You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Stone rows’ category.
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.
**********************************************
16. Why has a fence post been inserted into the edge of a mound not recorded by the evaluation report at SN 6894910712?
The two evaluation trenches within the vicinity of Turbine 15 were excavated within the proposed access road corridor and the turbine base. No evidence of a mound, nor other archaeological features, excepting the non-scheduled cairn centred on SN 68819 10653, were identified during the preceding walk-over survey in this location.
This response does not remotely deal with the question unless of course it is saying that because the feature was not identified during the walk-over survey it therefore does not exist. There is a mound at this location and a fence post has been inserted into its edge. At the very least one might have assumed that DAT might have checked to see whether it was there and put in a place a strategy to ensure that it was not damaged any further when the post is removed in the near future.
Mound “overlooked” by the planning process
17. Why have the developers been permitted to dig a new drain to carry water from the new road across the stone row?
This drain was part of the permitted development and did not adversely affect the stone alignment.
Allowing copious amounts of water to cascade across the stone alignment has only not adversely affected it because the developers kindly agreed to move the drain when I pointed out the situation to them. Why did DAT not raise this concern?
18. Why have the developers’ vehicles been allowed to damage substantial areas beyond the permitted development area?
This Trust has no knowledge of substantial damage done to areas outside the permitted development. Dr Gerrard is advised to provide better information and address this particular matter directly to the planning authority.
This answer suggests that DAT are not closely “monitoring” the work for the County Council, otherwise they would for example be aware that a length of historic bank and ditch has been destroyed by vehicular movements associated with the construction of the nearby new road. Why is the DAT suggesting that I contact the County Council about an archaeological matter when they are aware that County Council have already asked that I address this question to them?
We trust that these responses are helpful. In the meantime, if we can assist you further with information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me or our Senior Planning Archaeologist.
Finally
“The extensive survey has, by giving equal weight to remains of all periods, highlighted the significance of the later sites in addition to the already well-documented earlier sites. It has also highlighted the potential for improving our understanding of upland settlement. These issues must be incorporated into the interpretation and management of the Blaenafon landscape to ensure that they receive adequate protection.” – ‘The Archaeology of the Welsh Uplands’ by RCAHMW , Eds. David Browne & Stephen Hughes, 2003, pp. 76
Why has this sensible approach been totally disregarded by the DAT who instead seem to have arbitrarily chosen which heritage assets were worth recording and those which deserved not a second look. The result is a report that is entirely biased and therefore does no justice to the multi-period archaeological landscape which has been damaged with little consideration being given to elements which contribute to making this place special. The Amman Valley owes much of its character to the coal industry and to completely ignore this in the work carried out on Mynydd y Betws is a travesty.
Dr Sandy Gerrard
11/10/12
____________________________________
For all previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.
See also this website and Facebook Group
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.
**********************************************
13. Why has machinery damaged a small part of the central line of mining pits?
We’re uncertain what Dr Gerrard is referring to.
Photographs of this damage have been published in the “Heritage Journal”. The contractors erecting the fence have driven over the historic coal mining earthworks causing some damage. The damage is not considerable, but could have been avoided entirely if the works had been carried out under archaeological supervision. The area damaged lies beyond development area.
The image shows the fence dug into the edge of the mining pits. In the foreground the earthworks have been damaged despite their position beyond the permitted development area.
14. Why was no mitigation work carried out on the central line of mining pits affected by the new road.
See 10 above
Since no excavation work was carried out the opportunity to enhance our understanding of this important resource was wasted. DAT appear to have assumed that this outcrop coal working was modern and therefore not worth investigating. What evidence does DAT have to substantiate this position? Can DAT be sure that these earthworks are not medieval or early post-medieval in origin? The historic character of this area owes a considerable debt to the coal industry. Why did DAT consider it appropriate to ignore such an important constituent of the Mynydd y Betws palimpsest? By choosing to deliberately evaluate only some of the archaeology it was inevitable that the resulting report would be biased and totally unreflective of the true heritage character of the area.
15. Why was no mitigation work carried out on the part of the northern line of mining pits affected by the new road?
See 10 above
See 14 above.
____________________________________
For all previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.
