Towards a Research Agenda for Welsh Archaeology: Proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru Conference, Aberystwyth 2001 9781841714790, 9781407319834

Citation preview

BAR 343 2003  BRIGGS (Ed.)  TOWARDS A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR WELSH ARCHAEOLOGY

Towards a Research Agenda for Welsh Archaeology Proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru Conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Edited by

C. Stephen Briggs

BAR British Series 343 B A R

2003

Towards a Research Agenda for Welsh Archaeology Proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru Conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Edited by

C. Stephen Briggs

BAR British Series 343 2003

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 343 Towards a Research Agenda for Welsh Archaeology © Institute of Field Archaeologists and the editor and contributors severally and the Publisher 2003 These papers were prepared following a conference organised by Kate Geary on behalf of IFA Wales/Cymru. Edited on behalf of IFA by Alison Taylor. Designed and typeset by Sue Cawood The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841714790 paperback ISBN 9781407319834 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841714790 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2003. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Contents

TOWARDS A RESEARCH AGENDA FORWELSH ARCHAEOLOGY Proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

a

Contents

b

Acknowledgments, editorial and abbreviations

iii

c

Introduction: Past and future research strategies in Wales , C Stephen Briggs

iv

i

Part 1: Research Agenda, Policy, Strategy and Future Organisation 1

Foreword: View from the Chair Kate Geary

1

2

Pathways to understanding: research frameworks and the historic environment Geoffrey J Wainwright

5

3

New structures – new opportunities – sustainable change? Andrew Marvell

11

4

Research agenda and strategies from a regional curatorial perspective Louise Austin

19

5

Chairman’s introduction: organisation for the future Chris R Musson

25

6

Wales, in the archaeological sense, is ‘an orderly and well-run place’ – where now? Richard J Avent

27

7

The role of Welsh Sites and Monuments Records in developing and implementing research agenda Jenny Hall

33

8

Two into one won’t go: the case for an independent Royal Commission David M Browne

37

9

Some potential future structures for Welsh archaeology C Stephen Briggs

41

10 The way ahead for Royal Commission survey Stephen R Hughes

47

11 Monument Records at RCAHMW; past, present and future David Thomas

57

12 Landscape theory into practice: strategies for the future of historic rural landscapes John G Roberts

61

i

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Part 2: Period and Thematic Papers 13 Environmental archaeology in Wales: problems and priorities Astrid E Caseldine

71

14 Moving the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Wales into the future Elizabeth A Walker

79

15 Finding those who died: priorities for the Neolithic and Bronze Age Frances Lynch

91

16 Inhabiting the landscapes of later prehistory Robert Johnston and John Griffith Roberts

99

17 Understanding the Iron Age: towards agenda for Wales Adam Gwilt

105

18 Towards research agenda for the Roman period Edith E Evans

123

19 Towards research agenda for medieval archaeology Andrew Davidson

131

20 Researching the familiar past: priorities and opportunities in post-medieval archaeology Martin Locock

145

21 Dendrochronology: progress and prospects Richard F Suggett

153

22 The management and recording of historic buildings J Kate Howell

171

23 Partnerships and priorities for the Industrial and Modern periods David Gwyn

179

24 Archaeological aerial reconnaissance – a strategy for the future Toby G Driver

187

25 Maritime and intertidal archaeology Sian E Rees

193

26 A strategy for raw materials C Stephen Briggs

201

24 Foundered or founded on rock? – a future for Welsh provenance studies Robert A Ixer

213

Index

221

ii

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Acknowledgements

The Institute of Field Archaeologists Wales/Cymru acknowledges the generous assistance and support offered by Cadw, the four Welsh Archaeological Trusts, RCAHMW and IFA in making staff time available for the production of this volume. Although every effort has been made by individual contributors to trace the origins

of all graphics, IFA apologises to any untraced copyright holders. Thanks are due to Richard Avent, Don Benson, Nick Brannon, Otto Braasch, Chris Musson, Wlodzimierz Raczkowski, Jens-Peter Schmidt, Marc Talon, Alison Taylor, Tracy Wellman and Peter White, for support in various ways.

Editorial

The editor wishes to thank all contributors for their help in producing this particular view of Wales’s archaeology. Most of those whose papers are printed here kindly offered them as contributions to the Conference. Two or three were originally requested to help complete the picture for the conference, and three papers were subsequently commissioned. For a variety of reasons, not all the contributors felt able to take their papers to the press. Consequently views from the University constituency are

regrettably absent. Nonetheless, the Committee’s wishes have been fulfilled in another requirement – namely that the papers published should represent a broad spectrum of viewpoint, both on the way Welsh archaeology is organised, and in interpretations of the Welsh past. The committee and IFA do not accept responsibility for any of the views expressed, which remain those of individual authors.

Abbreviations

BAR British Archaeological Report Cadw Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments CBA Council for British Archaeology CCW Countryside Council for Wales DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DOENI Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland EH English Heritage FC Forestry Commission GGAT Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust Ltd IFA Institute of Field Archaeologists IFA Wales/Cymru Institute of Field Archaeologists Welsh

NMR Wales National Monuments Record for Wales RCAHMW Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales

RCHME Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) (now part of English Heritage)

SAM Scheduled ancient monument SMR Sites and monuments record Tir Gofal The agri-environmental scheme available to farmers and landowners throughout the whole of Wales, which provides encouragement and financial support for environmentally friendly agricultural practices WATs Welsh Archaeological Trusts

Group

iii

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Introduction: Past and future research strategies in Wales C Stephen Briggs

When organising this conference, IFA Wales/Cymru committee was not seeking consensus to set in stone a strategy for Wales’s future research. They saw it as the beginning of an evolving process. Throughout the 1980s Cadw had sponsored a valuable succession of conferences though without printed record apart from notices in Archaeology in Wales (24,5–10; 25,11; 26,8; 27,8; 28,7–8). In fact the only published general conference of the decade was the Cambrian Archaeological Association Lampeter meeting of 1985 which considered a variety of topics related to managing the historic environment (Austin and Moore 1986).

collection of British archaeological data still capable of analysis and review. A closer threshold was crossed when Henry Longueville Jones wrote prescriptive papers for the recently founded Cambrian Archaeological Association, in 1848 and 1853. In these, Jones defined monument types from Meinihirion to Ecclesiastical sites. All were to be properly observed and described with a view to gaining better understanding of the past and as aids to site preservation and building restorations. He advocated setting up specialist scholarly groups to look into Early British Earthworks and Camps, to undertake a survey of the Romans in Wales, and to take medieval remains more seriously than hitherto had been the case. Publication was seen as an important tool of preservation and as a foil against the ignorance of destructive landowners.

These Cadw meetings were very successful nevertheless. They brought together all those professionally involved as well as other serious observers. Although a handful of subject interest fora now network through loosely related groups under a variety of flags, these have quite specific and restricted remits. They include the Industrial Archaeology Forum, the Built Heritage Forum, the Early Medieval Group, Forestry and the Archaeology Meeting and the Uplands Forum. Outside these, the CBA has, like IFA, as ever kept government on its toes.

Fellow Cambrians were also urged to write parish histories, set up local archives and found museums with reading rooms at Aberystwyth, Beaumaris, Brecon, Carmarthen, Denbigh, Dolgellau, Haverfordwest, Knighton, Mold, Ruthin and Welshpool. In time-honoured tradition, local subcommittees were to oversee the establishment of these museums with the result that some were a century in coming, while others never appeared. Some thirty years on, Romilly Allen underlined these requirements, updating Jones’s ideas and offering greater detail for any potential future devotees to follow (Allen 1884).

Notwithstanding this past, it was IFA’s particular sensibility of the need to re-establish an open forum for practitioners which brought over seventy archaeologists to Aberystwyth. The hope was to encourage a diversity of approach, stimulate good debate and produce a pool of sound ideas from which to establish effective dialogue with their main funding agents. IFA Wales/Cymru is also very concerned about how archaeologists relate to their public. From the broad spectrum of the Conference agenda, the supportive and reactive attendance, IFA Wales/Cymru takes it that colleagues took this matter seriously.

These proposals were to a degree overtaken when the Government institutionalised some of Jones’s desiderata in Lord Avebury’s first Ancient Monuments Act of 1882, afterwards establishing an Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments and later a Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments (Wales and Monmouthshire) in 1908. Though an ongoing saga, the rest, as they say, is history.

No doubt an overview of classical writers would demonstrate that research agenda of one sort or another predated the Roman conquest of Britain. But for Wales, Edward Lhuyd’s Parochialia of the 1690s (Morris 1909–11) made what was probably the first serious impact on the early

It is, nonetheless, a history yet to be written. One brief analysis did at one time appear from the distinguished hand of Sir John Edward Lloyd. He believed Wales had ‘no historic cities’, ‘was not rich in ancient churches’, had an ‘even greater lack of ancient houses’, and that ‘its

iv

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

abbey ruins were often hardly traceable’. Clearly, perspectives have changed considerably since he wrote. His paper also suggested that whereas the Ancient Monuments Board and the Royal Commission had responsibility for care, record and excavation, the promotion of archaeological research fell mainly to the Cambrian Archaeological Association, the National Museum of Wales and the University of Wales (Lloyd 1935–5,44–6).

informs have been usefully rehearsed for a British audience in The Field Archaeologist (Tarrete 1996). Not unlike the French experience, when English Heritage established national research agenda in 1997, it was in the wake of a programme of well-established archaeological projects, some of them already supported by heavy financial commitment. Wales offers research opportunities more regional in scale than either the French or English Heritage models. And it has limited project funding regimes to match. In presenting these essays from its 2001Conference, the committee intends that this initiating volume will inform forthcoming Research Audit(s) and stimulate constructive debate at local grass-roots discussion Agenda meetings. Most importantly, the Committee sees these texts only as the starting point in a developing process. IFA members in Wales recognise that an important index to its real success will be the speed with which these papers thereby become outdated.

Lloyd’s notable exception of the Royal Commission from this research group could well have owed much to a notorious and catastrophic review of the Pembrokeshire Inventory sometimes attributed to RE Mortimer Wheeler, which had appeared in Antiquity in 1927 (OE 1927). Notorious, because the reviewer had systematically (and with good reason) denigrated the quality of research in inventory writing at that time. And catastrophic, because its publication led directly to the reorganisation of the Commission, and in particular to the appointments of Stuart Piggott and Leonard Monroe. Thereby, in a decade, was made an achievement of near-revolutionary quality in fieldwork and research for British scholarship through the Anglesey Inventory of 1937.

Bibliography Allen, JR 1884 ‘The Past, Present, and Future of Archaeology’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 39, 232–242

Explanations of how, and the motivation for why many, if not most later directional changes in Welsh archaeological research policy happened, seem to have been tucked away in official reports or even in occasional book reviews. However, through regular incremental shift, by the 1990s the scale of this change had produced national organisations and educational institutions altogether different from what might have been envisaged even twenty years before. Archaeological practitioners consequently feel that better definition of policy and requirement for the uncertain future are more urgently needed than retrospective analysis.

Austin, D and Moore, D (eds) 1986 Welsh Archaeological Heritage: the proceedings of a conference held by the Cambrian Archaeological Association in 1985, Cambrian Archaeological Association and St David’s University College: Lampeter CNRA 1997 La Recherche archeologique en France; Bilan 1990–1994 et programmation du Conseil national de la recherche archeologique, Min de la Culture Direction du Patrimoine, Sous-direction de l’Archeologie, Editions de la Maison des Sciences de L’Homme: Paris Jones, HL 1848 ‘On the existing condition of antiquarian remains, and on certain desiderata connected with them’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 3, 3–13

Such definition is now made possible in a climate of opportunity seized by Cadw in Wales following recent developments elsewhere. Since around 1990, initiatives funded mainly from government agencies in England by English Heritage have favoured production of research agenda.

Jones, HL 1853 ‘List of Desiderata in the study and preservation of Welsh antiquities’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 8, 271–290 Lloyd, JE 1934-5 ‘Archaeology in Wales’, Yearbook and Proc Ancient Mons Soc 42–46

In France, comprehensive research agenda were initiated in 1995 under the auspices of the Conseil national de la recherche archeologique. The result, a multi-authored combination of critical analyses, a variety of interpretations old and new, and wishlists for future work, was published in 1997 (CNRA 1997). Essentially it was built on the Conseil’s project programme of 1990–94, so to a degree the starting point was governed by existing agenda. The governmental and developer-funded programmes it

Morris, RH 1909-11 The Parochialia of Edward Llwyd, Cambr Archaeol Assoc Supplement I, (1909), II (1910), III (1911), CAA: Cardiff OE 1927 Review by ‘OE’ of Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions in Wales and Monmouthshire vii, County of Pembroke, HMSO: London, 1925, in Antiquity 1,1927, 245–7

v

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Foreword Kate Geary

Chair: IFA Wales/Cymru

The aim of the conference hosted by IFA Wales/Cymru Group was to stimulate debate on a national research strategy for Welsh archaeology. The result was two intensive days of discussion by archaeologists representing all aspects of Welsh archaeology on themes ranging from the need for research frameworks and the organisation of Welsh archaeology to initial thoughts regarding what the priorities might be.

In 1999 Cadw and RCAHMW produced a joint statement entitled ‘Recording, Preserving and Presenting the Welsh Archaeological Landscape’. The purpose of the statement was to set out broad agenda within which both organisations proposed to contribute towards recording, preserving and presenting the archaeological landscape. That was what it did do; what it did not do was, and I quote:

The consensus was that there was indeed a need for a national strategy. Such was the momentum that within the year we are not only able to publish the papers from the conference but also to report that the first stage of the process of developing research agenda is underway. The following paper, prepared for the IFA Conference in Leicester in March 2002, outlines the background to the process and reports on our progress since September 2001.

‘attempt to set out a research agenda for Welsh archaeology, although Cadw and the Royal Commission would welcome the opportunity to work with others in resuming the Board of Celtic Studies of the University of Wales’s 1991 initiative to establish such a framework.’ Under the headings: • Identification, Interpretation and Record • Preservation • Management • Dissemination

In many ways, Welsh archaeologists are in a very fortunate position. Our organisational structure is relatively straightforward compared to that of England. We have Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments and the Welsh Royal Commission at the top as our principal public funding bodies. We have four Welsh Archaeological Trusts maintaining SMRs, carrying out development control functions and grant-aided projects for Cadw and maintaining commercial contracting sections. We have three local authority archaeologists, three National Park archaeologists, five university archaeology departments, the National Museums and Galleries and a relatively small, but increasing, number of independent commercial archaeology units. The Countryside Council for Wales employ an archaeologist, the National Trust employs several. We also have a thriving amateur community. In all, the structure is comprehensive and reasonably well integrated. Most importantly in this case, it is on a fairly small, manageable scale, which should make communication, cooperation and collaboration relatively easy.

It largely failed to emulate English Heritage’s stance in promoting the importance of research frameworks, with the emphasis throughout being on preservation and record, rather than understanding. In fact, the distinction was made clear in a paragraph which stated:‘Both Cadw and the Royal Commission will seek opportunities to cooperate with university departments undertaking programmes of field survey and landscape assessment designed to improve the understanding of the academic framework of aspects of the Welsh landscape.’ The reason behind the distinction between academic and curatorial or contracting archaeology is funding. Since its formation in 1984 as an Executive Agency within the then Welsh Office, Cadw has had a very specific ‘rescue’ remit. Prior to PPG 16 and its successor PPG Wales, 75% of Cadw’s grant to the four Welsh Archaeological Trusts was 1

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

spent on rescue excavation. Now, only some 2% is used for work of this sort. The work programmes that are supported however, threat related assessments, heritage management, historic landscape characterisation and the provision of development control advice to unitary authorities, must still be couched in ‘rescue’ terms. Words like ‘education’ and ‘research’, outside a university context, set all sorts of alarm bells ringing for the Welsh Assembly auditors.

with the four Welsh Archaeological Trusts, on a regional basis. This will involve collating available data from regional and national collections, including the SMRs, NMR Wales, museum collections, archives and, very importantly, people. Cadw will also fund part of the organisation costs of the second stage, the resource assessment. This will take the form of four regional seminars at which invited speakers will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and biases of our current knowledge. For reasons of practicality, this will be done on a period by period basis, although the speakers will be asked to consider a number of themes including housing and storage, land use and enclosure, the use and exploitation of Natural Resources, Coastal and maritime archaeology, Environmental archaeology and Religious or non-secular archaeology.

This artificial division between data gatherers and academic ‘thinkers’ is, in itself, the source of angst, soul searching and pressure for professional archaeologists. No archaeologist worth his or her salt merely records past landscapes in order that they may be preserved. Recording evidence does not take place in a vacuum – part of the process is intellectual engagement with that evidence, regardless of whether that is a funded ‘outcome’ of a particular project.

To ensure compatibility across the four regions, the speakers will be given a brief and will be aided by an informal working party currently active in the relevant field. The research assessment seminars are also seen as an opportunity for local, regional and special interest groups and societies to get involved, in addition to university departments, local contracting units and independent archaeologists. They will also allow regionally specific issues to be raised and addressed.

The need for a national strategy for research has been a topic of much discussion. In the context of modern debate, the University of Wales Board of Celtic Studies initiated moves to produce such a strategy back in 1991, which unfortunately and despite widespread support, did not materialise. The four Welsh Archaeological Trusts have always had their own, implicit research frameworks. Gwynedd Archaeological Trust began the process of developing a Regional Research Framework unilaterally and without external financial support some years ago. There remained, however, a widely held view that a national initiative was also needed, and it was this perceived consensus which prompted IFA Wales to host its own conference.

The third stage will extend across Wales to address common themes arising out of the regional discussions. Along with specific regional priorities, these will feed into the development of research agenda and strategy. A need has also been identified to address resource management issues at this stage. As yet, we have not yet identified the organisational structure for achieving Stage 3 but university departments have a significant contribution to make at this level and it is hoped that they will be able to pick up the baton and run with it.

I am very pleased to be able to report that, as a result of the conference, the ball is now rolling and that a Steering Group has been formed to keep it rolling in the right direction. The membership of the Group is fairly fluid but it aims to be as representative as possible of the various different sectors of Welsh archaeology.

Pitfalls Although the process itself is fairly simple, implementing it may not be. A theme which arose time and again at the conference was the concept of ownership. In fact, Geoff Wainwright referred to it in his opening speech by identifying one of the outcomes of research frameworks thus:-

Research Framework We are fortunate in being able to learn from the example of the Regional Research Frameworks being developed over the border and it was decided to adopt the model used by the West Midlands Regional Research Framework. With no overall funding for the coordination of the process, the staged approach of Resource Audit, Research Assessment and Research Agenda and Strategy allows us to share the burden of cost amongst the partner organisations involved.

