuse the issue but also helpfully implies an appreciation that archaeology has indeed been needlessly destroyed without record. It’s simply that the DAT do not see historic coal mining remains, hollow ways and ditches with banks as significant.
Evidence of damage to archaeological assets is provided at several locations in the on-line “Heritage Journal” a resource that DAT were helpfully pointed towards early in February by the Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service.

This area is recorded as having had a watching brief.

____________________________________

For all previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.

See also this website and Facebook Group

Mynydd y Betws: the response from Dyfed Archaeological Trust (Part Three)

by Sandy Gerrard

In March last year 18 questions relating to the archaeological situation on Mynydd y Betws were asked. During May the answers provided by Cadw were published here. I also asked my local Assembly member (Mr Rhodri Glyn Thomas) to ask the Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT) the same questions and he kindly did this on my behalf. Having had no response in October I asked Carmarthenshire County Council for a copy of the DAT response and this was passed to both Mr Thomas and myself shortly afterwards. A commentary on the DAT response was then produced and sent to Carmarthenshire County Council. This series of articles present DAT’s responses in black and my own comments upon them in green. See part 1 of the series here, and part 2 here.

**********************************************

C/ It is worth pointing out the extent of the archaeological work that has been undertaken. It has involved:

• A desk based assessment in 2005 Overlooked for example the historic coal industry remains and the stone alignment which is apparently clearly visible on aerial photographs consulted as part of this exercise. Much has been made of the fact that the stone alignment has only been visible since a fire removed the “dense vegetation”. This is untrue as there are photographs of the feature in records held by the DAT. These photographs should have been consulted as part of the planning process and the feature therefore identified at an early stage in the process.

• A field survey in 2005  Also overlooked the historic coal remains, hollow way and bank with ditch

• Field visits by Trust and Cadw staff for a number of projects DAT officer claimed for a short time at our meeting that the stone alignment was in Neath Port Talbot and clearly demonstrated on several occasions that he had had no idea where he was.

• An extensive augur survey to identify peats and/or prehistoric horizons, carried out to the Standard and Guidance of the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA), our national governing body.

• 43 trial trenches (on the access roads and turbine bases), carried out to the Standard and Guidance of the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA). According to the Evaluation report “A total of 40 trenches was excavated across the development site”. Have DAT even read the report as they do not seem to know how many trenches were actually excavated?

• an extensive archaeological watching brief, carried out to the Standard and Guidance of the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA). Areas shown in the Preliminary Statement as having benefited from a watching brief were being removed by machinery with no archaeological supervision on 16^th January 2012.

• Full excavation of the stone alignment where the new access road and spur to Turbine 16 impacted on it, carried out to the Standard and Guidance of the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA).

• Preparation of a preliminary statement on the stone alignment, carried out to the Standard and Guidance of the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA). Is it normal practise not to include photographs of an excavation that is being reported upon within the format of a report that does include drawings and other photographs? Can’t think of any excavation reports that include photographs of the surrounding archaeology, but none of the excavation itself.

• To be done-final reporting.

This is a comprehensive catalogue of the archaeological work that has been undertaken to date and in our estimation meets the planning requirements of Welsh Government and Carmarthenshire County Council.

If failing to carry out a search for earthworks within a development area in a landscape known to contain nationally important archaeological earthworks meets the planning requirements then perhaps these requirements should be re-visited.

D/ Finally, notwithstanding the above catalogue, it was this Trust’s view, and that of Cadw, that the application should have been refused on historic environment grounds. This Trust recommend refusal for this application on the basis that the area was not included in Tan 8, that no assessment had been carried out on the impact of the proposal on the historic landscape (even though we produced a brief to assist this work) and that the reporting as presented by the applicant’s contracting archaeologists (Cambrian Archaeological Projects) had consistently undervalued the scheduled and non-scheduled ancient monuments and their settings. It was therefore partly due to the inadequacy of the presented information that we raised our objections. Subsequently on-site recording and reporting have been carried out to our satisfaction.

In 1917 the Royal Commission published a report describing the Bancbryn coal workings as late C18 or early C19. In 2012 CAT produced a report stating that they were C20 indeed suggesting elsewhere that they were created in 1926. We are being asked to believe that the Royal Commission recorded the coal workings some nine years before they were created. It would be helpful if someone from the Dyfed Archaeological Trust could explain how this is possible and why they are satisfied with this explanation that is clearly wrong.

____________________________________

For previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.

See also this website and Facebook Group