See also this website and Facebook Group
by Sandy Gerrard
[See Part One here]
The Double Row
The double row leads downslope and westward from a cairn which is itself surrounded by a ring of stones. The row consists of two parallel lines of stones which have been destroyed or damaged by activities relating to tinworking. Detailed survey and measurements of each stone allow a number of observations concerning the character of this row to be presented. Whilst accepting that some of this information may be of little or no interest or immediate use it is possible that as our understanding of stone rows develops that this data could be of considerable value in the future. Full details of the information collected during the course of fieldwork are not presented here, but some general statements derived from this information are considered. The double row includes a total of 93 stones, with 46 in the northern row and 47 in the southern one. The row measures 122m long and is aligned at 259º. The maximum distance separating the rows is 2.2m, whilst the minimum is 0.97m and the average is 1.35m. The maximum height of the stones is 0.85m, the minimum is 0.01m and the average is 0.32m. The stones within the northern row are on average slightly shorter than those in the south. The alignment of the individual stones in the northern row varies between 160º and 282º with the average being 252º. The stones in the southern row vary between 190º and 320º with an average of 261º degrees. The maximum distance between stones within the northern row is 7.98m, the minimum is 0.8m and the average 2.17m. The maximum distance between stones within the southern row is 7.1m, the minimum is 0.5m and the average 1.97m. The largest gaps are the result of interference from tinworking activities, otherwise the row is remarkably intact. There is no evidence to suggest that the row was ever restored or excavated and therefore it is very likely that important clues to its function and purpose may survive to be revealed by excavation.
The double row from another angle
The cairn at the eastern end of the double row, has over the years received considerable attention. The cairn itself survives as an 8.8m diameter and 0.85m high mound with a large irregular shaped hollow cut into it’s centre. Spoil from this robbing activity has been thrown out southward where it forms a roughly crescent shaped bank. Surrounding the cairn is a ring of upright stones of which ten are standing and four have fallen. The upright stones stand between 0.93m and 0.42m high. It is not clear from surface indications alone whether the cairn was placed in an already extant stone circle or the circle added to an existing cairn or even whether they were erected at the same time. Likewise it is not possible to ascertain the precise sequence of events relative to the adjacent row. It does however seem very likely that in its final functioning form the row, cairn and circle would have been present and been integral to the ritual activity being practiced.
Plans of the double and single stone rows and cairns at Hart Tor. The plan on the left shows only the prehistoric archaeology, whilst the one on the right shows all the visible archaeology.
The Single Row This row is much less spectacular, but none the less forms an integral part of the site and must have considerably enhanced the sites importance both to its builders, antiquarians, visitors and archaeologists. The row itself now includes at least 16 stones extending at 243º for 56.4m from a cairn. Originally this row was probably much longer, but without excavation its full extent is likely to remain a mystery. The maximum height of the stones is 0.86m, the minimum is 0.08m and the average is 0.29m. The alignment of the individual stones in the row varies between 195º and 347º with the average being 255º. The maximum distance between the stones is 13.75m, the minimum is 0.5m and the average 3.25m.
The cairn at the eastern end of the row like so many on Dartmoor has been robbed. Material from this activity was thrown out northwards. The surviving mound measures 7.4m in diameter and up to 0.75m high and there is no trace of the internal structure described by Wilkinson.
Plan of the cairns at the upper end of the stone rows
Cross sectional profile across the cairns at the upper end of the stone rows
The Southern Cairn This cairn has a substantial hollow leading into the mound from its southern side. Material upcast from this robbing activity has distorted the profile of the mound, which may have originally been flat topped. The cairn measures 8.8m in diameter and stands up to 0.7m high. A small number of apparently edge set stones around the eastern edge of the mound may represent an outer kerb, although it is equally possible that they simply form exposed parts of the cairn’s core.
Plan of the southern cairn
Cross sectional profile across the southern cairn
The Western Cairn On the western bank of the River Meavy below Black Tor is a 4m diameter mound standing up to 0.8m high and most significantly there is no sign of the central hollow so indicative of robbing. Cairns which have not been investigated, form a particularly important part of the archaeological resource because they are sadly relatively rare on the moor. This cairn lies only 45m from the surviving end of the double stone row at Hart Tor on the other side of the river, and should perhaps be considered as belonging to that important group of monuments. It would therefore appear that the Hart Tor ritual complex was more extensive than previously believed and it is likely that other structures associated with it were destroyed when the rich alluvial tin deposits within this area were exploited during the medieval period.