‘participation in the research framework process breaks down insularity and the sense of isolation and fragmentation characteristic of our discipline.’ We could have spent an entire conference discussing why archaeology as a profession should be prone to such insularity. But the fact remains that it is. For this process to be successful, it is vital that everyone involved in Welsh archaeology feels that they are part of it and that no one organisation claims more than their fair share of ownership. It is important that the research framework

Cadw has agreed to grant aid the first stage, the Resource Audit, through the existing funding mechanisms they have 2

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

document is neither constraining nor prescriptive and, above all, that it is not static. The different needs and priorities of all the partners within the Steering Group must be taken into account and catered for, allowing us all to feed into the research process and learn from each others results. Just as it is important that organisations do not feel left out, so it is vital that individuals have their parts to play and that a bottom-up approach is adopted rather than the process being dictated (and imposed) from on high.

and to the politicians at both local and national level. Having an agreed set of priorities to present to the paymasters in Cardiff can only be of benefit to us.

There will be difficulties. There are those who feel that a national research framework could be prescriptive and undermine the right to freedom of investigation. There are concerns, especially amongst the commercial units, that a research framework could be used to control their work in a negative way. There are also reports from England that threat-related mitigation is being confused with research and that developers are using the absence of certain sorts of sites within the regional research framework as a reason not to fund ‘rescue’ archaeology.

Social Inclusion: it should include everyone involved in archaeology in Wales at all levels

On that political note, I would like to finish with a few buzz words that I have hijacked for the purposes of developing research agenda. Sustainability: the process of developing research agenda needs to be sustainable, not resource dependant

Joined up thinking: organisations should collaborate not compete, there is no need to reinvent the wheel And finally.... Sense of Place: Because even archaeologists need to know where they have come from and where it is they are trying to go!

There is also the issue of funding. Cadw have made a significant contribution by funding the first stage of the process but the costs of the Steering Group meetings to date are being met by the individual organisations. In the absence of a paid coordinator to keep the process on track and on time, it is up to these organisations to keep up the momentum. The process has benefited greatly from the support of key organisations like Cadw, RCAHMW and the National Museums and Galleries of Wales and others in making staff time available, and without that support I would be reporting a very different picture to you today. These are all pitfalls which we must be aware of. We are again lucky that we can learn from the experience of others.

Conclusions There are many others better qualified to judge the potential educational benefits of having an agreed national research strategy to inform our work as Welsh archaeologists, whether commercial, curatorial, academic or amateur. My personal priority is the additional benefits that the process of development and implementation can bring. There is a particular emphasis on cooperation and consultation which can be no bad thing. An increased understanding of the guiding principles, priorities and even limitations of the partner organisations involved is also going to be a big step forward. It may be naive to suppose that at the end of this process, Welsh archaeology with be less insular and fragmented but we can always hope. The process affords us a genuine opportunity to involve the amateur sector. This is as much their research strategy as it is ours and they have a considerable contribution to make. It also affords us an opportunity to re-examine how we get our message across to the public 3

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

2 Pathways to understanding: Research frameworks and the historic environment Geoffrey J Wainwright (Vice-Chairman RCAHMW)

March Pres, Pontfaen, Fishguard, Pembrokeshire SA65 9TT [email protected]

Abstract The aims and objectives of archaeological research agenda are outlined, principally in the context of English Heritage’s initiative to introduce period and regional frameworks during the late 1990s. Preliminary strategic views from Scotland and Wales are also considered and it is noted that Wales is currently without research agenda. A three-fold working methodology is recommended for implementing research agenda framework programmes. This includes a non-prescriptive methodology to govern an organic, evolving process, inclusive of the widest possible interest groups. Research agenda are considered essential fundamentals to good working practice for all project work initiated within national heritage organisations.

reference to Wales), to outline the structures which experience suggests are best suited and to summarise the benefits of their implementation.

Background The major milestones in the development of research frameworks are fairly clear. A conference was held in London in 1943 to discuss the contribution of archaeology to the post-war world (University of London 1943). It was addressed by the front-rank archaeologists of the time and it is disconcerting to realise that the subject matter would be familiar to us nearly sixty years on – research agenda, training, records, museums, education, amateurs and the role of State archaeology. One notable omission, which is present in all our current agenda, is the complete lack of any sense of the legitimate and latent interest of the public in archaeological discoveries. For Britain this was to change forever in 1954 with the discovery of the Temple of Mithras in London. It took more than three decades for the concept of research frameworks to become incorporated into public policy in England. Frustrated by a declining State budget which was entirely taken up with supporting infrastructures, a policy of funding only project-orientated fieldwork within a research framework was established (Wainwright 1978). From 1980 research designs were requested for any project funded by the Department of the Environment and its successor English Heritage. The change involved moving to a procedure where public funds were allocated project by project and problem by problem on the basis of what we needed to know, rather than to establishment costs. As a result, for the first time ever, we were able to count how many projects we were funding and what they were. I have described elsewhere that it was as if a veil had been pulled aside and we could move more confidently forward along the pathways to understanding our past (Wainwright 2000). Throughout the next decade, thematic studies were produced by national period societies and special interest groups which pointed to the gaps in our knowledge and in

Introduction We all have research frameworks in our heads. Some of us have the pleasure of implementing them – not many of us enjoy the intellectual rigour of writing them down. Some deny their need, and regard scientific research not as a seamless progression towards a well-defined goal, but as a series of short hops, each driven as much by opportunity, personal relations or financial necessity as by a rational strategy. Others go further by regarding agenda as undermining their right to freedom of investigation and shy away from the discipline imposed by objectives set on the basis of what we need to know. Others are asking for clear guidelines from their peers and want a generally agreed framework against which to consider their own problems. The majority view has been set out by Olivier (1996, Executive Summary). ‘There is fundamental agreement that in order to make longer term objectives sustainable, regional frameworks are needed in which all those active in archaeological work can participate, and on which curatorial decisions can be firmly based and fairly judged’. In this paper I propose to examine the background to research frameworks, to see what progress has been made in the United Kingdom (with particular 5

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

who might regard the archaeology budget as vulnerable after PPG 16. The document was important because it stated firmly that although rescue funding had been taken over by developers, English Heritage had a strategic role and from 1991 took a more proactive role in actively commissioning projects to implement its strategy. It was accompanied by an equally important document – now universally known as MAP2 – which contained the essential principle that all projects pass through a number of discrete phases and are assessed against the background of the contribution they can make to our understanding of the past (English Heritage 1991b). This document – or versions of it – have been adopted as standard guidance in many parts of Europe and its use means that it must be possible to assess the project in question against a regional or national research strategy.

England these were paralleled at a regional level by papers from the short-lived Area Advisory Committees.

PPG 16 and its aftermath Planning Policy Guidance Note No 16 on Archaeology and Planning was issued in England in November 1990 (DOE 1990 or PPG 16) and is an important milestone. It set out a general statement on the importance of archaeological remains and advice on the handling of archaeology in the planning process. It described the weight to be given to archaeological matters in planning decisions, the use of planning conditions and the principle that developers should pay for recording and publication of archaeological remains which were to be destroyed by their actions. The introduction of PPG 16 in England resulted in investigations being increased more than threefold in eight years, from 931 in 1990 to 3144 in 1998. Early fears still exist in some quarters but PPG 16 has provided a firm platform from which archaeology has expanded hugely – and has given birth to a similar phenomenon in the rest of Europe. In 1992 the revised European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Valletta 1992) was signed by Ministers – including the UK – at the third European Conference of Ministers responsible for the Cultural Heritage at Valletta in Malta. It embodied the same principles as PPG 16 and provides a framework for professional cooperation in Europe. Scotland in 1994, Wales in 1996 and Northern Ireland in 1999 followed suit with comparable documents (Scottish Office 1994a and b; Welsh Office 1996; Department of the Environment (NI) 1999). The Convention and the four UK advisory notes all contained the same provisions and all had broadly the same effect – the costs of recording and publishing archaeological sites as a result of works covered by the planning process have passed from the State to the developer – whether public or private. As a result, national resources have been redirected from such works into rescue projects not covered by the planning process – such as the intertidal zone and wetlands – and into large scale strategic projects undertaken under the umbrella of a research framework. The latter therefore has a dual relevance in the post PPG 16 world – to provide a framework for public funding and to provide a structure within which archaeologists working for local authorities can frame their advice on planning applications which impinge on the historic environment. As a result, a key objective of the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers is to promote the development of national and local research frameworks to inform and guide the work of historic environment services (ALGAO 2001).

Frameworks for our Past So important were these strategies that Adrian Olivier undertook a study of their structure, nature and attitudes in the profession on behalf of English Heritage (Olivier 1996). This study is the basic text and reference point for anyone who engages in this field and it includes an annex listing all such studies up to 1996. He proposed a staged approach with three main components which together he called a Research Framework:Resource assessment:- a statement of the current state of knowledge and a description of the archaeological resource. Research agenda:- a list of gaps in current knowledge – work which could be done – and the potential for the resource to answer those questions. Research strategy:- a statement setting out priorities and methods that can be pursued to address the agenda. In other words, a list of realistic objectives. Importantly, national frameworks should be clearly articulated with those at a regional level, they should not be prescriptive and collaboration and partnerships are considered to be essential components of a research culture. Research agenda and strategies For Europe, Article 6 of the Valletta Convention enjoins each Party to arrange for public financial support for archaeological research from national, regional and local authorities. The Council of Europe has led by example in pursuing clearly defined research strategies as has the recently formed European Archaeology Council. There is no Research Framework for the whole UK which covers all the historic environment and no UK Research Forum exists where such debates can take place. For England in April 1997 a draft Research Agenda for archaeology was extensively circulated throughout the discipline. Subsequently called Exploring our Past 1998,

English Heritage lost no time in publishing Exploring our Past in 1991 (English Heritage 1991a), which comprised a review of rescue funding in the 1980s and a strategy for the next decade. The document had been prepared not just to illuminate the way forward but to head off any predators 6

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

it underwent a number of revisions and was eventually issued as a Research Strategy in March 1999 (Williams 1999). The aim of the Strategy is to set out the principal programmes of activity that English Heritage intends to pursue. It presents a range of programmes aimed at supporting and delivering the primary goals and research objectives set out in Exploring our Past 1998. There are many lessons to be learned from the document but three in particular stand out:-

open to the public, visitor numbers and listing. It is clear that both in Scotland and Wales there is a long way to go to get our historic environment onto the agenda, despite its power to promote unity, a sense of national pride and economic regeneration. A year before its publication, Cadw and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales (RCAHMW) came together to publish broad agenda within which they propose to contribute towards recording, preserving and presenting the Welsh archaeological landscape over the next few years (Cadw/RCAHMW 1999). The document does not attempt to set out research agenda for Welsh archaeology but both organisations make it clear what they are prepared and able to deliver, individually and in association with others. It is a broad agenda and an important building block in a future research framework. Other building blocks exist in Caseldine’s review of environmental archaeology (Caseldine 1990 and this volume) – which can be set within the framework provided by Bayley (1998), and the cultural reviews provided by recent books on Prehistoric Wales (Lynch, Aldhouse-Green and Davies 2000) and Roman and Early Medieval Wales (Arnold and Davies 2000).

• consultation and how that is undertaken is crucially important • programmes must be goal-led and costed • Exploring our Past 1998 is not a static document – it is in a ring-binder. The success of a research framework may be judged by the rate at which questions become obsolete and are replaced Preparation of regional and period research frameworks are also gathering momentum. Work has begun on regional assessments for the whole of England and a document including the agenda and strategy stages has been published for the Eastern counties (Glazebrook 1997). The period studies are UK-wide. Published examples include the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic (Prehistoric Society 1999), the Iron Age (Armit et al 2000), Roman Britain (James and Millett (eds) 2001) and Urban Issues (Burnham et al 2001). The encouraging developments in England have to be set in the context of a review of policies relating to the historic environment (English Heritage 2000) led by English Heritage to which a Government response is awaited (subsequently issued in December 2001).

Good practice The best examples of research agenda in the UK are related to World Heritage Sites. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in its guidelines for the contents of Management Plans – which are required for all World Heritage Sites – recommended that research programmes should be included (Feilden and Jokilehto 1993, 28 and 39). Such proposals have therefore appeared in the Management Plans for the World Heritage Sites of Avebury, Stonehenge, Orkney, the Tower of London and Blaenavon. Work is in progress on research agenda for all these sites but the first to be published – indeed it is claimed as the first ever research agenda for a World Heritage Site – is that for Avebury in Wiltshire. Developed and written by the Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group (AAHRG 2001) it aims to:-

Scotland – in common with Wales – has the benefit of a national assembly which in 1999 produced a national cultural strategy (Scottish Assembly 1999). To be inclusive and gain support such a strategy must include all aspects of Scottish culture. Unfortunately, there is little reference to the historic environment in the document and none at all to archaeology. Two years earlier, Historic Scotland produced agenda for archaeology. These comprised a consideration of how our understanding of Scotland’s past has developed in recent decades, periodspecific summaries, and a range of views on the gaps in our understanding (Barclay (ed) 1997). Historic Scotland are monitoring and reviewing the success of this agenda and will publish a ten-year review of progress. In Northern Ireland, resource limitations and other priorities limit strategic initiatives and the work of other counties is being examined (info in litt 12. vi 01, from Nick Brannon).

Actively encourage sustainable levels of research into all periods and all relevant aspects of the World Heritage Site and its near environs, in order to improve archaeological understanding, to better inform other academics, and to allow informed archaeological resource management to take place. It will shortly be followed by a Stonehenge Research Framework which will comprise three main elements:• a summary review of archaeological work to date • a statement of the main perceived issues and priorities for systematic investigation over the next decade or so • proposals for progressing all kinds of archaeological research in the Stonehenge area and suggesting a structure

In Wales the National Assembly published its first strategic plan in May 2000 (National Assembly for Wales 2000). Unlike the Scottish cultural strategy it does have some reference to our rich and diverse cultural inheritance and sets out modest objectives relating to monuments 7

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

These documents, together with those forthcoming for other World Heritage Sites, provide good practical examples of how to frame research strategies at a landscape level.

engage in the debate • the document is not static but evolves through regular reviews. Outcomes:- a number of desirable outcomes can be identified from experiences to date which justify the writing of research frameworks:

Conclusion Experience has seen the emergence of common approaches to goals and methodology and the recognition of a common set of outcomes, all relevant to the development of research frameworks in Wales.

• the process encourages synthesis and provides the opportunity for the incorporation of the mass of new data which is becoming available • the product increases external support for what we do by focusing on interesting questions • participation in the multi-disciplinary process helps to provide effective training and professional development and thus raises professional standards • participation in the research framework process breaks down insularity and the sense of isolation and fragmentation characteristic of our discipline • a related outcome is that participation creates and cements partnerships in areas of interdisciplinary work and develops team building and collaboration • the process focuses attention on key questions and promotes and facilitates research. The issues can be divided into period-based, subject-based and contextual and interpretative issues. Examples from Wales in my own sphere of interest could be:-

National Heritage Organisations:- Their objectives are clear: • support the development of national, regional and local research frameworks and ensure that your own work can be clearly seen as contributing to these common goals • fight for an appropriate political framework within which this work can take place – at present that framework needs reinforcement and renewal in all parts of the UK. Common goals:- a set of goals have emerged which are now common to all research frameworks. They are to: • advance the understanding of our historic environment • secure the sustainable conservation of historic landscapes, buildings, sites and collections • promote public appreciation and enjoyment of our cultural heritage • support the development of a professional infrastructure and skills

Period-based issues • Where are the early Mesolithic sites to match Nab Head – under the waves? • Where are the early prehistoric agricultural landscapes? • Where is the evidence for Bronze Age settlement in the Welsh Uplands? • What type of society did the Roman invaders see? • Where is the Roman road west of Carmarthen heading?

Methodology:- the compilation and structure of research frameworks has found much common ground: • involvement of the research community, and where appropriate the local community, through a series of workshops, seminars and consultations is critical to the success and acceptance of the research framework • the structure of research frameworks is also held in common, comprising three elements which can coexist in the same document or as separate documents.

Subject-based issues • Selected case studies of landscape evolution • What evidence is there for an easily recognised hierarchy of rural settlement in Wales given the huge explosion of data from aerial photography?

• resource assessment: a statement of the current state of knowledge • agenda: a statement setting out the main perceived issues and priorities • strategy: proposals for implementation

Contextual issues • The relationship between physical access and settlement in Wales • Expanding the environmental sequence • Where are the hidden landscapes? • What are the missing slices of time? • Dating the undated

These three elements are each based on the preceding stage and together are called a framework (Olivier, 1996, 5).

Good questions produce good results. Research frameworks are not disposable luxuries but are an essential part of any programme of work which seeks to attract funding and support, form partnerships and undertake the research that will enable us to tread the pathways to understanding.

• within the document, national frameworks should be clearly articulated with those at a local level • the framework is not constraining or prescriptive, but should encourage those with an interest in the subject to 8

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bibliography AAHRG (Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group) 2001 Archaeological Research Agenda for the Avebury World Heritage Site, English Heritage: London

Olivier, A 1996 Frameworks for our Past: a review of Research Frameworks, strategies and Perceptions, English Heritage: London Prehistoric Society, 1999 Research Frameworks for the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Britain and Ireland Institute of Archaeology: London

ALGAO 2001 Strategy 2001-2006, Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers, Chelmsford

Scottish Assembly, 1999 A National Cultural Strategy, Edinburgh

Armit, I, Champion, TC, Creighton, J, Gwilt, A, Haselgrove, CC, Hill, JD, Hunter, F and Woodward, A 2000 Understanding the British Iron Age; an agenda for action, University Press: Cambridge

Scottish Office, 1994a National Planning and Policy Guideline 5 Archaeology and Planning, Edinburgh Scottish Office 1994b Planning Advice Note 42: Archaeology - the Planning Process and Scheduled Monument Procedures, Edinburgh

Arnold, CJ and Davies, JL 2000 Roman and Early Medieval Wales, Sutton Publishing: Stroud Barclay, GJ (ed) 1997 State-funded ‘rescue’ Archaeology in Scotland Past, present and future, Historic Scotland, Occas Paper No 2

University of London Institute of Archaeology 1943 Conference on the Future of Archaeology, Occas Paper 5, Institute of Archaeology: London

Bayley, J (ed) 1988 Science in Archaeology: an Agenda for the Future, English Heritage: London

Valletta 1992 European Convention on the protection of the archaeological heritage, (revised), European Treaty Series 143: Strasbourg

Burnham, BC, Collis, JR, Dobinson,C, Haselgrove, CC and Jones, M 2001 ‘Themes for urban research; 100BC to AD 200’, in ST James, and MJ Millett (eds), Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda, CBA Research Report 125, York, 67-76

Wainwright, G 1978 ‘Theory and practice in field Archaeology’, in TC Darvill, M Parker-Pearson, B Smith, and R Thomas (eds), New Approaches to our Past: an archaeological forum, University Archaeological Society: Southampton, 11-28

Cadw/RCAHMW 1999 Recording, preserving and presenting the Welsh archaeological landscape A joint statement, Cardiff and Aberystwyth

Wainwright, G 2000 ‘Time Please’, Antiquity 74, 909-943 Welsh Office 1996 Planning Guidance (Wales) and Welsh Office Circular 60/96 - Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology, HMSO: Cardiff

Caseldine, A 1990 Environmental Archaeology in Wales, Cadw and SDUC: Lampeter DOE (Department of the Environment), Archaeology and Planning, HMSO: London

1990

Williams,T 1999 Exploring our Past Implementation Plan, English Heritage: London

Department of the Environment (NI) 1999 Planning Policy Statement 6 Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage, DOENI: Belfast

1998,

Website National Assembly for Wales 2000 www.betterwales.com

English Heritage, 1991a Exploring our Past, London English Heritage, 1991b Management of Archaeological Projects, 2nd Edition, London English Heritage, 2000 Power of Place: The Future of the Historic Environment, London Feilden, BM and Jokilehto, J 1993 Management guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites, Rome Glazebrook, J 1997 Research and Archaeology: a framework for the Eastern Counties, East Anglian Archaeol Occas Papers 3 James, ST and Millett, MJ (eds) 2001 Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda, CBA Research Report 125, York Lynch, FM, Aldhouse-Green, SHR and Davies, JL 2000 Prehistoric Wales, Sutton Publishing: Stroud

9

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

3 New structures – new opportunities – sustainable change? Andrew Marvell

Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust Ltd Heathfield House, Heathfield, Swansea, SA1 6EL [email protected] www.ggat.org.uk

Abstract Contrary to some popular opinion, the development sector currently provides many opportunities for well funded research. However, fixations with and misunderstandings about functionality have divided the profession and led to poor dividends. Planning legislation and guidance covering environmental and archaeological matters require decisions an informed (ie well researched) basis. Where subsequent mitigation comprises a programme of ‘preservation by record’, then, if this to be robust, it clearly has to have a research dimension not only in the actuality of the work and associated report, but also within the archive. In modern thinking successful developments occur as a result of properly resourced integrated processes reliant on the skills and knowledge of all participants. This is equally true for the management of archaeological work and indeed the development of research agenda. Case examples illustrate different approaches.

value to true investigation and research. Given the ‘rescue’ experience of the 1960s and 1970s, and archaeology’s attraction to alternative cultures, it is perhaps not surprising that there has been apprehension, mistrust and confusion when the perceived enemy becomes the principal paymaster. Yet in the past decade we have failed to keep our own house in order. Over-zealous adherence to the separation of curatorial and contractual functions, mindless adherence to price-driven competitive tendering and an inability to reject poor quality work and its practitioners has undoubtedly damaged archaeology at a time when public interest has never been greater. Wales has been fortunate in avoiding the worst of these excesses. To a greater extent this is due to the fact that advice on archaeological planning issues to local authorities, in particular that connected with detailed casework, comes from the Welsh Archaeological Trusts. These are bodies independent of the local planning system who are engaged with researching the past within their own regions. As a consequence, there are different emphases and expectations in the Trusts, whether in contractual or curatorial mode, to bodies with only a single remit. This can come as a culture shock to some contractors and consultants crossing Offa’s Dyke.

Introduction Developers and archaeologists may not seem natural partners but both provide skills, services and resource that can be mutually beneficial. Archaeologists may not naturally be entrepreneurs, but good archaeological practice includes skills that are not alien to the efficient delivery of developments. Processes used for undertaking an archaeological investigation from project inception to delivery of report are not that different to those required for the successful delivery of a construction project. Each has a goal achieved through a plan subject to periodic review and revision, which will only be efficiently delivered if the necessary resources (fiscal, material and human) are identified, secured and effectively managed.

However, there are now frameworks of all kinds that allow a different kind of relationship between archaeologists and developers and perhaps currently provide the best opportunities to enable well-funded archaeological research.

Legislation and guidance framework The present framework of legislation and guidance governing the consideration of archaeological issues in planning should ensure that archaeological issues are fully considered in the planning process. Such documents cannot overtly require research in the ‘education-funded’ sense, as this could be considered an unreasonable charge on the developer. However, it is implicit that if the

For archaeological work the development sector can provide more money and organisational support than other agencies. However, in some quarters of our discipline this area of activity has been seen to be irrelevant to or of little 11

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

archaeological interests are to be properly considered, then decisions have to be made on an informed (ie well researched) basis. If, subsequently, identified remains are such that a mitigation measure in the form of ‘preservation by record’ is appropriate, then this clearly has to have research dimensions in the work itself and in the resulting archive.

A related High Court ruling (Regina v Rochdale M.B.C. ex parte Milne and others (7/5/99)) implies that all aspects of developments requiring Environmental Impact Assessments now need to be fixed at outline planning. As a consequence, archaeologists involved in such work are required to establish the condition and value of archaeological interests from an informed (and confident) position in order that the effects can be accurately gauged and appropriate mitigation advised and implemented.

Wales is fortunate that the management of archaeological issues in planning, particularly through W/O Circulars 60/96 and 61/96, is stronger than in England (W/O Circular 60/96; W/O Circular 61/96). At another level revisions, to the overarching Planning Guidance Wales (PG Wales) have allowed connections to be made with non-statutory designations such as those within the landscape registers (Cadw/CCW/ICOMOS 1998 & 2001).

At a professional level IFA has published a series of Standards and guidance for various types of archaeological work. Individual members and employees of organisations entered on the IFA Registered Archaeological Organisations scheme are bound by these standards and the underpinning Code of conduct. These documents provide a framework for practice that allows the proper conservation and where appropriate investigation of the past.

The process of assessing development effects on such designations is covered by draft guidance (CADW/CCW/WATs 2001), which is already being used in the field. Recent changes in legislation on the preparation of Environmental Impact Assessments are particularly important (EIA Regs 1999; W/O Circular 11/99). We can note in particular that the applicant is now required to produce:

New outlooks Legislation and regulation may be needed to ensure good practice, but cultural, social and political attitudes shape the market place within which developments are carried out. We have moved away from emphases on price-driven competitive tender and free-market to best value, power of place and social inclusion. Some of these concepts have filtered into the National Assembly of Wales’s draft Strategic Statement on the preparation of the Plan for Wales 2001. This notes the need to increase accessibility to museum collections and awareness of the historic environment, albeit linked to enhanced Monument Scheduling and increased display of monuments in state care. However, it makes little mention of the place of the wider archaeological heritage, despite desiring high value inward investment and increased tourism spend within an overall commitment to sustainable growth. In the private sector, the effects of the report in 1998 by Sir John Egan have yet to percolate throughout the construction industry. However, the key recognition that a fully integrated rather than sequential process, with quality project management and service providers, will provide best value to the client and must in turn be beneficial for archaeological research activity in the private sector.

A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors and A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development arising from a) the existence of the development b) the use of natural resources c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste

As the report outlines (Egan 1999, para 34) an integrated process is one that utilises the full construction team, bringing the skills of all the participants to bear on delivering value to the client and is explicit and transparent, and therefore easily understood by the participants and their clients.

and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment. For our discipline, the key change is that ‘cultural heritage’ has been replaced by ‘archaeological heritage’. In instances where projects require Environmental Impact Assessments, archaeology is now established as an important issue from the outset. It follows that if the requirements are to be properly addressed, archaeological matters have to be dealt with from an informed position.

Egan’s explanation (1999, para 35-37) of the reasons behind this is worth quoting in full: ‘The rationale behind the development of an integrated process of project is presently constrained by the largely 12

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

separated processes through which they are generally planned, designed and constructed. These processes reflect the fragmented structure of the industry and sustain a contractual and confrontational culture.

In any project, the initial project team meetings fix the power relations for the remainder of the project; if archaeology is seen as a side issue, then it will be treated as an awkward problem throughout. The danger in pushing archaeology down the project hierarchy is that its implications for the development as a whole may be poorly understood by the developer, or, even where there is good communication at that level, a lack of sympathy from other specialists, agents and contractors. Where properly incorporated there will be a significant level of archaeological input well before any fieldwork, as the rhythm of development will include both long-term advice and consultancy and briefer programmes of intensive fieldwork’. Therefore it is important to ensure that not only does resourcing reflect both parts of the process, but that there is continuity in its management.

The conventional construction process is generally sequential because it reflects the input of designers, constructors and key suppliers. This process may well minimise the risk to constructors by defining precisely, through specifications and contracts, what the next company in the process will do. Unfortunately, it is less clear that this strategy protects the clients and it often acts as an effective barrier to using the skills and knowledge of suppliers and constructors effectively in the design and planning of the projects. Moreover, the conventional processes assume that clients benefit from choosing a new team of designers, constructors and suppliers competitively for every project they do. We are far from convinced of this. The repeated selection of new teams in our view inhibits learning, innovation and the development of skilled and experienced teams. Critically, it has prevented the industry from developing products and an identity – or brand – that can be understood by its clients.

This is not just a question of advocating early archaeological advice. It also requires a recognition of design context. Quality advice requires a deep knowledge of the issues. This is perhaps better achieved by consultant/contractors rather than relatively distant consultants and separate contractors (engineers and ecologists routinely adopt consultant/contractor mode, and part of their credibility resides in the grounding of advice on sound hands-on knowledge of the project). Selection of such bodies is unlikely to occur through competitive tender, an issue that the archaeological community has an unnecessary fixation with. Some types of project are routinely tendered, particularly where there is a clearly understood, quantifiable and predictable task (for example price per square metre for laying a carpet). Other activities are dealt with by term commission, where a rate is set and then the consultant is called on as required. Commissioning bodies recognise that tendering involves costs (someone has to set the brief and run the competition) and time. Thus it is common, following an initial phase of market testing, for a contractor to be appointed for the lifetime of a project. These general considerations apply with special emphasis to areas where the archaeology is unpredictable, since task definition at the outset is impossible. Rather a continuing, flexible review of archaeological approach is required, with the seamless shift in different archaeological endeavours as the project demands.

As yet, the effects of such philosophies are only to be seen in major scale projects but will in time percolate through industry. However, the approach is at the core of two of the UK’s most prestigious developments – the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and (unsurprisingly) Heathrow Terminal 5, where research has been integrated as part of the rescue mitigation process. The principles have also been applied on projects in Wales. Such approaches are not only beneficial to the practice of archaeology within the development sector, but could be applied more widely in the discipline.

Practice and opportunity The place of archaeology and archaeologists within a development’s integrated process will depend on considerations relating to the risk in delivering the project objective. If initial assessment suggests that archaeological factors are a significant risk then not only will this be reflected in the resourcing but also in the placing of the key archaeological contacts within the project team hierarchy. If the lead project archaeologists are not on the core team, then they are best placed on the environmental team. It will be integral to the success of delivering the archaeological remit that the key link between the core and environmental teams understands both the significance of the archaeological interest and the processes required for its successful management. Such practice is endorsed by the 1999 Environmental Assessment regulations, which require the project specialists to consider the interaction of various constraints.

Critical to the success of any project is effective management of risk, which we may define as ‘those factors that may cause a failure to meet the project’s objectives’. The impact of such a failure is clearly greater towards the end of a project than at the beginning. However if the risks are properly managed the chances of impacts occurring should be reduced. For time-based projects, risk identification (including definition) is a critical part of the initial process, which is followed by proactive management. For delivery to be effective, appropriate resources need to be available, quality 13

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

parameters set, and designs and review procedures implemented. To be effective, programming has to be a dynamic not a static tool.

of the importance of the historic environment, then the opportunity for archaeological investigation and reporting may never been greater. Should this occur in a disjointed framework of differing interests and philosophies or should we define our questions and objectives and seek to deliver these with a common (and integrated) purpose?

As archaeology, and particularly unexpected archaeological discovery, present potentially catastrophic risks, there need to be resources to manage the issue from an informed position. Developers, determined to minimise or ignore such risks, may discover that they may become insuperable obstacles.

Case Studies The following three case studies illustrate how project archaeologists have become increasingly integrated into the development process over the past decade.

It is not, however, just the direct costs of archaeological measures that need to be taken into account; the indirect costs (eg revisions to siting, foundation design etc) will significantly increment as the project progresses. When steelwork for a distribution building has to be ordered 18 months in advance, putting the construction timetable on hold for an excavation and delaying hand-over of the site may prove extremely expensive. Building contractor’s stand-down and penalty clauses will far outweigh the direct cost of the archaeology. High quality informed advice, not best price, is therefore the premium for successful project outcomes.

In the first case, work was carried out before implementation of either PPG 16 or its successors, or IFA’s Standards. The project archaeologists were distanced from the decision-makers (advice on needs being provided through national government interdepartmental procedures). Different stages were undertaken by different bodies and so continuity was lost, and excepting the individual stage reports post-excavation study has only been partially implemented. There will be no overall synthesis. The relationships illustrated in the second example are those that became commonplace in the 1990s. Separate archaeological consultants and contractors undertake different functions. The consultant is the key player. They carry out preliminary studies, negotiate with curators, set or review specifications, identify contractors directly or through competitions, monitor works, review reports and prepare or comment on recommendations. The contractor delivers the specified works for an agreed price. There are a number of problems with the arrangement. The extent of these will depend on the interrelationship and attitude of those involved. Most particularly, there can often be a lack of continuity in the service provider and a lack of commitment to the project by those employed on it. A contractor is selected through a price driven competition commitment is likely to be limited to delivering the defined tasks or activities as quickly and cheaply as possible. Wider interest in, or obligation to the project will be limited. In these circumstances responsibility for overview and synthesis can only rest with the consultant. They may not have included such works as part of their tasking, and indeed can themselves be hired and fired. Such circumstances often result in a culture of confrontation, secrecy and apportionment of blame. Consequently, archaeological, and indeed also the development, interests suffer. The example here lies at one end of the spectrum; a single consultant and contractor were used on multiple developments within a given land take.

The scope and quality of initial assessments, surveys and evaluations are therefore critical to defining the extent and likely impact of archaeological risk and costs of appropriate management. For results to be robust, work needs to be based on a sound methodological framework with demonstrable credence placed on the values given to individual interests or groups of sites and/or their setting and landscape. This outcome can only be properly achieved through viable research. This will require a wider understanding than just that of the local context, and may need to include a variety of specialist inputs. However, in the absence of national research agenda, judgements will be made solely on a contractor/consultant/curator consensus, and will naturally be subject to prejudices and influences. Without nationally agreed priorities significance gradings will be based on such criteria as are available, with parameters set by the robustness test. The existence of national archaeological research agenda would both aid and reinforce the definition process. The same is equally true for excavations and other works carried out as part of the mitigation process. If ‘preservation by record’ is to be meaningful, then the processes and outcomes have to be relevant to priorities for examining the past and capable of assisting future interrogations. There is a framework of government legislation, guidance and professional standards, which require delivery of a quality archaeological project. This is complemented by an ethos in the construction industry that requires a properly resourced integrated process reliant on the skills and knowledge of all participants in a project. In a context where there is also greater social and political awareness

In the third example the role of consultant and contractor is combined into a single service deliverer, curatorial controls reside with the planning authority. This has a number of advantages. Most particularly there is a 14

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

seamless passage in delivering the archaeological planning requirement. Deliverers of archaeological services are integrated into the structure and processes designed to ensure the successful delivery of the project. The responsibility for setting required works, approving designs and signing off obligations on completion resides with a sole external authority.

organisation has recently (post 2000) won the tender to write the Stage 3 report. Stage 3 works in Wales were carried out by various organisations – potential costs and available resources led to the foreshore work being directly undertaken by the national curator. Full Stage 1 and 2 reports reside with regional SMRs; negotiations are in place with SSCG to complete obligations with regard to Stage 2 through a short digest article.

Second Severn Crossing Construction of the Second Severn Crossing in the early 1990s was facilitated through an Act of Parliament and thus the normal local planning controls were superceded. From the outset, a three-tier programme of intervention was envisaged under the overall curatorial aegis of Cadw for the Welsh approaches and English Heritage for the other side. In Stage 2 detailed control was carried out by the Second Severn Crossing Group (SSCG) through their consultants WS Atkins and for the whole project different parts of the required work were the subject of alternative funding regimes and agencies.

Gwent Europark (OH2) Gwent Europark was a parcel of low-grade agricultural land on the alluvial margin of the Caldicot Level near Magor in Gwent which was assembled by a local South Wales developer, with the aim of creating a major distribution park for South Wales supported by a Eurofreight Terminal. The site has good links to both rail and road infrastructure. Outline planning permission was obtained pre-issue of PPG 16 in Wales, but nevertheless conditioned to ensure that various pre-detailed design investigative works would be carried out on each plot and subsequent mitigation (preservation by record – excavation, survey) implemented as appropriate. Tesco Stores Ltd developed the initial plot in 1992-3. Contract works were carried out by GGAT, consultancy services provided by Alison Borthwick.

Stage 1 methodology consisted of rapid assessment (probably equalling appraisal by today’s requirements) and GI test pit monitoring (particularly on the Avon side); Stage 2 evaluation by means of trial trenching, sampling and palaeoenvironmental assessment at potential points of interest; Stage 3 mitigation through selected excavation and watching-brief.

Various evaluation methods were used to determine site prediction and palaeoenvironmental potential assessment. One potential area was found and a palaeochannel with timber structure investigated. A watching-brief was maintained during development and a further timber structure identified at the base of the Lorry Park. Investigation of this revealed remains of a Romano-British boat. Although there was no obligation in planning and the

NATIONAL HERITAGE BODIES

Advises

▼

D E C I S I O N

CLIENT

▼

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

Instructs

▼

Reviews

▼ CLIENT

Interaction

▼

▼ ▼

DESIGN TEAM

▼

▼

React

CONSULTANTS

▼

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUB-CONTRACTORS

▼

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N Instruction and Review

▼

▼

▼

CONSTRUCTION GROUP

▼

▼

D E C I S I O N

Second Severn Crossing Model CONSTRUCTION GROUP (sub-contractors)

▼

▼

Stage 1 works were undertaken by organisations with detailed local knowledge, Stage 2 works were granted following a competition of selected tenders. In England Stage 3 excavation works were directly contracted from Wessex Archaeology (no competition), and the same

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT

▼

Liason Attendances

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTRACTOR

Europark – Model

15

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

remains were not directly effected, because hydrological changes would have led to the future dessication the client sponsored voluntary excavation and post-excavation work, now near to fruition.

archaeological works has been set in briefs issued by the LPA. Preliminary works have included detailed deskbased assessment, field evaluation and building survey. The Celtic Manor has a strong commitment to protecting the local environment, thus the courses have been designed to avoid, protect in situ or enhance archaeological interests. These include not only those of national importance, but also lesser remains.

The new owners, Morrison Developments, have sponsored further developments on the site. The same contractor and consultant have been used. Pre-evaluation test-trenching works in advance of the construction of a distribution centre to support Wilkinson Store’s expansion into South Wales, revealed a series of probable peatextraction works of late Iron Age or Roman date, and remains of two partial and one complete Iron Age timber buildings. The then leader of the National Assembly of Wales had already announced the Wilkinson expansion and as a consequence the remains were excavated in 1999. In any case, preservation of such remains in situ and within a redeveloped environment is not currently feasible. All archaeological works have been the subject of a single payment, including advance funding for postexcavation and reporting works allowing these to be planned and executed to ensure that the output is that demanded by a find of this quality.