Plan and cross sectional profile of the western cairn
-
Map showing the relative position of the stone rows in the upper part of the Meavy Valley
Conclusion
The stone rows and cairns at Hart Tor survive amazingly well when one considers the intensity of later activity within their vicinity. The detailed survey and characterisation of the stones within the rows highlights the value of this approach and will hopefully provide material for comparative analysis.
Further Reading
Bate, C. Spence, 1871, “On the Prehistoric Antiquities of Dartmoor”, Trans. Devonshire Assoc., 4, 505.
Butler, J., 1994, Dartmoor Atlas of Antiquities, Volume Three – The South-West, Devon Books
Chudleigh, J., 1987, An Exploration of Dartmoor’s Antiquities, John Pegg Publishing. Originally published in 1892.
Emmett, D.D., 1979 “Stone Rows: the traditional view reconsidered”, Devon Archaeological Society Proceedings, 37, 94-114.
Grinsell, L.V., 1978, “Dartmoor Barrows”, Devon Archaeological Society Proceedings, 36, 85-180.
Page, J.Ll.,W., 1889, An Exploration of Dartmoor and its Antiquities, with some Account of its Borders, 148.
Pettit, P., 1995, Prehistoric Dartmoor, Republished version of 1974 edition, Forest Publishing.
Rowe, S., 1896, A Perambulation of the Antient and Royal Forest of Dartmoor, 190-91. Third edition, original edition was published in 1848.
Turner, J.R., 1990, “Ring cairns, stone circles and related monuments on Dartmoor”, Devon Archaeological Society Proceedings, 48, 27-86.
Wilkinson, Sir J.G., 1862, “British remains on Dartmoor”, Journal British Archaeological Association, 18, 36-37 and Figure 8.
Worth, R.N., 1892, “The Stone Rows of Dartmoor part 1″, Trans. Devonshire Assoc.,24, 396-8.
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
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
by Sandy Gerrard
Introduction
The stone rows and cairns at Hart Tor lie on a gentle west facing slope overlooking the River Meavy at an altitude of between 335m and 345m. Despite considerable tinworking activity and some stone splitting in the immediate vicinity, the stone rows, in particular, survive well. The most significant damage relates to a prospecting trench excavated by tinners through both rows and the removal of the western end of the double row by alluvial streamworking. Four cairns are associated with this ritual complex, and whilst the three on the Hart Tor side of the river have all been pillaged, a fourth lying on the edge of the streamwork on the Black Tor side of the valley appears to be intact.
Getting There
The stone rows and cairns lie east of B3212 which leads between Princetown and Yelverton, at SX 576717 and are shown on the Ordnance Survey 1:25000 Outdoor Leisure Map 28. The monument in common with many in the Meavy Valley lies within an area which is frequently visited, and because it is so prominent it receives considerable numbers of visitors each year. The site is not seasonally obscured by bracken and can therefore be visited at any time of year. The site is readily accessible from the B3212, and those travelling to the area by car can park at at SX 57507254. Car parking is sometimes available closer than this, but consists of small pull-ins which are often full on days when the weather is good. The walk to the site will take you across a tin streamwork adjacent to the River Meavy. The river can be very relatively easily crossed in this area, except after heavy rain when special care should be taken.
Archaeological History
In contrast to much of the archaeology in the Meavy Valley, the Hart Tor stone rows have received considerable attention over the years. The first mention of the rows appears in Samuel Rowe’s Perambulation of Dartmoor, which was first published in 1848. Rowe describes them as a “pair of rows which are only forty feet apart, and run parallel to each other, east and west” (Rowe, 1898, 190). The rows do not in fact lie parallel diverging as they do by 16º. Rowe continued “They are formed of stones two feet and a half high, and each is terminated at the east end by a circle, thirty-six feet in diameter, consisting of fifteen stones, inclosing a cairn.” In reality only the cairn at the end of the double row now fits Rowe’s description and whilst it cannot be entirely ruled out that a second ring of stones was removed in the early part of the 19th century, it does seem most unlikely. Rowe records the double row as upwards of four hundred feet long and the single row as about two hundred feet. Finally, he describes the prospecting trench cutting through both rows as an old streamwork, which certainly confirms that the tinwork in this area had been abandoned long before this time.