One reflection of the weight given to such principles has been inclusion of the principal archaeologist on the core design team. This has ensured that all parties are aware of the location and significance of archaeological interests from the outset and that these have been factored into the works of other consultants. Conversely the archaeologists have not been isolated from the development process and therefore have a clearer understanding of the developers’ aims and objectives. Such synergy has generally ensured that most archaeological issues have been identified and solutions agreed early in the process, thereby avoiding confrontation and unnecessary delay during the construction stage. Even so, on any development with a large land-take, unexpected discoveries can occur. In the single instance that this happened design adjustments were possible. During a watching-brief as part of a Scheme of Archaeological Investigation, a Roman pottery kiln was found on the edge of the intended second green. Under the agreed scheme the developer had the option of paying for excavation and publication of the remains or amending the design. The course designer, flown in from the USA, was on site within two days, adjustments made and agreed in planning, the site reinstated and for additional protection scheduled. Pottery collected from the surface will be displayed in the club.

Celtic Manor The Celtic Manor has been developed to become Wales’ leading hotel and leisure resort. It occupies more than 600 ha to the northwest of the junction of the M4 and the A449 trunk road. From the outset, the owner, Sir Terry Matthews, has been determined that the development has the quality required of a world class resort. Archaeological works have focused on the development of three golf courses, the last now amended as part of the allWales bid to host the Ryder Cup in 2009. The interests are primarily Roman, but there also late-medieval holdings and features associated with the defence of Newport in the Second World War.

Collectively, works over ten years have allowed a very detailed knowledge to be built up about the Roman landscape in the vicinity of one the best preserved legionary fortresses in the Empire, whilst at the same time the core body of information has been protected within a managed environment. It will be no surprise that in the naming of some elements of the development and in related publicity connectivity with the past is maintained.

A variety of consultants has been employed, although the present team has been more or less established since the mid 1990s. The general extent of pre-planning

Designs

Reacts

D E S I G N

T E A M

ARCHAEOLOGISTS SURVEYORS ENGINEERS

PLANNERS CLIENT

ECOLOGISTS

HYDRAULOGISTS ARCHITECTS

LANDSCAPE DESIGN Instructs

Implements

Celtic Manor

16

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bibliography CADW/CCW/ICOMOS 1998 Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales (Part 2 of the Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales) Part 2.1: Landscapes of Outstanding Historic Interest, Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments/Countryside Council for Wales/International Commission on Monuments and Sites, Cadw: Cardiff CADW/CCW/ICOMOS 2001 Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales (Part 2 of the Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales) Part 2.2: Landscapes of Special Historic Interest, Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments/Countryside Council for Wales/International Commission on Monuments and Sites, Cadw: Cardiff CADW/CCW/WATs 2001 Guide to Good practice on using the Register of Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales in the Planning and Development Processes, Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments/ Countryside Council for Wales/ Welsh Archaeological Trusts (Version 1, September 2001: available from authors) Egan, J 1999 Rethinking Construction: The report of the Construction Task Force to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, on the scope for improving the quality and efficiency of UK construction, DTI: London, 1998 (also available online at http://wwwdtigovuk/construction/rethink/report/12htm#c hap3) EIA Regs 1999 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (England and Wales) Regulations), 1999 W/O Circular 11/99 – Welsh Office Circular 11/99 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), HMSO: Cardiff W/O Circular 60/96 Planning and The Historic Environment: Archaeology, Welsh Office Circular 60/96, HMSO: Cardiff W/O Circular 61/96 Planning and The Historic Environment: Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas, Welsh Office Circular 61/96, HMSO: Cardiff

17

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

4 Research agenda and strategies from a regional curatorial perspective Louise Austin Cambria Archaeology, Shire Hall, Carmarthen Street, Llandeilo, Carmarthenshire, SA19 6AF [email protected] www.acadat.com

Abstract Archaeological research agenda are considered from a regional curatorial perspective. The supportive nature of agenda in formulating planning policy and in proffering planning advice is emphasised. Better communications between interest groups within the archaeological profession are recommended to improve understanding and promote integrated professional approaches. Recognising the need for wider public involvement at all levels – including research formulation – is considered essential.

should be protected. There is no defined scale of intrinsic values by which each individual element can be judged by everyone. It is therefore generally the archaeological profession that makes evaluations and judgements of worth. This is achieved by first recognising the elements that form surviving physical remains through desk-top research and all forms of survey and archaeological excavation. The next stage is to understand the meanings of the remains through analysis and interpretation of the evidence, after which judgements of value and management decisions are made.

Introduction I write as the Principal Curatorial Archaeologist for Cambria Archaeology, the former Dyfed Archaeological Trust, which covers southwest Wales. Cambria Archaeology is grant-aided by Cadw and RCAHMW to manage the Regional SMR and provide heritage management information and advice for the region. This paper considers the need for archaeological research agenda for Wales from the point of view of a curatorial archaeologist.

However, positive management is not only about preserving physical evidence for the future. It is also the process of managing change. The values attributed to elements of the historic environment are neither definitive nor constant, but change as understanding develops. The attribution of value therefore demands understanding the whole environment and people’s relationships with it. While the development of academic understanding and the evaluation of academic significance is needed to inform the judgements which society makes, value must also be judged upon non-expert, personal and spiritual importance. It is only through this inclusive recognition of worth, appreciating the varied reasons why elements of the historic environment are important to people, that management decisions will be relevant to a larger proportion of the population.

The role of an archaeological curator is to promote the positive management of archaeological remains. This work is now widely recognised as going beyond the traditional view of the management of defined sites and monuments to include the management of the ‘historic environment’. In a recent discussion document The review of policies relating to the historic environment in England (English Heritage 2000), the historic environment was defined as comprising ‘all the physical evidence for past human activity and its associations that people can see, understand and feel in the present world’. The historic environment is therefore an integrated part of the rest of our environment which needs to be managed in a sustainable way. This includes management of written records and archives.

Heritage management must therefore communicate with a broad range in society and facilitate understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the historic environment.

The benefits of research agenda for curatorial archaeology As a curator there are a number of specific areas which I consider to be in need of national and regional research agenda and strategies. The first is the provision of archaeological planning advice. An increasing proportion

Not every element of the historic environment can or 19

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

of funding available for archaeological work comes through the development process. It is no longer acceptable to consider all development-led archaeology as ‘rescue’ as opposed to ‘research’.

this volume). A strategic framework would enable forward planning, and would support the building of understanding rather than continual reinvention and should help develop a future vision. In addition to working together research agenda would help prioritise the limited local financial resources currently available. Recognised and agreed agenda would provide a further level of justification for projects in applications for national and international funding sources.

All archaeological investigation, whether or not intrusive, should be addressing specific questions. It should not be a process of gathering information for its own sake. All archaeological work should therefore be addressing research agenda of some kind, though not necessarily written ones. Archaeological work carried out as part of the planning process must be clear in its objectives. In order to justify the professional decisions made there needs to be a widely accepted system of attributing value that is clear and understandable. This system must be publicly accessible and transparent.

Research agenda in England The history of the development of research agenda in England is described elsewhere in this volume (Geoffrey Wainwright). Preparation of regional and period based research frameworks is also referred to (idem). It is important to understand this process to ensure that we can identify aspects of the English experience which should be adopted, enhanced or avoided in developing suitable and effective research agenda for Wales.

In a climate of increasing challenges to the authority of government, decisions upon the academic value of archaeological remains made on personal professional judgement, not supported by an agreed framework, will be increasingly hard to sustain. Not every curator will have the breadth of knowledge and experience to know all the relevant work in all areas, periods or topics. They are not in a position to keep up with all the most current research questions within every area of study, nor have the time to contact all relevant specialists every time a new question arises.

Regional frameworks The first regional agenda was embarked upon in the early 1990s by five counties in Eastern England. This followed three stage process of assessment, agenda and strategy. The first, stage was to produce a resource assessment summariseding the current state of knowledge and understanding. An initial framework paper for each county, under agreed period headings, was prepared and circulated to a wide range of people with knowledge of the county and/or particular period. The papers were then revised in the light of comments received.

Planning archaeologists make decisions every day about where archaeological investigation and recording should take place and what form that investigation should take. Total excavation of all threatened sites is not a realistic option. It is therefore necessary to prioritise. It is vital that the process of attributing value and significance is based upon best available data contributed by the whole of the archaeological community. It is fundamental that university based archaeologists as well as museum and independent archaeologists are able to feed their understanding and ideas into research agenda which form part of an inclusive strategy. Future results must also feed back into national, regional and local understanding.

Draft regional period chapters were then produced, and the papers were revised in the light of further consultation including university academics, museum archaeologists, contracting units and independent archaeologists. The revised contributions were reviewed by the coordinating group and the consultation exercise repeated. Following broad agreement the resource assessment was published (Glazebrook 1997). The process of developing the Agenda followed the same pattern of consultation and review and was published in 2000 (Brown and Glazebrook 2000).

Research agenda will assist development-led work to actively address research concerns and provide a structured opportunity for results to feed into broader understanding and synthesis. They should also develop community involvement, supporting more public engagement with the historic environment as well as seeking to developing more inclusive systems of evaluation.

In the East Midlands the initiative for producing a regional research framework was taken by the SMR Working Party, representing the five counties making up the region. A similar process to that undertaken in Eastern England was refined to produce a more publicly accessible and accountable system. A series of period based regional seminars had morning sessions on regional research agenda and afternoon discussions on their contributions to national agenda. The results were worked up into framework documents - working documents, available on the internet, which will be updated over time (www.le.ac.uk/ar/east_midlands_research_framework.htm)

Also at the core of the work of the Trusts is development of the regional SMRs. A strategic overview of the development of data recording and handling is necessary while there are many other areas of research needed. These include such areas as the development of community records, use of SMRs for educational purposes, etc. (Hall 20

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

This process has resulted in a publicly available resource with a broader input and ownership base, ensuring more people will be willing to sign up to the realisation of the research agenda, and will support its use in the management of the historic environment as a whole.

support of regionally based Welsh Archaeological Trusts • Coordinated national working by Cadw, RCAHMW and the Welsh Archaeological Trusts

Strategic Development Other organisations and partnerships are also looking to the future and the use and development of research agenda. In 2000 a Government review of policies relating to the historic environment (English Heritage 2000) was undertaken. The results were brought together in Power of Place (English Heritage 2000). The following statements set out the importance placed on research agenda:

However the two strategic documents which have been produced in the recent past have specifically not attempted to provide research agenda for Wales. In 1998 a study of medieval and earlier sites in Wales was commissioned by Cadw to review the current schedule against the known resource from the regional sites and monuments records. Various aspects of Wales’s archaeology were identified as being underrepresented in the schedule but although it helped to highlight gaps in the protection of the historic environment this document did not attempt to identify gaps in understanding.

Decisions about the future of the historic environment largely rest upon the value of judgements. These decisions must be consistent, transparent, and never arbitrary. They need to be widely accepted. This means that they need to be understood. They must be made openly, tested and refined by continuing debate. This debate must not be exclusive; everyone should be able to participate easily. Before we do anything we need knowledge. Without understanding what exists today, its value and its condition, we cannot take sound decisions about its future. We need targeted, integrated research and regular ‘state of the historic environment’ reports to identify priorities and provide the basis for informed decisions.

Cadw and the Royal Commission have also produced Recording, Preserving and Presenting the Welsh Archaeological Landscape: A joint Statement by Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales (Cadw/RCAHMW, 1999), setting out the future agenda for these two organisations. Although the need for welltargeted primary fieldwork and effective data management, with the process of identification, interpretation and record feeding through to preservation and wider dissemination is stated, such targeted work has to be underpinned with a clear research framework.

Alongside this process the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers have produced ALGAO Strategy 2001-2006.The five year strategy sets out the association’s objectives.

CBA and the Welsh Archaeological Trusts have both recognised the need for national research agenda for Wales over recent years, though this has not been realised due to a lack of financial support.

These include:-

The need for national agenda is also supported by the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (ALGAO) which provides a forum for local authority archaeologists throughout England and Wales to discuss, share understanding and develop best practice at a regional and national level. In Wales, as well as the local authority and National Park archaeologist, the local authorities nominate the relevant Trusts as members of ALGAO. ALGAO Cymru have agreed the need for national research agenda for Wales and is well positioned to provide coordinating links locally/regionally and nationally as well as internationally.

• Promote the development of national and local research frameworks to inform and guide the work of historic environment services.

Progress so far Wales has already achieved many of the aims that English Heritage set out for English archaeology in their research agenda of 1997 (English Heritage, 1997[draft]). These include:• Integration and indexing of regional and national records. This has been realised through the Extended National Database Partnership and the CARN web based index

Future developments Welsh archaeology would benefit from the archaeological community uniting to produce agreed agenda. Such cooperation would strengthen the close working ties that already exist and build new links and involvement.

• Regional Centres of specialist archaeological knowledge. This has been a fundamental part of the structure of Welsh archaeology through the national

The introduction to James and Millet (2001) states:21

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

It seems to us… there is a growing three way divergence between the public and non-professional archaeologist on one trajectory, the increasingly professionalised world of field archaeology on another and the world of academic, largely university based research on a third. There is an urgent need to improve communication across geographical, chronological, and not least professional and disciplinary boundaries.

We must find new ways to influence areas of central and local government policy that will affect management of the historic environment. Development of archaeological research agenda for Wales must be high profile and involve and engage the public so that politicians will notice and want to be associated with it. We must raise the profile of the historic environment further and contribute more to debates such as that currently raging on the future of farming in Wales. Through the archaeological community working together we will be able to affect and influence far more than individual organisations currently can.

Agreement to produce national research agenda would be the first step to developing a national strategy for Welsh archaeology. Such agenda would focus ideas of how the discipline and the profession should develop. It would help define the relationship of Welsh archaeology with English, British, European and World archaeology and enable Welsh archaeology to set its own agenda rather than depending on neighbouring countries, other disciplines or funding bodies.

Funding sources whether in Europe or elsewhere may also be available to support the production of a research framework. More importantly applications for such funding can be supported and validated through reference to agreed agenda.

In England the development of national and regional agenda has only been possible through the support of local and national government funding (local authority archaeological services and English Heritage). Financial support will also be required in Wales. It is necessary to identify funding sources. Local and central government are the obvious starting points. Lobbying politicians at the relevant levels is needed to raise the profile of the Welsh historic environment and Welsh archaeology.

As well as detailed academic objectives a future strategy for Wales’ archaeology needs to address the developing profession, how we wish to progress, and where we want to be in five, maybe ten years’ time. It will need to consider training, career development, organisational structure, etc.

Conclusion In order for regional curators in Wales to follow international professional best practice and pursue the objectives and aims of their professional association, it is important that we know where we are and where we want to go. We must also enable work in Wales to be integrated into a broader understanding

The National Assembly for Wales has identified the sustainable use of the environment as a fundamental principle of their government. As a profession we must take our argument to them for the need for additional funding in order to ensure the sustainable future management of Wales historic environment.

What is now needed is a nationwide framework that enables the present understanding to be brought together from the bottom up, coordinating understanding of Wales’s historic environment from a local to a national level. This needs to bring on board all organisations and individuals. We need something that we can all sign up to. The process by which this is developed must be transparent and all of the information publicly accessible.

In order to address gaps and questions, agenda must fit into a broader framework which includes future strategy. Such a strategy needs to include development of the discipline and the profession to ensure that any future structures will meet the needs of the subject and society. Archaeologists must recognise that they are not the only people who value and appreciate the historic environment. There is far more than academic value. There is community value, economic value, etc. In addition to understanding academic value curators particularly need to develop ways to recognise and appreciate these nonacademic values to inform the decisions which are made for the management of the historic environment. Academic understanding is no longer an acceptable end in itself. Dissemination of information in an accessible form, engagement of the community, local ownership of the historic environment, are increasingly important aspects of publicly funded work.

This will not be an exclusive or static document. It must be dynamic and used to ensure that the highest quality decisions are made regarding the management of the vulnerable and irreplaceable remains that make up Wales’s historic environment.

22

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bibliography ALGAO, 2001 Strategy 2001-2006, Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers Available from ALGAO - contact [email protected] Brown, N and Glazebrook, J 2000, Research and Archaeology: A framework for the Eastern Counties 2 Research Agenda and Strategy, East Anglian Archaeol Occas Papers 8: Nottingham Cadw/RCAHMW 1999 Recording, preserving and presenting the Welsh archaeological landscape: A joint statement: Cardiff and Aberystwyth English Heritage 1997 Research Agenda (Draft): London English Heritage 2000 Government review of policies relating to the historic environment: London English Heritage 2000 Power of Place: tThe Future of the Historic Environment : London Glazebrook, J 1997 Research and Archaeology: a framework for the Eastern Counties 1 Resource Assessment, East Anglian Archaeol Occas Papers 3: Nottingham James, ST and Millett, MJ (eds) 2001 Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda, CBA Research Report 125: York

Websites [email protected] www.le.ac.uk/ar/east_midlands_research_framework.htm

23

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

5 Chairman’s Introduction: organisation for the future Chris R Musson

Tanyffordd, Pisgah, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 4NE [email protected]

So far, contributions have concerned themselves with differing concepts of research strategies. It is now time to consider the organisational framework - not to prescribe an improved organisational structure, but to offer advice.

Now, they have become stable and broad ranging regional organisations, committed to the people and historic environments of their areas, and carrying out work across the whole spectrum of archaeology, historic buildings and landscape. They provide a ‘local’ archaeological presence much envied in England, and particularly suited (one might feel) to the limited financial resources and distinctive regional variability of Wales. But could they do better? Could they contribute more in some fields by doing less in others? Could they have a more effective role in public education, in community archaeology and in ‘value-added’ research based on their project work and ever more sophisticated SMRs?

What we must do is to look candidly at the current situation, so as to recall and understand how we reached this stage. We need to consider whether all needs of the historic environment are being met within the present organisational framework. We need to form some view (or, more likely, a series of conflicting views!) on how any shortcomings or omissions might be rectified. We might, for instance, identify small organisational changes which even within current institutional remits - would broaden our approach, encourage cooperation and ‘joined-up’ policy-making, or give sharper focus or clearer public relevance to our various activities. We might, on the other hand, feel that significant organisational restructuring is at least worth considering, as has recently been the case (with differing outcomes) in England and in Scotland.

Cadw, 25 years ago, did not even exist, though Dai Morgan Evans and Richard Avent, in the Ancient Monuments Branch of DoE, were already making innovative moves, not least in ‘mid-wifing’ the birth of the archaeological Trusts. Cadw’s own formation, in 1984, brought the administration of archaeology closer to Wales and to some extent gave it a new focus. The organisation’s approach to rescue and regional archaeology has been, for the greater part, cooperative and supportive. Its publications, from the outset, have been exemplary. Its monument conservation work is now of the highest order.