The earliest plan of the site would appear to be that produced by Wilkinson in his British remains on Dartmoor which was published in 1862. The accompanying text describes the northernmost cairn in great detail and records that there were probably originally 15 stones forming the encircling kerb of which 14 remained and 10 were standing. He went on to note that other stones within the cairn itself had apparently been placed in concentric circles. Wilkinson recorded the length of the double row as 418 feet and recorded that its western end was denoted by “a large monolith, now fallen, measuring about 25 feet long by 2 feet 3 inches” (Wilkinson, 1862, 37). The single row he describes as 205 feet long and the cairn at its eastern end as 27 feet to 29 feet in diameter and again he noted the presence of inner rings of stones protruding from the mound material. The inner rings of stones mentioned by Wilkinson are no longer visible, but given that examples are known at other sites such as Scorhill and Drizzlecombe, they certainly can not be dismissed and there must be a strong possibility that they still survive buried amongst the mound material. Spence Bate’s account describes the rows as “Under Black Tor, near Princetown” (Bate, C. Spence, 1871, 505). He describes the double row as consisting of a total of 90 stones measuring nearly a furlong in length. The single row he notes as having 16 stones. According to Spence Bate both barrows at the upper end of the rows were “encircled by stones”. This description may however be the result of a misreading of Wilkinson’s earlier account, where the cairns are described as concentric-circle-carns on page 36, but on page 37 it is made clear that, whilst Wilkinson strongly believed that both mounds had originally been encircled, that the stones around the southern cairn were no longer visible.
John Page writing in 1889 describes only the cairn at the end of the double row as “enclosed by a circle” and notes that the double row measured 396 feet and the single one as not exceeding 80 feet (Page, J.Ll.W., 1889, 148). He also mentions the damage caused by tinworking, but this time calls it a “deep trench” rather than a streamwork.
Plan of Hart Tor stone rows and cairns published by Sir J.G. Wilkinson in 1862
Most interestingly he refers to several cairns “A short distance up the slope to the east” all of which had been rifled. These cairns have never been identified and it seems most likely that he has misidentified some of the lode-back pits and their associated spoil as robbed cairns. By 1892 the site had been By 1892 the site had been described so frequently that R.N. Worth started his account with a review of the existing literature before commencing with his own contribution (Worth, R.N., 1892, 396-8). Worth concluded that the cairn at the end of the single row had never had a stone ring around it because of its close proximity to the encircled cairn. He counted 102 stones within the double row of which 69 “are still standing“. The Hart Tor site which R.N. Worth refers to as Harter was clearly one of his favourites as he notes that it is “among the most interesting we have” and “this is the only place on the Moor where distinctly double and single rows are so associated“.
At around the same time that Worth carried out his fieldwork the site was visited by John Chudleigh who very briefly noted that “opposite Black Tor, are remains of numerous hut circles and enclosures, and a long avenue leading from the river to a circle 7 yards diameter, probably enclosing a kistvaen” (Chudleigh, 1987, 87). Hugh Breton similarly only mentions the site in passing noting that the rows can be seen from Black Tor and that they “terminate in a circle which formerly enclosed cairns“. Given the amount of existing literature concerning the rows his description short though it is, is also very misleading. He says that the cairns no longer exist (and they do) and that both rows had circles (and they did not). A year later, William Crossing added the site to his Guide to Dartmoor and from this time onwards it was almost certainly visited on a regular basis. Amongst other details, he noted that the double row was 460 feet long and the single one 260 feet. One must view the length attributed to the single row with some suspicion because it is 22.85m more than that recorded during this survey and is only beaten by Starkey who recorded it as 82.3m. As one might expect R.H. Worth also described the row and cairns. A number of writers have been more concerned with the cairns than the row and amongst these are Leslie Grinsell, Aubrey Burl and Joe Turner. Grinsell visited the three cairns on the Hart Tor side of the river in the company of Roger Mercer on the 25th April 1973 and published details in his gazetteer (Grinsell, L.V., 174). Aubrey Burl includes the cairn with the encircling stone circle in the gazetteer which accompanied his The Stone Circles of the British Isles. Joe Turner visited the same cairn as part of his work on Dartmoor ring cairns, the results of which were published in 1990. In this publication he describes the site as an encircled cairn.
Further relatively brief mentions of the Hart Tor stone rows and cairns appear in the works of Paul Pettit, Harry Starkey and of course in Emmett’s article on stone rows (Emmett, 1979). The most up to date and detailed published account of the site can be found in Jeremy Butler’s Dartmoor Atlas of Antiquities. In this there are detailed plans of the stone rows and two of the cairns together with useful statistical information. The plan of the rows shows most of the stones recorded during the present work, but the scale is wrongly numbered giving the impression that the rows are half their actual size.
This review of the existing literature is probably not comprehensive and there may be a few published accounts which have been missed. Nevertheless it demonstrates the considerable level of interest there has been in this site for over 150 years. It also highlights how different workers have described the site in very different ways. As an interesting exercise on the reliability of written accounts it is perhaps useful to briefly examine differences in the dimensions attributed to the rows over the years. The double row is variously described as being between 91.44m and 201m. This huge difference is perhaps explained by the fact that some of the earlier writers would appear to have estimated the length or perhaps paced it. The figures for the single row are equally inconsistent with readings of between 24m and 82m having been recorded. For the record, the lengths recorded by the present examination were 122m long for the double row and 56.4m for the single one. These figures are very similar to those recorded by the Ordnance Survey archaeologists in the 1970′s, but are slightly less than those recorded by Butler. The most plausible reason for this difference is that Butler’s survey did not take account of the prevailing slope.
References: See Part 2.
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
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
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 16th 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
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.
GENERAL POINTS (continued)
In terms of the planning responses made by this Trust it is important to remember that the stone alignment, which is at the heart of Dr and Mrs Gerrard’s concerns, was not discovered until early January 2012. The original field work was carried out much earlier.
This recent discovery was only achieved because of mountain fires the previous summer and we are certain that the stone alignment, buried in tall heather and vegetation, would not have been discovered earlier if it had not been exposed by fire.
This issue is central to the whole debate. I believe that once planning permission had been granted the substantial area highlighted for destruction should have been looked at thoroughly and to do this vegetation that was going to be lost anyway should have either been cut or carefully burnt. This would have provided both archaeological and ecological benefits. The area could have been checked for “hidden” archaeology and the resultant fire-break could have represented the start of more positive management of the heather in the area. Instead no search was conducted of an area which was about to be destroyed and which both the Trust and Cadw had previously described as archaeologically important. Whether the stone alignment is prehistoric or not is not the main issue. The main issue is that no attempt was made to locate or record archaeological remains of ANY date in advance of a permitted development.
It is wholly wrong of Dr and Mrs Gerrard to criticise many other field archaeologists from a number of organisations for failing to make this discovery in the prevailing circumstances of dense vegetation cover. By January 2012 the stone alignment was very clear in a charred landscape and would have been easily observed by anyone walking in the area.
I am not aware that I have criticised anyone for failing to see the stone alignment in the “dense vegetation”. I have challenged the evidence for the hill being covered in dense vegetation as photographs taken at the time indicate a mosaic of different vegetation conditions. I have also asked on several occasions why a proper search was not conducted. My criticism is that nobody looked for or was asked to look for earthworks in these areas. Is dense vegetation seen as a valid excuse for not conducting a thorough search of areas about to be destroyed? Why is it wrong to criticise when such work was clearly not done? To do such work in future would mean more employment for fellow archaeologists and ensure such mistakes do NOT re-occur. If as fellow professionals it is wholly wrong to criticise how will understanding ever progress? Academically in ALL fields of research criticism of currently widely accepted views has shown they are often inaccurate. This comment is therefore blatantly insulting and shows scant regard for an understanding of how knowledge is obtained. Also to then add ‘anyone’ walking in the area would have spotted it after burning is clearly intended as a put down, but actually reinforces the main point I have been making from the start. If they had removed the vegetation obscuring the archaeology then indeed according to DAT it could have been spotted by “anyone”, but instead they choose to “sign off” the area without a proper examination simply because it happened to be covered in dense vegetation on the day allocated for the fieldwork. This is what is wholly wrong. Just because they didn’t bother to look for archaeology in the areas covered in dense vegetation, does not give them an excuse to treat with contempt those who did make the effort to have a look and honestly report their findings before it was too late. The fencing contractors and other operatives also failed to notice it, but of course anybody could….
____________________________________
For previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.
See also this website and Facebook Group