The one thing that is not acceptable is to assume that everything should remain as it is, or should become again what it once was. Things do not remain as they are, they do not return to what they were. The organisational framework in Wales may seem superficially much as it was a couple of decades ago. But it is not really so, nor are the political realities to which we now have to respond.

True, Cadw has been criticised sometimes for being too narrow in its approach. But, while still focusing on listing and scheduling (as well as, of course, on presentation), it has broadened its approach in recent years by, for instance, commissioning strategic surveys of monument types and records, and by undertaking cooperative ventures in landscape characterisation, Tir Gofal and the like.

Twenty-five years ago the Trusts had only just been formed. For a long time they remained essentially ‘rescue’ organisations. But they also became the first-begetters (in Wales) of effective mapped and computerised records for development control, archaeological policy-making and the like. They carried out large scale research-based rescue excavations which made major academic contributions, though often belatedly in terms of publication. They significantly influenced public policy through their contributions to county Structure Plans etc.

But is Cadw’s approach yet broad enough? Could it be, could it ever have been, as broad as some would like it to be, bearing in mind its position as an executive agency within the Welsh Office (and now the National Assembly), dedicated primarily to implementation of the 1979 Act? If 25

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

some people pine after the initiatives and advocacy of English Heritage, are they seeking something that Cadw simply could not provide within its present constitution? If so, should the National Assembly perhaps reconsider that constitution?

Over the last few years, too, we have acquired independent consultants and commercial contract archaeology, both within Wales and bilaterally across the Border. We have had Structure Plans and their successors. We have had PPG 16 and so on, with site evaluations, environmental impact assessments and the earlier inclusion of heritage criteria in development proposals. We have responded in a variety of ways to concepts of ‘curatorial’ and ‘contract’ archaeology, and to ‘sustainability’. And now, of course, we have begun to respond to the National Assembly, some of us reporting to specific (though inexplicably different) Ministers in the Cabinet, and all of us communicating more openly with the general public (and Assembly Members) through a variety of ‘outreach’ initiatives. And in the background, we know, there stands a host of interested but only halfengaged members of the general public. How can they best become involved, individually or ‘institutionally’?

RCAHMW, too, has responded to internal and external pressure and to its 1989 Policy Review. County Inventories have gone, computerised databases and synoptic books are now the order of the day. Industrial archaeology has taken its proper place in the work of the Commission, both internally and through the Industrial Archaeology Panel. The archiving and record systems have been vastly improved, and at long last CARN (and the availability of some SMR data on the internet) is giving reality to the concepts of END and ENDEX conceived, within the Trusts, over fifteen years ago. But the Commission’s intensive and highly skilled field survey work seems to have virtually ceased, apart from aerial recording, a few ‘exemplar’ surveys on the ground, continuing threatened buildings work and supervision (though not conduct) of the Uplands Initiative, one of Cadw’s other creations. The desire to carry out intensive analytical fieldwork is certainly still there, but perhaps not the resources (though who, in archaeology, could not do with more resources?) Specialist skills, once lost through retirement, resignations and the passage of time, are not easily recaptured. Can the Commission lead if it does not do? After the demise of ‘Inventory’ work, has it found a new but truly national role? If it is now, in some respects, an ‘enabling’ organisation, how much is it enabling, with what efficiency and at what cost?

We have a clear task now, as concerned archaeologists, whether paid or not. This is to offer well-considered and forward-looking advice when or if the National Assembly turns its attention to the historic environment, perhaps within a wide ranging and open public debate prompted by Cadw’s Prior Options Review. It is difficult to see how we can provide that advice if we do not, quite quickly, agree amongst ourselves about the breadth and character of the historic environment. We must articulate, in terms that the general public and Assembly Members can understand, the importance of the historic environment to the people and prosperity of Wales. We must put forward a genuine understanding of what we have to preserve and to present. We must identify the practical functions needed to achieve flexible conservation in a changing world. And we must consider the organisational framework best suited to the performance of these functions. This broad objective surely lies behind all of the discussions at this meeting.

So much for the three main protagonists. But there are now significant others players on the field: often singleton archaeologists in the National Parks, the National Trust, CCW, a few Local Authorities and of course in museums and universities, the last not always as involved in public archaeology as they might have been or might wish to be.

26

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

6 Wales, in an archaeological sense, is an ‘orderly and well-run place’ – where now? Richard J Avent Cadw: Welsh Ancient Monuments Crown Building, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NQ [email protected] www.cadw.wales.gov.uk

Abstract Development of research agenda for Wales needs to take account of current and future priorities associated with recording, protecting and managing the historic environment. This paper briefly summarises Cadw’s own work and that which it grant aids in this field. It then considers possible improvements to the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, particularly related to the setting of monuments and the problem of plough-damage; the greater use of grants for earthwork repair and the possibility of common legislation for terrestrial and underwater archaeology. Finally, it looks at ways farming practices may change over the next few years and the impact these may have on the way we manage the historic environment.

not have been more timely, for the last decade has seen a growing recognition that managing and accommodating the needs of the historic environment has to be given equal weight in people’s thinking to the more well established areas of nature conservation and scenic amenity. Archaeologists in Cadw, the Trusts and elsewhere have found themselves in increasing demand in the growing area of what we broadly refer to as heritage management. Today, the advice we provide is very wide ranging and nowhere better exemplified than what we provide to the all-Wales agri-environment scheme, Tir Gofal. Six hundred farms a year are entering the scheme at present and the National Assembly is strongly committed to it as a means of bolstering farm incomes in these difficult times for farmers. Obviously, not all farms will be able to deliver sufficient environmental benefit to enter the scheme but, at the present rate, over a quarter of eligible farms could be included within ten years. This will have an enormous impact on the management of historic features throughout Wales.

I think we can take Geoffrey Wainwright’s description of the way we go about our business in Wales, in an orderly and well-run way (Wainwright 2000, 934), as a compliment, even though it makes us sound rather dull; a comment that would warm the frigid heart of an auditor rather than attract the adventurous across our borders. However, this state has not been achieved without a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances and in this paper I intend to identify areas where I feel we may be able to build upon the quiet revolution in Wales of recent years. In so doing, I offer a personal view and must emphasise that this should not be taken as representing approved National Assembly policy.

To manage the archaeological resource effectively we must have up to date information and, as we highlighted in the joint Cadw/Royal Commission Statement, accurate information must lie at the heart of this process (Cadw and RCAHMW 1999, 4). This was echoed in Power of Place ‘We cannot care for the historic environment, or direct resources effectively, unless we understand what it is, its condition and how it is changing. We need continuous, thoughtful and well-targeted research to enable us to identify significance and potential’ (English Heritage 2000, 36). I would add another factor: we need to quantify the resource, we need to know exactly what is out there.

Before looking to the future, we need briefly to review how things stand at present. Ten years ago 75% of Cadw’s grant to the four Welsh Archaeological Trusts was being spent on excavation and post-excavation work. During the 1990s PPG16, and all that followed from it, liberated State funding of archaeology from the shackles of very expensive excavation and post-excavation work until we reached a point where last year only 2% of Cadw’s funding of the Trusts went towards this work. This could

The response to this in Wales has been three-fold. Firstly, we needed a programme to undertake primary fieldwork in those areas for which we had the least archaeological information – the uplands of Wales. Initiated by Cadw, this 27

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

work has been taken forward over the last ten years by the Royal Commission and in another decade or so all open or unenclosed upland areas will have been surveyed, greatly enhancing our knowledge.

CCW’s wider landscape assessment programme, LANDMAP. Characterisation also has an important role to play in the Tir Gofal programme. As adjoining farms enter the scheme, it is possible to develop farm plans aimed at managing not just historic features but also the entire historic character of the area, particularly through the retention and repair of historic boundaries and vernacular buildings. An important part of this programme is public dissemination through the Trusts’ bilingual websites, established with financial support from Cadw. Here, one of the end-products is providing information about the historic character of an area to the people, and particularly schoolchildren, who live there. Again with grant-aid from Cadw, the Trusts are producing leaflets for distribution through schools, libraries, tourist information centres etc, to draw people’s attention to the availability of this information on the web

The second initiative involves detailed assessment of the known resource through a fieldwork programme funded by Cadw and undertaken by the Trusts. Initially, this involved an assessment of the archaeological potential of all medieval churches and the entire Welsh coastline. Subsequently, we funded Chris Musson and Chris Martin to compare the content of the Trusts’ SMRs with the Schedule of Ancient Monuments to highlight areas where scheduling needed to be enhanced (Musson and Martin 1998). We followed this with an exercise in which we invited the Trusts and their committees to identify aspects of their areas which needed more detailed assessment. With advice from the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales, this information was gathered into a programme of projects against which the Trusts were invited to bid for grants. Some projects are regionally based but an increasing number are being tackled nationally by all four Trusts. The first of these, looking at all deserted medieval and some post-medieval rural settlements, is nearing completion. Currently, we are mid-way through a project to assess all prehistoric funerary and ritual sites in Wales.

However, it is no good just pumping out data, it must be made available to a wider audience. Hence 29% of Cadw’s funding to the Trusts goes towards heritage management, allowing them to provide a very broadly-based service and to disseminate results to a wider public. In addition, working together, the Trusts and Cadw prepare guidance booklets arising out of each of the threat-related studies. These assessment projects, with landscape characterisation and heritage management, will form the mainstay of Cadw’s archaeology programme over the next few years. I would now like to review other issues where change might be considered, starting with the legislative framework within which we operate.

These projects allow a rapid assessment of the known archaeological resource. The results feed into Cadw’s scheduling enhancement programme; they provide condition surveys, along the same lines as MARS in England; they enhance the Trusts SMRs and information for development control and, through the Royal Commission’s index to Welsh databases, the NMR and other databases. The results also feed into Tir Gofal and other initiatives. The aim is to design the projects in such a way that we only need to look at a monument once to service all the outputs, be they scheduling, condition surveys, SMR enhancement, whatever. We believe this is the most cost-effective way of going about our business.

The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 has served us well but it is a product of its time – a time when we focused on individual monuments rather than the wider archaeological landscape. In order to undertake archaeological work, or to fund others to do so, the National Assembly has to have the legal powers, and the 1979 Act lies behind everything we are empowered to do. Section 45 of the Act allows the Assembly, through Cadw, to fund archaeological investigations and publication. Although ‘archaeological investigation’ is quite broadly defined under Section 61 of the Act, those who originally drafted the legislation saw it as being somewhat site specific. We now need an opportunity to introduce a modern definition to cover the very wide range of work in which we are all now involved.

The third initiative involves looking at the broader archaeological landscape. In February 2001 Cadw, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS UK) issued the second, and final part, of the Register of Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales (Cadw, CCW and ICOMOS UK 2001). This provides a general overview of 58 ‘outstanding’ and ‘special’ historic landscapes in Wales. Three years ago, for more detailed purposes, we decided to carry out historic landscape characterisation exercises on many of these landscapes and now all the larger ‘outstanding’ landscapes, apart from a few in northwest Wales, have been characterised. The work is being undertaken by the Trusts with funding from Cadw and with the CCW as a third partner. The results will feed into a whole range of management outputs including the

I would not want to change the way we protect individual monuments and still believe that scheduling is an essential tool, supported by appropriate controls and penalties. However, at some point we need to resurrect the amendments to the Act advocated in 1996 by the previous government in Protecting our Heritage (DNH and Welsh Office 1996, 40–48). Part II of the Act, dealing with Areas of Archaeological Importance – never introduced in Wales 28

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

– would be scrapped. Amongst other amendments, it would be an offence to remove finds from a scheduled site; instead of having to prove archaeological damage – often virtually impossible where no above-ground features have been damaged - ground disturbance on its own would constitute an offence; a claim of ignorance would no longer be a defence for unauthorised works at a scheduled monument; enforcement powers would be available to insist on remedial action and penalties for criminal offences would be increased.

the legislation is administered by Cadw, which has one Inspector who is a qualified diver. The 1979 Act includes the provision to schedule underwater structures, and recently Historic Scotland scheduled some of the First World War wrecks in Scapa Flow. These are a major tourist attraction for divers. It would be quite unrealistic to prevent the ships being dived upon, which would be the consequence of designation under the Protection of Wrecks Act, and so scheduling is a more practical way of securing a degree of protection. Land archaeological sites are no longer treated in isolation. Decisions over their protection and care are made with consideration both to set criteria and to the total known sites. In contrast wreck designation remains largely reactive rather than proactive and, in many cases, the standard of survey and excavation falls short of those we expect on land. There may, therefore, be a case for common legislation to protect both terrestrial and underwater sites.

Protecting our Heritage also considered the issue of the settings of ancient monuments. It wanted to give added force to PPG 16 by making it a statutory requirement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that this should be considered as part of the planning process. This was a sound suggestion but could be taken a stage further in any future archaeological legislation by revising the scheduled monument consent procedures to include statutory consideration of the effect of the development on the setting of the protected monument. This requirement exists in Northern Ireland where their legislation postdated and benefited from experience of the 1979 Act. In some other European countries this is dealt with by establishing a cordon sanitaire around protected monuments.

Moving now from legislation to planning, I think the present guidance for archaeology is pretty good and this is borne out by how few responses the National Assembly had to its consultation on the archaeology section of the latest draft of Planning Policy Wales (National Assembly for Wales 2001, 53–54). However, we need to think about ways of strengthening the overall guidance to cover the recording, not only of the below ground but also of the upstanding archaeology of historic buildings.

Another difficult aspect of the present Act, also not addressed in Protecting our Heritage, is the class consent for ploughing where a farmer can continue ploughing a field containing a scheduled monument if it has been ploughed sometime in the previous six years. Currently, the only way to break this cycle is to pay a large sum in compensation, effectively buying out the class consent for all time. There is no easy answer to this problem but we are now left with the unacceptable position of very important sites being gradually ploughed away. We must find a way of overcoming this problem.

A logical step from planning is the issue of archaeological records and one other recommendation in Protecting Our Heritage was that a statutory duty should be placed on local authorities to maintain SMRs. This issue came to the fore more recently when, just before the 2001 General Election, Lords Renfrew and Redesdale tried to introduce this requirement as an amendment to the Culture Bill. The situation in Wales is of course more difficult than in England as the regional SMRs are held by the Trusts, which are charitable bodies, thus ruling out the prospect of providing a statutory basis for the Welsh SMRs. Power of Place advocated expanding SMRs into Historic Environment Record Centres. Whilst I very much welcome that approach, we have to come up with a better acronym than HERCs. We need to find a way to place SMRs or HERCs in Wales on a more formal footing but we should not get too neurotic about this – after all, we do already have a perfectly effective system.

The other area where there might be a case for a fundamental re-think is in the way we deal separately with terrestrial and underwater archaeology. Underwater archaeology is a relatively recent addition to our discipline and to some extent this is reflected in the legislation. The Protection of Wrecks Act was passed in 1973 and allows designation of a restricted area around the seabed site of a vessel on account of the historical, archaeological and artistic importance of the vessel, its contents or former contents. It is an offence for unauthorised persons to tamper with, damage or remove any part of the wreck or its contents; to carry out diving or salvage operations; and to deposit anything which would obliterate or obstruct access to the site. Activity can only be undertaken under licence. The Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites advises the National Assembly on designations and licences (Fenwick and Gale 1998, 23–24). Currently, there are six designated wrecks around the Welsh coastline, and

The other area in which I would like to see more rapid progress is the development of a maritime database for Wales. This is, obviously, a major undertaking but certain vulnerable areas could be prioritised, such as those parts of the Severn Estuary subject to dredging activities and areas around the Welsh coast being identified as potential sites for off-shore windfarms. 29

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Turning now to the practical, hands-on, side of monument management, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act contains powers to grant-aid the repair of monuments and to enter into management agreements. Most grant-aid goes towards the repair of masonry scheduled monuments, varying from the humble postmedieval lock-up in Hawarden, Flintshire to the grand cathedral-like slate mill at Dolbenmaen in Gwynedd. Over the last two years Cadw has spent more than £600,000 preserving monuments in this way. In so doing, we work closely with the conservation staff of local authorities and national parks and particularly with their archaeologists, where they exist. These people are ideally placed to draw down other sources of funding such as Objective 1 and Heritage Lottery monies.

for terrestrial windfarms, despite the considerable potential of off-shore sites, and this is an area which gives us some difficulties as archaeologists. We need to find a way to assess, objectively, the impact of this type of green development on the historic landscape. There are other countryside issues that will shortly make demands on us. The National Assembly has recently consulted on the implementation of the uncultivated land or semi-natural areas provision of the European Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. If introduced, like other forms of EIA, this will include assessment of the impact of certain forms of rural development on the historic environment. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act has the provision for temporary closures of rights of way where monuments might be suffering from undue wear and tear as a result of increased public access. Determining where this might be necessary could involve archaeologists. Farming Connect, the latest initiative intended to help farmers develop their businesses, could involve assessing the impact of any development proposals on historic features on the farm. In an ever-changing countryside, we are going to be faced with increasing demands on our advisory services.

We have also been grant aiding earthwork repairs which are then sustained over the longer term by management agreements. Pioneering grant-aided earthwork repairs were undertaken by Andre Berry for the former Clwyd County Council in the early 1990s and this is now being carried on by Ian Babty through his work as the Offa’s Dyke Project Officer, a post jointly funded by Cadw and English Heritage. We now need a way to disseminate these skills, instigating a wide-ranging programme of earthwork conservation and repair, supported by management agreements.

Given our current priorities, I find it difficult to reconcile returns from the cost of a six-figure major excavation with what can be achieved for the same money from threatrelated assessments. However, I believe a case can be made for some limited excavation following threat-related assessments, such as those undertaken by the Dyfed Archaeological Trust on the Pembrokeshire coastal promontory forts. Rescue excavation can also form part of a more broadly-based research programme, such as that being undertaken by Reading University on the Bronze Age houses and environment at Redwick in the Gwent Levels. Cadw’s relatively modest funding for the excavation of the houses forms part of a wider study of this area. In the future, when the main thrust of the threatrelated assessments programme has been completed, Cadw may find itself funding further cooperative projects of this nature, tackling sites under threat from agriculture or natural erosion. This is one area where clearly defined research agenda would be valuable in determining priorities.

In Wales the returns from urban archaeology have been limited, with the notable exception of Monmouth. We are dealing with an essentially rural country. Despite only 2% of the population being directly involved in farming, away from the urban centres in the south and northeast much of the population is dependent upon a sustainable countryside. Today, that countryside is in deep trouble and current predictions are that farming practices are bound to change and with them the way the countryside is managed. I have already mentioned the increasing number of farms entering Tir Gofal. That is good news for us as archaeologists and we are responding positively. We are also seeing rural diversification, particularly farmers moving into tourism with caravan sites, bed and breakfast etc. There are other developments which may be less welcome but which we must be seen to be responding to constructively. BSE and foot and mouth could lead to an increase in organic farming and that, in turn, may result in former areas of pasture being ploughed. Archaeologists do not like ploughing so we must find a way or working with the organic farming organisations to reconcile our views of sustainability with theirs. Before the last election, Tony Blair was setting new targets for alternative sources of energy, looking to a future in which much more would come from these sources. Half the wind turbines in Britain are in Wales and yet only one sixth of 1% of our energy is wind-generated. There is bound to be a continuing demand

One final point on excavation: a large number of limited circulation reports of minor excavations and assessments (‘grey literature’) are now produced, mainly as a result of developer-funding. I would like to see a requirement that copies of all such reports should be deposited in the NMR and the local SMR. Where confidentiality is involved, access could be embargoed for a set period. I would like finally to turn to the way we disseminate results and consider the return we provide to the Welsh taxpayer. Had we been in the same position today as we 30

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bibliography Cadw and RCAHMW 1999 Recording, preserving and presenting the Welsh archaeological landscape: a joint statement by Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth

were ten years ago, it might not have been easy explaining our level of expenditure on excavations in terms of our publications, accessible to only a limited readership. Today results of work we are funding reach a much wider audience, for example through our websites, and we must continue to develop this and other areas, such as television.

Cadw, CCW and ICOMOS 2001 Register of landscapes of special historic interest in Wales, Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments, Cardiff

Inevitably this paper has looked at issues from an archaeologist’s point of view. The MORI poll commissioned for the Power of Place report reaffirmed the public’s appreciation of the heritage, but we need clearer understanding of expectations amongst the citizens of Wales and how best, within the strictures of the legislation, we can serve this (English Heritage 2000, 4–5).

DNH and Welsh Office 1996 Protecting our Heritage: a consultation document on the built heritage of England and Wales, Department of National Heritage/Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments, London English Heritage 2000 Power of Place: the future of the historic environment, English Heritage: London

To sum up: we are seeing an ever-strengthening partnership between archaeologists working in Wales. Together, we are also working closely with a whole range of organisations, particularly those involved in countryside protection and management. Although each organisation is constituted in a different way and has its own separate objectives, I believe that, as archaeologists working together, we are coming close to delivering an allWales archaeological service and it is this, rather than structural reorganisation, that we must develop over the coming years.

Fenwick, VH and Gale, A 1998 Historic shipwrecks: discovered, protected & investigated, Tempus: Stroud Musson, CR and Martin, C 1998 Medieval and earlier sites in Wales: scheduling and the national database, Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments, Cardiff National Assembly for Wales 2001 Draft planning policy for Wales: public consultation, National Assembly for Wales: Cardiff Wainwright, GJ 2000 ‘Time Please’, Antiquity 74, 909–43

31

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

7 The role of Welsh Sites and Monuments Records in developing and implementing research agenda Jenny Hall Cambria Archaeology Shire Hall, Carmarthen Street, Llandeilo, Carmarthenshire, SA19 6AF [email protected] www.acadat.com

Abstract Welsh SMRs developed out of the need for a regional record to inform the rescue archaeology of the 1970s and 1980s. This role was carried forward by PPG 16 Wales and its revisions. Archaeologists need to ask why recording is needed; what is being recorded, and who it is being recorded for. They must address both current and future needs. Resources are finite; wasted effort means lost opportunities. By following environmental principles such as sustainability and ‘reduce, reuse and recycle’, data input and output can be ensured and maximised.

All archaeological data are expressions of human thoughts and purposes and are valued only as revelations thereof. This differentiates archaeology from philately or picture collecting. Stamps and pictures are valued for themselves, archaeological data solely for the information that they provide as to their makers and users thoughts (Childe 1956, 11). Throughout our deliberations it is useful to keep in mind that it is the people, past, present and future, we are trying to reach, and that our methodology is only a means to that end. There are three fundamental questions about the role of the SMRs:

SMRs and related information systems are a great potential resource for enabling and disseminating research. A strategy for these information systems is needed, including research into how traditional period-based research would interact, and how to develop the outreach role of the SMRs.

Why are we recording? What are we recording? Who are we recording it for?

Why are we recording? Our current response would be to protect and promote the historic environment for present and future generations. We provide a record of the historic environment whether or not the aspect that engages us can be preserved in its present form. The record provides the building blocks of knowledge that enable users to create their version of the past or an aspect of the past. This is not about preserving the physical past but about preserving its memory.

Introduction SMRs in Wales were developed in the late 1970s as a response to the growth of rescue archaeology. Booming development with no archaeological planning control led to rapid response archaeology by those able to respond. With the advent of PPG 16 Wales the role of the SMR as an indicator of the appropriate response to a planning application was firmly established. However, SMRs have interacted far more widely with a variety of users for a variety of purposes. This paper will address how the SMRs can be involved with the development and implementation of research agenda by looking at how the SMRs are now defined, who interacts with them and how to maximise the benefits of that interaction.

What are we trying to record? The key criterion is that it is physical evidence of human activity. This physical evidence need no longer exist. We can record connections with physical evidence as seen by the developing Event Monument Archive model of SMR recording, where the activity that led to the interpretation is a key component, as is the primary record itself. We can record people or myths associated with a physical form. This is of particular importance in Wales where traditionally there is greater weight placed on the told history than physical remains.

First let us take one step back and ask the big question ‘Why do we do archaeology?’ Whatever our theoretical standpoint, whatever our political leanings or our personal ambition, the purpose behind our study is to try to understand our forebears’ lives, how they lived and how their death affected others. Gordon Childe once said: 33

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Who are we recording for? One of the prime roles of SMRs is to provide information for checking planning applications. However, this is probably one of the least interactive roles that SMRs support. The SMR is publicly accessible and used for many other functions, especially through recent developments with END. Initiatives like Tir Gofal and the Portable Antiquities Scheme mean that we are interacting with people who traditionally would not use the SMR or provide information.

Having defined why, what and who, how do we deliver data in the right form to the right person at the right time?

Sustainable Data Sustainable development was defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 as ‘Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). The model of sustainable development pursues three elements: economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection and enhancement.

The end-users of the SMR can be seen as a series of overlapping communities. There are:

What we need is sustainable data. Data that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. A model for sustainable data might pursue three elements:

• Interest-led groups: the public, local community groups, family history enthusiasts, metal detectorists. These have particular interests, often very specific, which may change in terms of data required and of their focus of study as they develop. These groups will be external to any research agenda

• Developed understanding • Social inclusion • Environmental protection and enhancement

• Initiative-led groups: Portable Antiquities, Tir Gofal and The Defence of Britain. These groups have usually come into existence as the result of initiatives by external organisations or government. Data has been collected digitally but the resulting sets may not have been developed within parameters defined by the SMR. Usually the end product is cited in the project brief as being placed with the SMRs but it is often not straightforward to use and often remains in parallel systems. Often these initiative led groups are the result of a recognised gap in knowledge

Developed understanding will allow us to carry research agenda forward, fill in the gaps and redirect research when new questions need to be asked. It will enable data to be accessed by all. Social inclusion allows us to consider the communities that at present utilise the information and those that do not. At present the results of our work only engage a small proportion of the national community. We should not expect that our work has interest for all, but it may have benefits for all. When looking at research agenda we should not forget that the knowledge we are seeking may enable economic growth through tourism, education, and redevelopment. Also we would be advised to remember that there are many others outside our ‘archaeological’ world who have questions about the past that at present we cannot answer.

• Function-led groups: Planning control, forestry liaison, development contractors, threat-related projects funded by Cadw to enhance scheduling. The work of these groups requires a structured approach to interrogating the SMR and to data returned. Working methodologies and specifications ensure standardised data output. The work of these groups would be better informed by a research agenda

Environmental protection and enhancement is probably the area that we would pride ourselves on already delivering. By looking at issues of social inclusion and developed understanding, we could engage a wider audience that may understand and support our aims. Otherwise where there is conflict between our aims and those of other pressure groups, higher profile concerns such as wildlife may take precedence over archaeological interests.

• Academic research: student assignments, postgraduate research and long-term projects The interaction of these ‘communities’ with the SMRs varies greatly. Sometimes they engage with the SMR on a ‘read only’ basis where they use information but do not return new data. At other times they may play an ‘enhancing’ role where new and enhanced data is returned. A request for information may be a simple enquiry, and having found the answer the enquirer interacts no more with the SMR. On the other hand a request from a member of the public actively researching an aspect of the past offers opportunities to enhance the record and for their work to benefit for others.

In order to deliver sustainability, data needs to have an easily understandable, well-defined structure with quality assurance, including developed glossaries. It is important that we address the Welsh language dimension and develop Welsh glossaries. The data structures of SMRs are as dynamic as the data itself. I suspect SMRs have not demonstrated this very 34

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bibliography Childe, VG 1956 A Short Introduction to Archaeology, London

clearly in the past. Although changes do have to be considered carefully in terms of external links, backward compatibility, data standards and glossaries, the structures must reflect current and future needs as far as possible. Research agenda would inform this process.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987 From One Earth to One World: An Overview, OUP: Oxford

Reduce, reuse and recycle The wastage of natural resources and energy are commonplace, accepted issues today. It is time that we addressed these issues in relation to data and information. Researchers need to reduce the time spent gathering data by constructive use of the SMRs, talking to SMR staff about biases in the data, and about the overall collection policy. SMRs are already starting to record Event data, the action that led to an interpretation. This can be used to target future fieldwork. We need to reuse primary data effectively. The Archaeology Data Service was created for just such a purpose, where the reuse of digital data is promoted by access through a central gateway, http://ads.ahds.ac.uk. Welsh SMRs can also provide access to primary data and help signpost access is elsewhere. We need to recycle the data produced, to take information from research to enhance the SMR, providing access to the original work from the wider resource. This needs commitment from all to provide data to SMRs, from SMRs to support researchers and cooperation between data gathering organisations. It requires data standards, data checking and approved glossaries. Researchers need to be involved in the process of glossary creation so that terminology becomes consistent and when we call a spade a spade we all have the same idea in mind. SMR and related information systems are a great potential resource. At a time when nearly all development grants are targeted towards public accessibility, we are all guilty of dictating what the public will get. We believe we know what the public wants without ever asking them. We believe that we know the questions they want answered, how they want the data delivered. We package products in the way we believe to best from our viewpoint. SMRs are experimenting with different methods of delivery, from webbased solutions such as CARN and ADS to developing the service that personal visitors get. The SMRs should have research agenda of their own addressing these issues. Our research agenda must benefit the wider population. They must be firmly embedded within grant-giving bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund, not to stop projects which do not fit into them, but to fine tune those that do. If our research agenda do not reach out through community based projects, tourism and education and through the work of Cadw, RCAHMW and the Trusts, they may not be sustainable. 35

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

8 Two into one won’t go – the case for an independent Royal Commission David M Browne RCAHMW David.Browne@ rcahmw.org.uk www.rcahmw.org.uk

Abstract The paper argues that there are essential roles for government in the furtherance of Welsh archaeology, but that these should be clearly prescribed. The principal roles of managers of the heritage and providers of information about the heritage should be kept separate. The present separation of functions between Cadw and the Royal Commission, with certain adjustments, should be maintained.

examples of ancient and historic monuments. The only debate is about the extent of that intervention, which will be renewed by UK’s adoption of the Valletta Convention. Although there is a consensus about the need for state management of the physical archaeological heritage, it does not necessarily follow that the support for such management should also be carried out at public expense. It should be remembered that ‘at public expense’ is one euphemism for state coercion. If anyone doubts that they live in a coercive state, they should try not paying their taxes! In a democratic society state force must have substantial justification and support.

Introduction This paper argues for maintaining the bipartite organisational status quo of governmental archaeology in Wales as a legitimate mechanism for taking forward the aspirations of the Principality’s archaeologists. It also suggests the need for some changes of emphasis in the directions at present adopted by the principal government heritage agencies.

Theoretically, private individuals and organisations should be capable of providing the information. However, historically this has not been feasible on a national basis. The fundamental problem is that the private sector lacks continuity and coherence of purpose. These failings can be demonstrated time and again in the dispersal of excavation groups, the break-up of private collections of antiquities and the oscillating fortunes of local societies. The state, with the requisite political will and appropriate organisations, is better placed to take a lead role in this area, compiling inventories and setting standards in survey and recording. It accepted this role before the First World War and has maintained it throughout the country until very recently. As the UK moves into a capitalist European super-state, archaeologists must take account of European legislation and conventions that reinforce the role of the state in matters such as heritage management.

Government and society Before the central subjects of the paper are discussed, it is important to understand the author’s position regarding the ideal relationship between government and people: it is, stated baldly, that the less government, the better. Government should be democratically controlled and accountable. However, some government is necessary to arbitrate between the differing aspirations of individuals and communities. The degree of government required is the essence of debate in democratic politics. Government and archaeology The case for state management of part of the physical archaeological heritage - sites, monuments and landscapes - has long been made, and is generally agreed by society as a whole. The multitude of destructive pressures of the Industrial and Post Industrial eras has been beyond the ability, and often the interest, of the private sector to control, and there has been long-term popular support for government intervention to safeguard at least the best

The Valletta Convention of 1992, to which the UK has recently (2000) become a signatory, creates a Europe-wide legal presumption that the state has more than just a management role in the preservation of the physical heritage. It also enjoins that the state should have a broader regulatory role in archaeology than has been the practice in the UK. Although the author is a government 37

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

archaeologist with more than a quarter of a century’s service, he is unconvinced that the proposed extension of state control is desirable, particularly where it requires government regulation of one of the basic methodologies of archaeology: excavation. Andrew Selkirk deserves a sympathetic response for his opposition to the implementation of Article 3 (Anon. 2001).

is the enemy of initiative and innovation. They become increasingly anonymous and decision-making processes more opaque. Worst of all, they become less accountable to the democratic process. Multiple agencies if sensibly and sensitively managed can encourage progressive debate and healthy competition without sacrificing essential cooperation. These drawbacks outlined above are in themselves enough to make any move to a central agency undesirable. Moreover, the case for maintaining separate state agencies becomes irrefutable when one considers the specific nature of the Royal Commission in Wales.

In this author’s view regulation should be kept to a minimum. State-controlled archaeology has a very uneven record throughout the world and it is no business of government to manipulate access to knowledge of the past. Moreover, judgment of competence is no straightforward matter. Besides the problems of setting standards, there is the even more difficult question of who are to be the judges and to whom are appeals to be addressed. As a wider point, relevant to the purpose of this volume, it can be argued that any drive towards uniformity is inimical to the health of a discipline whose progress is dependent on diversity and debate. Archaeologists should be wary of hidden agenda of control and manipulation that masquerade as ‘Strategic Plans’ or ‘Research Priorities’. They should always ask: strategic to whom? Whose priorities? After all, is consensus so important? The author would worry profoundly about an archaeology that claimed to have achieved one. Let there always be as many archaeologies as there are archaeologists.

RCAHMW was set up in 1908 and presently operates under a revised Royal Warrant issued in July 2000. Its stated purpose (RCAHMW 2001) is to take ‘a leading national role in promoting the understanding of the archaeological, built and maritime heritage of Wales, as the originator, curator and supplier of authoritative information for individual, corporate and governmental decision makers, researchers, and the general public’. Because of the historically documented shortcomings of the private sector it is argued that originating, curating and supplying authoritative information about the archaeological heritage continue to be, within suitable limits, legitimate roles for government. This paper restricts itself to what is traditionally thought of as archaeology. The modern broad definition of the subject, which is in many ways an absurdity, raises too many difficult political, legal, social and economic issues to be dealt with here.

There are a variety of limited, legitimate roles for government in archaeology, but this paper contends that they are not best carried out by a single agency. This latter point is argued on the basis of documented tendencies in government and the specific strengths of the Royal Commission.

RCAHMW in its Corporate Plan for 2002-2005 lays out five generally accepted reasons why promoting an understanding of the past is of benefit. First, ‘understanding the surroundings in which successive generations have lived is fundamental to an understanding of society, past and present, and contributes to social cohesion’. Second, ‘an awareness of the nature of physical change or stability within that environment assists comprehension of the development and well-being of society, and the benefits of sustainable development’. Third, ‘the archaeological and historic environment provides one of the clearest indicators of cultural diversity and of local, regional and national identity’. Fourth, ‘reliable records provide a sound basis for all assessments of the value of the archaeological and historic environment and for the allocation of resources for its sustainable management, protection and conservation’. And lastly, ‘reliable records also provide an essential platform on which to build and foster an informed interest in, and enjoyment of, Wales and its cultural heritage, a matter of economic as well as educational, importance (sic)’ (RCAHMW 2001).

Two principal roles for government are management of the fixed heritage - landscapes, sites and monuments - and information provision. The main justification for state participation has already been alluded to: a public desire that this should be so, informed by the inadequacy of the private sector. Even the relatively recent creation of a specifically archaeological private sector, albeit propped up by public funding, has proved inadequate for these tasks. Management of the fixed heritage is largely, though not exclusively, the business of Cadw. This paper is concerned with suggestions that the roles of the Royal Commission could be joined to those of Cadw. There is, of course, a precedent for such a move across Offa’s Dyke. Adoption of a single agency approach, it is claimed, will bring economies of scale and reduce wasteful overlap. It would also create a greater sense of purpose and direction in heritage management. This utopian, centralist yearning has been shown, time after time, to be nothing more than the pursuit of a mirage. The reality is that the larger government agencies become, the more they succumb to bureaucratic inertia. Their monopoly of power and access

In a recent ‘defence document’ the Royal Commission in Scotland has stated succinctly probably the most important reason for a separation of powers within the 38

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

governmental provision for archaeology (RCAHMS 2000). It states that: ‘It is essential that the heritage record should be seen to be independent from direct, or indirect, influence relating to the interventions required for the protection and management of the built heritage’. Nobody can deny that at national and, especially, local level social and political factors are sometimes brought to bear on the decision process, and these have no place in the advice process.

should continue to remain unpaid, although thinking within the National Assembly will probably lead to a change in this arrangement. The Royal Commission is an independent intellectual voice which would be more restricted in a larger government body. Independence from the organisation responsible for legislative enforcement is an advantage in dealing with the public and usually encourages a greater willingness to grant access and provide information.

The National Monuments Record is undoubtedly at the core of the Royal Commission’s activities. Amalgamation would be a serious threat to its integrity. NMR Wales is becoming increasingly widely known as one of the National Collections of Wales, though unlike its counterpart in Scotland it has a considerable way to go before it establishes itself firmly as such, and it is badly in need of clearer focus. Overcoming these problems is partly a matter of better resourcing, partly of better housekeeping and mainly of creating better-constructed interrelationships with core and ancillary partners. It is to be regretted that parochialism and sheer bloodymindedness have in some instances inhibited a fully cooperative relationship between the Royal Commission and some SMRs. In some areas of information provision there is overlap with the Trusts. There is a clear need for demarcation and agreement on respective roles. In other areas NMR Wales is a unique resource, especially in the built heritage and aerial records. The information service is increasingly used by a wide range of customers from Wales and farther afield.

The Royal Commission still has a widely recognised expertise in survey, especially of the built heritage. There is reason for concern for the longer term survival of this expertise as key staff age, retire and are not replaced with people with the same skills. The amount of ground survey and recording undertaken by the Commission has unfortunately diminished in recent years, compromising to a certain extent its claim to be a lead body and standard setter in this field. Respect for the quality of information that the Commission can supply is dependent on outside perceptions of the quality of field staff. There is an urgent need for a fundamental assessment of the future of this role which can lift itself above a myopic obsession with individual projects. The Royal Commission also has a widely recognised expertise in specialist publication which it must continue to deploy. The publication programme is now much more diversified in output, using traditional and electronic means. There is still a place for the detailed research monograph to reflect investigations that enhance NMR Wales, but which may not always be suitably structured for the basic databases.

One of the strengths of having two relatively small government bodies dealing with archaeology in Wales is the ease with which individual officers can be approached. It is feared that with an amalgamation of functions there would be a greater remoteness of officers from their peers and informants. Experience of the last decade suggests that conversion of field officers to more bureaucratic roles can lead to a loss of expertise in the organisation. Creating a hybrid body could further exacerbate such a trend, with dilution of functions and eventually a poorer service. There are several other positive features of the present position of the Royal Commission in relation to other government bodies and the private sector. It is good value for money, operating with a small budget fully subject to public scrutiny through government audit procedures. As an independent body RCAHMW can control almost entirely the achievement of its objectives. It has little dependence on others except through its grant aid programmes. As regards the latter, it has begun to exert the close control over the use of public money that it and the tax payer is entitled to expect.

Commission staff have proven ability in in-depth studies to inform current issues, and there is scope for further development in this area. Here, the independence of the organisation would be an essential feature. The Royal Commission is positioned to take a national view of archaeological matters. It can be responsive to current Wales-wide issues in rural and urban redevelopment in a way that most other agencies cannot. NMR houses a nationally important air photograph collection and is the only archaeological body to provide a country wide overview of aerial photography. This is undoubtedly a core function of the Commission which needs expanded resources. Given its demonstrable strengths, it is important in the next few years that the Commission, in a misguided attempt to satisfy too many calls on its resources, does not allow potential structural weaknesses to become embedded. It is particularly important that it avoids confusing its legitimate role as a supplier of interpreted information to educators with an unwarranted tendency to become an educator itself.

Royal Commissioners form an expert body that advises and is responsible to ministers at little cost to the public purse. Most Commissioners are of the view that they 39

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bibliography Anon. 2001 ‘Government to outlaw the amateurs?’ Current Archaeology 174, 241–3

It has been said the role of the Royal Commission is essentially that of an information provider and that research is not central to its activities. This attitude stems from the mistaken idea that there is somehow information out there just waiting to be gathered, ordered and presented to a public. On the contrary, information is a construct of the mind, and its depth and quality are dependent on the nature of the gathering process; in other words research. Rather than being a peripheral activity, research needs to reclaim its central position in Royal Commission activities.

RCAHMS 2000 Response to Review of Public Bodies, RCAHMS: Edinburgh The outcome of the review can be accessed on: www.rcahms.gov.uk/whatsnewhtml RCAHMW 2001 Corporate Plan 2002–2005, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth The Corporate Plan and other framework documents can be accessed on: www.rcahmw.org.uk

The Valletta Convention, despite some shortcomings, can be used legitimately to support both the general purpose and specific roles of the Royal Commission. As part of its recognition that the state has a responsibility for the protection of the archaeological heritage, it enjoins that there should be the maintenance of an inventory - the role of NMR Wales. Article 6 expects the state to support archaeological research. Article 7 envisages that the state will support dissemination of knowledge through the publication of archaeological work. Article 9 requires the state to undertake educational actions to raise public awareness of the archaeological heritage. It is difficult to see how these activities could be carried out effectively without some form of lead government body. And of course there is no need to create a new one as the Royal Commission is already here.

Websites VALLETTA. There are many sites discussing the Valletta Convention, for example: www.britarch.ac.uk/valletta/

Fortunately, there are few serious advocates of a centralised government agency for the archaeology of Wales. Nevertheless, there is a need to be on guard against a historical tendency to look across the border for models for Welsh governance. What is needed is a Welsh solution to Welsh problems; this paper contends that part of that solution is already in place.

40

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

9 Some potential future structures for Welsh archaeology C Stephen Briggs

RCAHMW, Crown Building, Plas Crug, Aberystwyth, SY23 1NJ [email protected] www.rcahmw.org.uk

Abstract The relationship of Welsh archaeology to scholarship, tourism, outreach and media image, and to national and local government is briefly considered. Archaeology as a career is also discussed. Recent proposed or effective changes in the English and Scottish governmental heritage organisations are noted and the present administrative structures which resource and guide heritage interests in Wales are examined with a view to their future governance. Is change felt necessary and how best could it be effected? The departmentally integrated model of Northern Ireland is described. It is felt some structural features may also be applicable to Wales, which shares similarities, particularly of scale. Archaeologists are urged to raise the profile of archaeological interests by using the democratic process to reach their public and influence heritage policy making.

as unnecessary changes: through such adoptions government constantly strives to improve public services, of which archaeology is only a small part. But some recent changes were not so obviously reasonable, or even acceptable. One such change was the expectation (since about 1990), of running departments like Cadw and RCAHMW on diminishing budgets whilst still being expected to improve services. Such apparently Herodian tactics demanded invisible retrenchment. Loss of skills and morale, and project shrinkage resulted. More recently, although some constraints appear to have slackened slightly, the absorption of a well-earned public sector pay-award now threatens a further general diminution in service. So it has to be accepted that many pressures, particularly the financial ones, remain. And indeed, in some quarters it has been asked if the present structure of Welsh archaeology can survive, or at least how desirable it is to retain the current arrangements. For any interest group in the public sector there is always the fear that upwardly-mobile politicians, sensing how others have organised their resources better elsewhere, may take the bull by the horns and give things a good shaking. So perhaps archaeologists in Wales should be preparing themselves in anticipation.

Introduction The IFA Wales/Cymru conference was timely because particular demands have already made noticeable effects on the structure of archaeology in Britain outside Wales. Recent changes to the organisation of regional government, the absorption of the Royal Commission England into English Heritage (1999-2000) and proposals to change the way in which the Scottish Commission is run (2001) - all contributed to creating a greater sense of insecurity among archaeologists working in Wales. Among some observers these events have fostered an optimism that perhaps political expedience or experiment could produce an even more ideal and comprehensive way of doing things in Wales. All this, in a political climate where over the past 25 years government has imposed a fresh language to define public demands and deliveries. Rightly or wrongly, these now include performance indicators, business and corporate plans, and also, in a climate of diminishing public resources, the pursuit of (an ill-defined) sustainability and of adding value to a product even more difficult to define. Not that these should be seen

Current pressures on Welsh archaeology The position of government archaeology in Wales now differs markedly from the Westminster and Edinburgh models. At the Welsh Assembly its main organisations answer to two, if not to three different cabinet ministers (Cadw to Environment and Planning; RCAHMW and the NMGW to Training and Education; the E-ministry has also taken a close interest in matters of monument databasing). In a sense this diversity could be turned to advantage, because it should offer greater access to more experienced vocational specialists in the civil service concerned with education and public information, as well as integrating those planners managing complementary 41

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

parts of the environment. Theoretically, such diversity should enable better archaeological access to the ministries concerned with development.

Unfortunately, archaeology’s path towards educating its wider public is fraught without effective media cooperation. But care must be taken in courting media and government. Both can on occasion assume they know what their public needs. Curiously, some news reports about archaeology appear so inadequate or untrue that they would not be tolerated in any other subject. But professional archaeologists rarely openly protest. So it is important to find better ways of educating the media and the public as well as politicians. Archaeologists ought not to shy from insisting on the highest standards of media reporting.

As already mentioned, electorates are increasingly sensitive to the justification of tax burdens. Consequently, it becomes more important for archaeologists to know what national (as well as local) government expects of their agenda. That is not to suggest that archaeologists should be dancing to an overtly political tune, as there are many dangers in embracing such blind harmonies.

Local Government Turning to local government: archaeology in the planning process is discussed elsewhere (Austin p19–24). However, it is of fundamental importance that more archaeologists establish communication with their own local and community councillors outside the arrangements demanded by professional activity and representation. Councillors decide the fates, not just of the historic landscapes, sites or buildings that are already designated and protected, but of many more features which would be if clearer local support were articulated. Over the years a number of schemes have been resourced to improve communications between environmental bodies and the educational process. Greater involvement is now demanded in more of these schemes, where it is vital that archaeology promotes a more equal part with the ecologists and with those who play the sustainability card.

Training Many of archaeology’s more scholarly research objectives seem to have been lost in recent years. But not only the objectives: we are in agreement that a constant eye must be kept on revising the questions which need to be asked. And although there are now very many more archaeologists than there used to be, concern must grow apace in direct relation to their increasing numbers. Is the discipline maintaining research standards and do all its practitioners actually understand the concept of scholarly protocol? College academics are now admitting that they are subject to quantitative rather than qualitative measures (Kirk unpublished). The absolute institutionalisation of qualitative standards may be impossible, but the IFA, government bodies and academic institutions should at least consider taking on a guardian’s role. Careers And so to careers. In dealing with archaeology’s ongoing problems, many archaeologists are now treated as if low pay is a privilege. Unsurprisingly, many of the most successful graduates choose not to join the profession. But then nowadays many of the most accomplished specialists spend more time looking at screens than they do researching. Low salaries and the scarcity of permanent employment within a limited career structure inhibit development of skills and better morale. And as IFA Wales/Cymru recently pleaded to one Minister, these working conditions can only be improved through the commitment of higher funding levels within the public service and through longer term resourcing to ensure some continuity of employment, offering real opportunities for skills and career development.

Archaeology and the media Over the past year some members of IFA Wales/Cymru have expressed concern about the media, particularly the role of television in archaeology. It is disturbing to see just how closely the media controls so much of archaeology’s output to the public, and how it can oversimplify and sensationalise to the detriment of professional standards and the longer term needs of the historic environment. A mature profession of integrity can ill afford to allow others to misrepresent its methods, aims and objectives, and it is encouraging that Cadw has allowed Frank Olding to take part in a BBC series on the Welsh Heritage, made during the foot and mouth epidemic and broadcast in 2002. Perhaps other bodies will follow suit, allowing publicly funded personnel to face the camera and not shy away from the inevitably controversial. After all, archaeology is unlikely to get anywhere near the truth or its public without a bit of debate.

A different or better structure for the present resources? So is it likely that shortfalls in the training, employment and influence of professional archaeologists could be better met or redressed through tweaking or even through rebuilding the current organisational structure? To answer that question it may help to take a brief look at other systems. Obviously, depending upon the constituency and scales of the operation, it could be felt expedient, first to integrate those bodies concerned with archaeology; then, possibly through a second step, to take that body into a more comprehensive environmental service.

Professional archaeologists also need to be watchful about the quality of historical information used to promote visitor interest in the tourist industry. There are occasions when the sound bites of promotional commercialism and of immediate access can override the more complex needs of conservation. Consequent visitor attention may become responsible for spiriting away the actual object of interest by erosion. 42

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Northern Ireland Such an integrated archaeology service exists in Northern Ireland (NI). There, archaeology operates under the remit of the Environment and Heritage Service, its aims being ‘to protect and conserve the natural and built environment and to promote its appreciation for the benefit of present and future generations’ (EHS 1996, 7; cf Anon u d). Run along centralised lines from Belfast, archaeology is partnered with Agriculture, Forestry, Natural Heritage and, perhaps not quite so comfortably, with Water. In an unpublished paper, Nick Brannon lauds the service for being highly integrated (Brannon 2001).

there was a public consultation to inform the way forward. And a decade on, now much better resourced than it ever could have been in 1990, CCW delivers to more effective advantage for the natural environment. In the interim the Council has been threatened politically by under-funding regimes and it originally suffered serious losses of ecological expertise during the integration process.

Brannon explains how its remit covers the range of work (in England) of English Heritage, the (present and former) Royal Commissions on Historical Monuments, local authority archaeological and conservation officers and the many county and regional archaeological units (Hamlin 1989; 1992 and 1993; Given 1996). In NI, archaeologists deal with planning locally and nationally from their SMR, direct most of the rescue excavations, and also conduct some research projects. They work in tandem with investigators of the built environment, and it is testimony to their healthy cooperation that archaeologists have helped designate AONBs and co-author guidebooks with naturalists.

CCW has achieved a great deal in ten years. Interestingly, many of its resources are now put to activities and projects which actually or potentially overlap with our work in the heritage, even if only marginally. These include managing fragile landscapes and promoting access to a countryside in which archaeologists have at least an equal interest to the ecologists and countryside managers (see Roberts p61). The Historic Landscapes Project, a visionary initiative jointly administered between CCW and Cadw and run by Richard Kelly is of particular interest here as a sort of bridging passage. Tir Cymen came and went, but now Tir Gofal is gathering momentum with ecological and both archaeological and historic architectural recording dimensions. These heritage dimensions were hard won only by serious negotiation.

Less opportunity was given for the public to comment when RCHME was summarily absorbed into EH in 1999. And it is still not fully understood how this new, enlarged and integrated EH performs.

Until April 1996 the functions of this Environment and Heritage Service lay with the Department of the Environment NI (DOENI). It was established as one of several next-step agencies within the existing DOENI and is now headed by a Chief Executive who covers the same wide range of functions as its predecessor body. This new Environment Service encompasses Environmental Protection, the Natural Heritage and the Built Heritage (EHS 1996). The Director of the Built Heritage has three Assistant Directors heading teams responsible for Protecting Historic Monuments, Protecting Historic Buildings, and Recording the Built Heritage. The built heritage includes archaeological sites and monuments, buried remains, buildings, industrial and military remains, gardens, landscapes, shipwrecks and underwater features, and archaeological objects. The three-dimensional nature of this Environmental service is best demonstrated by the joint performance targets set in its Heritage Service Corporate and Business Plan (2001-2004).

Until the foot and mouth outbreak, talk of increased public countryside access had a rather uncritical dimension. The educational importance of public access to ancient monuments is not in question. But it could be argued that unmanaged public access to all monuments outside a serious public understanding of conservation and erosion issues verges on irresponsibility towards posterity. And access could also threaten some archaeological aspects of important historic landscapes if it were to be delivered exclusively by ecologists. Political decisions to adopt public access analogous to the system practised by the Swedes – where it seems anyone can go practically anywhere – is all very well with the back-up of a system protecting monuments and landscapes going back almost two centuries and an educational system to match. Sweden is also very much less densely populated than Britain. Total countryside access in Britain is not yet unsupported by complete integrated databases of specialist ecological and archaeological knowledge. And without these databases for guidance, there is not only potential for conflict, but for conflict resulting in the loss by human erosion of irreplaceable historic assets. Fortunately, appropriate databasing is now being developed apace (Thomas p57).

So fully integrated services can and do exist, though it should be pointed out that geographical factors make the Northern Irish experience rather different from Wales’s.

Changes from NCC to CCW (1990) and from RCHME to EH (1999) Performance improvement and resource efficiency was the stated motive for integrating the Nature Conservancy Council’s Welsh operation with the Countryside Commission’s Committee for Wales in 1990. At that time

As has been noted, the outcome of absorbing RCHME into EH is still difficult to assess. Analogy with the Welsh heritage bodies is difficult owing to scales of size. 43

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Restructuring obviously leaves personnel casualties from relocation, from changes in regional staffing and from the demands of retraining. Over the first couple of years the very scale of the new operation appeared to tell on short term performance. But long-term advantages are also evident. Combining resources for archive, excavation, fieldwork reconnaissance, laboratory, research and survey, both ground and aerial, offers certain advantage and real long term potential. And indeed, it has become a commonplace that combined architectural specialists of the new EH now offer a pool of skills the envy of many other countries. It will, however, probably take time before such benefits are felt right across the several operational functions of the new organisation.

So much closer to government than the rest of us, and working for the Assembly’s Executive Agency, our colleagues in Cadw have already developed their communicative and political skills in this regard. However, it would be unfortunate were the politicians to see Cadw’s staff and policies as representative of all that happens in Welsh archaeology. All archaeologists should work in closer partnerships with Cadw staff to give politicians a more comprehensive picture of the historic environment and those involved in studying and looking after it. So there is a need to gain greater formal access to elected politicians for archaeologists working in Wales. Although some heads of the institutions working to the Assembly already enjoy this, access exists neither for representatives of the IFA nor for most accredited amenity groups. Interestingly, however, both Countryside Link (Wales) and the Council for National Parks (CNP) have had regular meetings with ministers at the Welsh Office and Assembly since the later 1980s. CNP is an amenity group representing other amenity, academic, access, and conservation and environmental groups. When attending the ministerial forums in London and Cardiff, CNP is encouraged to put questions to the heads of Countryside, Forestry, Roads and Planning agencies on a variety of matters including policy and performance. Although archaeologists share similar concerns with needs related to the same government departments, until recently they have not sought parallel access to promote better understanding of or accountability for archaeology in government.

It is difficult to conceive of a second step, in which English Heritage might join the Countryside Agency. The administrative difficulties beset by the very scale of change would probably offset any organisational benefits. Furthermore, there is always the danger that regular restructuring leads to managerial chaos and low morale. But stranger things have happened and by analogy there could be value to Welsh archaeology in snuggling up closer to the naturalists (CCW). As politicians may postulate this as a viable solution, so archaeologists in Wales should be well prepared with a fuller understanding of all its implications before going down that path, or disadvantage and unworkability may be the result.

Retaining the present model? The present model certainly has many advantages. It has developed in leaps and bounds and has worked well for over a quarter of a century. It is of a modest size and its components are understood both by those who work in it and by a (now relatively well-informed) public. Archaeology has a presence throughout most of the Principality and operates through a structure funded largely from the public purse. Although there are tensions, most component bodies certainly communicate and cooperate. And because Wales is small, there is already useful contact with some, though not with all other government departments and many of the amenity and interest groups. Here one thinks of the various Forums, the Forestry-Archaeology Liaison Group and the many seminars which have been held to explain archaeology to the service industries.

Now seems a good time for professional archaeology in Wales to seek regular ministerial audience. It is also important that any political lobbying promoted by existing amenity groups with common interests and connections should be known of, if not comprehensively informed by as great a consensus as possible within the profession. Since the conference in 2001, steps have been taken in England to establish a Heritage Link akin to the Countryside Link model, and an All Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group (APPAG) has also been set up. Both are forging more direct and effective links between archaeology and elected politicians, intent on tackling current issues and public concerns.

Conclusion There are probably as many views on how to organise a future for Welsh archaeology as there are archaeologists. But certain priorities and realities need to be kept in mind whatever happens to the present structure and its individual institutions. Archaeologists must regularly review those resourcing levels likely to produce the best quality of work. They should insist on support for the most exacting standards of research and conservation whilst continuing to stress the values of in-house training and full

A stronger voice for professional concerns? It is now vital that archaeologists campaign to get the importance of good archaeology onto the political agenda. The process of informing government will involve challenging politicians with certain changes in understanding of the traditions, myths and legends learned at school or even at college. But we should always take advantage of the probability that they will enjoy sharing our new discoveries. 44

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

time permanent employment. It is important to resist political pressures exclusively dependent on outcomes of quantitative production when they visibly diminish standards of quality. Ultimately, the profession’s success can only be achieved through greater unity, strength of purpose, better informed media promotion and consistent educational achievement. Unity need not mean intellectual conformity, and it should not matter that archaeologists beg to differ in public, so long as debate is amicable and respectful. In short, the time is ripe for greater maturity and credibility. We now recognise how to achieve them. Well armed with that recognition, it will matter less what future politicians have in store.

Bibliography Anon u d Who we are and what we do, Booklet published by the Environment and Heritage Service, N Ireland

Acknowledgments This paper is a personal statement. The writer thanks Nick Brannon for information, Chris Musson for support, and Don Benson for inspiration. A number of colleagues helpfully responded to requests for information about the organisation of archaeology abroad. They included Ghislaine Billand, Marc Talon and W Raczkowski.

Hamlin, AE 1992 ‘Archaeological survey in Northern Ireland’, in Inventories of monuments and historic buildings in Europe, London, 41–44

EHS 1996 Corporate and business plans, DOENI, Environment and Heritage Service: Belfast Given, A 1996 ‘Finding and minding: managing Northern Ireland’s historic environment’, Archaeology and the historic environment: frameworks for the future, (Association of County Archaeological Officers), 20–23 Hamlin, AE 1989 ‘Government archaeology in Northern Ireland’, in HF Cleere (ed), Archaeological heritage management in the modern world, London, 171–181

Hamlin, AE 1993 ‘Archaeological management in Northern Ireland, and Legislation in Northern Ireland’, in JR Hunter and IBM Ralston (eds), Archaeological resource management in the UK: an introduction, Alan Sutton: Stroud, 37–8 and 134

Unpublished Brannon, NF 2001 ‘The Built Heritage in Northern Ireland’ Kirk, T ‘Size increasingly matters…’: the future of archaeology in Welsh universities’, paper given at IFA Wales/Cymru Conference, Aberystwyth, September 2001

45

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

10 The way ahead for Royal Commission survey Stephen R Hughes

RCAHMW, Crown Building, Plas Crug, Aberystwyth SY23 1NJ [email protected] www.rcahmw.org.uk

Abstract During 2001 Royal Commission survey was refocused around four main nationwide project areas: Uplands Archaeology; Aerial Photographic Survey; Emergency Building Recording; and Detailed Site and Building Surveys. Levels of building and site recording have been developed within these programmes and comments are invited on their more general use. An element of synthesis will continue to structure overall research questions on selected classes of monuments and buildings and to answer those questions when the parameters and results of the projects allow.

Thirdly there has been a refining of the way in which the subject matter of surveys has been chosen. Categories of buildings, or individual monuments are chosen because there is an impending threat or conservation need to record and understand that structure or type of monument. They are not selected on the basis of individual research interests, or because they are merely in the adjacent area to one already surveyed. The fourth substantial change has been in the staffing of projects. Until the 1990s all fieldwork planned by the Royal Commission used RCAHMW staff almost exclusively. This is now far from the case. Uplands Archaeology Initiative work is supported by grants to a wide range of archaeologists. Regional flying is carried out by WATs supported by RCAHMW grants. Nonconformist Chapel recording and photography has been carried out by similar means. The ambitious Chapels project is currently being continued in partnership with volunteers who are members of Capel: the Welsh Chapel Heritage Society. This project includes community involvement, other interested individuals and local photographic societies. Members of the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust have also provided data on historic gardens to be entered on the Royal Commission’s garden database. Travel and material costs are met by the Royal Commission in some of these projects.

Introduction Before considering the future of survey in the Royal Commission it is necessary to note that national all-Wales recording has already been through a period of substantial change, partly driven by developments in information technology. Firstly this has been in the area and scope of specific survey projects: there has now been a complete change from county-based studies to all-Wales work. Projects such as the Uplands Archaeology or Nonconformist Chapels surveys are being conducted to produce an overall context and understanding of specific types and categories of monuments and buildings over the whole of Wales. Secondly there has been a fundamental change in the form and priorities given to outputs. The primary output of most projects until recent years was a large published volume. The archiving of paper-based records on individual sites was a secondary output of these publication projects. Primary outputs now are the compilation of information and interpretation on computer database and the archiving of images in NMR Wales. Where appropriate, overall synthesis, turning descriptive and interpretative text of an individual structure into the wider understanding of a monument or building type, is given wider dissemination on the web, in a journal or as a monograph.

The following section examines some of the issues involved in the individual survey projects in the present and future programme of RCAHMW. Emergency Building Recording is a major core programme of RCAHMW. Details of listed buildings subject to extensive alteration and demolition are supplied to RCAHMW by architects and owners. Photographs and plans are then safely stored for posterity in NMR Wales, a recognised archive with approved environmental controls and standards. 47

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Local Authority conservation officers, and others, also refer non-listed significant buildings and structures subject to substantial alterations and demolitions to RCAHMW for recording. In fact, some 75% of buildings significant enough to warrant recording in the field over recent years have been selected from this sort of informed consultation by partners in the conservation network, rather from those sometimes less significant alterations notified as part of Listed Building Consent work. However, the balance between the two main triggers for active fieldwork is changing as the listing resurvey of Wales is finalised. This year (2002) up to 40% of structures recorded concern buildings whose significance has been recognised by the enhanced programme of listing. The demand for this work is set to increase (21 buildings and complexes were recorded during emergency fieldwork in 1998–99; 30 in 1999–2000 and 50 in 2000–01 (RCAHMW Reports 1998; 1999; 2000)). It is possible to assess the significance of individual buildings and structures all over Wales because of a unique concentration of building historians and archaeologists at the Royal Commission. These can assess which buildings are important to record and what is significant within them. In addition some twenty buildings a week are entered on the NMR database in the course of this work (with attached plans that accompany about 75% of applications and photographs enclosed with some 15%).

Fig. 10.1 Gutting by fire of the hall at Cefn Mably (dais end) allowed a re-evaluation of its chronology during emergency recording (RCAHMW Crown Copyright)

In this and other recording work it is possible to become obsessed with the mechanistic processes of recording and produce rigid and over-elaborate prescriptions for recording. Indeed in this kind of work much of the basic measured recording will already have been done by architects and the most valuable input by architectural historians and archaeologists is an understanding of how the building developed and what its significance is in the national, European and international context. Long experience allows the staff of the Royal Commission to do this.

By its nature this type of survey of decaying structures and buildings stripped-down and under repair reveals features and structural chronologies which are otherwise hidden. The true significance of a building is reassessed during this archaeological evaluation and often only fully understood after the work. An example of this was at Cefn Mably House, Llanedeyrn, where a two-man team was able to reassess structural relationships in the hall/solar nucleus of this great house (during a day’s visit), where a previously hidden structure had been exposed by fire (Fig.10.1; cf Howell below) (Suggett 2001). Years of specialism in this kind of work enable assessments of importance to be made quickly. This cost-effective and informed visit augmented the useful programme of dendrochronology and trial digging work that was carried out on site over a longer period on-site by others.

Levels of Recording To monitor the effectiveness of Emergency Building Recording and other work RCAHMW has devised its own simple and flexible levels of recording as follows: Descriptive Note and Record (Level One: entered as ‘Noted’ in the history box of the NMR database). This consists of a brief note and database entry drawing attention to the potential interest of a building. The information may be drawn from secondary sources and include references to visual material. There can also be a simple element of field recording including photography.

Detailed analysis of more significant and diverse ‘discoveries’ are made known in publications such as Cofnod, the Royal Commission’s Newsletter (Roberts and Percival 2001; Suggett 1999; Ward 2000) and elsewhere (Roberts and Suggett 1999; Suggett 1998; 1999b; 2000; 2001). These include the hitherto unrecognised Norman transept of Llandaff Cathedral, the intact gorse and wickerwork under-thatching of a Ceredigion cottage and the medieval date of a possible monastic guest house still standing alongside Talley Abbey.

Field Observation and Interpretation (Level Two: entered as ‘Field Obsv.’ in the database). This level includes a sketched building or site plan with photographs, 48

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

description and an interpretation of the overall chronological development and comparative significance based on a site visit. Most visits in a general thematic survey are at this level: this includes the recently completed Radnorshire Farmsteads Study which covered over 500 complexes with another 500 solitary structures such as workers’ cottages. Partial Survey (Level Three: entered as ‘Part Survey’ in the database). This includes measured drawings (usually a ground-floor plan made on site or an existing plan checked and annotated) with photographic cover and an interpretation of the building.

Fig. 10.3 Horseman’s Green cottage façade as reconstructed after recording in 2001 (RCAHMW Crown Copyright)

Full Survey (Level Four: entered as ‘Full Survey’ in the database). This can be an intensive survey of an appropriate type: main elevation (can be supplied by an architect (and checked) or a rectified photograph) and floor plans; detailed process recording of a functional or industrial building (Malaws 1997), and selection of dendrochronological samples (Suggett and Miles 1998; Briggs 1999). A substantial photographic survey will always be undertaken. A high level of interpretation is enabled by this enhanced depth of recording and examination (for example Figs 10.2–6 and 8).

1999–2000) when 30 buildings were recorded: 17 being surveyed at Level 3 with five buildings being intensively recorded at Level 4. That in turn was a substantial increase over 1998-99 when 21 buildings were recorded under the Emergency Recording Programme (RCAHMW Report 1998–99). This noteworthy increase reflects the growing number of listed buildings and the improved network of contacts informing RCAHMW of significant buildings decaying, proposed for demolition or undergoing conservation. Thematic Survey. Only a national thematic survey will allow a full assessment to be made of the comparative significance of individual monuments. RCAHMW, from its central location in Aberystwyth, is at present carryingthrough such comprehensive projects on nonconformist chapels and uplands archaeology. Other national projects have been carried-out and largely published on houses (Smith 1988; Suggett 1996), lighthouses (Hague 1994), early horse-worked railways (Hughes 1990), canals (Hague et al 1975–78; Hughes 1980; 1989; Hughes and

Fig. 10.2 Collapsed seventeenth century cottage at Horseman’s Green (Wrexham) prior to recording at Level 4 (RCAHMW Crown Copyright)

These successive levels of recording enable a progressively higher degree of interpretation and knowledge. This in turn allows research questions to be framed and some to be answered. It is instructive to look at the levels of Emergency Recording work and to note that increasing buildings are being visited, interpreted and recorded to a high level. In 2000–01 some fifty buildings were recorded: over half (28) were surveyed at Level 3. In this programme and in Detailed Site Recording seven buildings and complexes were intensively recorded at Level 4 and eleven at Level 2 (RCAHMW Report 2000–01). This represents a considerable increase over 1999-2000 (RCAHMW Report

Fig. 10.4 The unlisted Dock Chapel (Llanelli – 1861) has the earliest great arch in a gabled façade by the important architect John Humphrey. A drawn record was prepared in 2001 (Level 4) before proposed demolition (RCAHMW Crown Copyright)

49

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Nonconformist Chapels Project: The first stages of this are now drawing to a close. It is evident that this class of building, an icon of Welsh identity and under grave threat from disuse, conversion, and demolition, is even more numerous than was first thought (Fig.10.4; Briggs 1992; Parkinson 1994). Database entries for some 5500 chapel and ‘schoolchapel’ buildings have been compiled: more than the total of previous estimates of such buildings. Documentary research sponsored by the Board of Celtic Studies, linked to the project and carried out in the History Department of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, has revealed that some seven artisan-architects designed a substantial part of this vast building-stock in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Percival 2001).

Fig.10.5. Hafod Copperworks (Swansea) was the largest in the world and record drawings (Level 4) of its surviving rolling-mill and machinery were used for the consideration of a conservation programme in 2001 (RCAHMW Crown Copyright)

Reynolds 1992), collieries (Hughes et al 1995) and copperworks (Hughes 2000). International comparisons are invaluable for evaluating the world importance of some areas of Welsh archaeology. RCAHMW staff have been involved in the coordination of four reports for the ICOMOS World Heritage Office Global Study on industrial archaeology (Vanderhulst 1994), canals (Hughes 1996a; 1996b), railways (Coulls 1998) and collieries (Hughes 2002) and in the assessment of vernacular architecture in Wales for an international encyclopaedia (Suggett 1997). The value of such national, and international, projects in formulating and carrying out research agenda is very considerable.

Fig. 10.8 Thomas Telford’s Mona Inn was recorded (to Level 4) as part of the Detailed Building Recording programme in order to more fully understand the existence of linked building complexes revealed during Cadw’s study of the internationally important London to Holyhead Road (RCAHMW Crown Copyright)

The Royal Commission has been able to locate and enter details on the NMR database of these buildings (core details are available on the CARN database on the Royal Commission website) from topographical and field evidence. The first detailed county chapels database, from the several enhanced, is now also available at www.rcahmw.org.uk and has been published in map form (Percival 1998). The continual sequence of expansion and rebuilding as nonconformist congregations grew and prospered has been elucidated from field visits and is now set down on record for the first time in the NMR database. The further development of specific fields in the database, descriptive of specific and distinctive features, will allow the generation of an electronic atlas showing trends in chapel architecture. This work, and that on the key architects, will be further developed in the coming year.

Fig. 10.6 The long-lived upland lead mine of Esgair Mwyn near Pontrhydfendigaid in Ceredigion. Aerial photography clearly picks out two early water-hushing tanks at the far left with channels leading to an opencast at left-centre. The last intact concentrating mill in Wales stands at mid-right and was the subject of a process recording exercise (Level 4) in 1995, before demolition (RCAHMW Crown Copyright)

50

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Uplands Archaeological Survey. The Uplands Initiative originated as a reconnaissance project of a largely unknown archaeological resource situated on land over 244 metres (800 feet) threatened by the increase in afforestation and agricultural improvement (Briggs 1985; 1991; 1994; Browne 1992; Leighton 1997). Land at these high altitudes includes about half of Wales. The results have changed perceptions of the type and density of sites in the Uplands: the number of sites known has been increased by over a thousand per cent in some areas (Hughes 2000b; 2001; 2001b). The number of postmedieval settlements and mining and extraction sites found has been a revelation and has spawned a number of detailed evaluation and research projects carried out both by the Welsh Archaeological Trusts for Cadw and by Simon Timberlake for RCAHMW (Timberlake unpublished).

Royal Commission website, and a popular book will be launched at a Welsh Uplands Archaeology Conference in 2003. Further survey is being grouped into blocks to facilitate regional understanding and synthesis. An expanded aerial mapping programme for the Uplands now accompanies terrestrial survey, in order to evaluate both larger enclosures and linear features and understand their landscape context. A new programme of detailed survey of the more significant Upland field monuments will begin shortly in order to increase understanding of their types, aid management and to allow portrayal on Ordnance Survey maps. The World Heritage Upland Landscape of Blaenavon is being surveyed on the ground and from the air alongside more rural Upland landscapes. The resulting increase in knowledge is already stimulating new research questions and projects (Fig.10.7). Mapping from aerial photographs established the location of the now buried structure of the world’s first railway viaduct of c 1789 (Thomas 2001; Hughes 1990). This made it possible for Time Team archaeologists to expose the deck of the monument for the first time in almost two hundred years. More work will now be carried out with Cadw to compile further research questions to be evaluated in this exercise. The Blaenavon Uplands survey work as a whole will also inform the future conservation plan for this unique internationally important landscape monument and enable its interpretation to the public. The latter will be achieved through the new landscape model at Blaenavon Ironworks and the planned walks and interpretation boards being prepared in consultation with other members of the Blaenavon Project Board.

Fig. 10.7 Blaenavon World Heritage Uplands Landscape is currently the subject of three survey projects by RCAHMW. Below the ironworks in the picture is part of the mining landscape currently being walked and recorded by archaeologists using completed aerial mapping to elucidate linear features. The workers’ and managers’ houses and former ironworks shop in the upper picture form part of a townscape survey (RCAHMW Crown Copyright)

The Uplands Initiative is one of five on-going Royal Commission projects (the Uplands Archaeology Initiative; Aerial Archaeological Survey; Aerial Mapping and dendrochronology and the buildings assessment of Tir Gofal). Together these will evaluate the rural archaeological resource and help underpin and develop the rural tourist economy. Knowledge of the historic landscape of Wales is already one of the attractions drawing walkers to rural Wales. These already generate some £77,000,000 in the economy providing some 4250 jobs (Hughes 2001b).

Fig. 10.9 The Mynydd-y-Ffynnon study of a cohesive Uplands landscape with nationally important monastic, parkland and lead mining remains has revealed new features noteworthy enough to establish an Uplands Walk with interpretation boards that demonstrates how Uplands Archaeology may help the rural economy. This is the illustration on one of the boards (RCAHMW Crown Copyright)

Synthesis of the Uplands Archaeological Survey is continuing. A presentation of the initial results is on the 51

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

A similar result of synthesis being turned into interpretation has been established with the information boards and reconstructions prepared for Upland Walks in the Cwm Ystwyth area of Ceredigion in conjunction with the Mynydd y Ffynnon Project partnership (Fig.10.9). Upland Survey has allowed further appraisal of features around the internationally important complex, and waterhushing features, of the Cwm Ystwyth Leadmine; the significant picturesque landscape created by Thomas Johnes in the late eighteenth century (Briggs and Kerkham 1991) and the monastic landscape surrounding Strata Florida Abbey.

using locational and other information provided by the Commission. About 400 sites registered by Cadw are included as well as information from an examination of NMR Wales by Royal Commission staff. There are now over 2200 gardens and parklands on the database (Briggs 1997; RCAHMW Report 2000–01). Fieldwork has included visits to sites and a number of detailed surveys (RCAHMW Reports 1999–2000; 2000–2001; Briggs 1999) with some published synthesis (Briggs 1998). More details of related projects will appear in the forthcoming volume on the Archaeology of Welsh Historic Gardens (Briggs (ed) in preparation).

It is intended that the survey of open Uplands in Wales will be completed in ten years and so provide comprehensive understanding of the archaeologically rich areas opened up to the public as a result of the right-to-roam or ‘Crow’ legislation now being prepared in Parliament. Wherever possible future work will be taken forward in partnership with paleoenvironmental, excavation and geophysical surveys to deepen understanding of Uplands Archaeology (Briggs 1985; 1994; RCAHMW 1997).

Vernacular Architectural and Farm Recording The latest manifestation of the long-developed Royal Commission expertise in the recording of Vernacular Architecture is the synthetic work on Radnorshire farmsteads now being prepared for publication. A documentary and oral history analysis of high Victorian farming-practice on the Leighton Park Estate has now been completed to help us understand the functioning and effectiveness of ‘industrial-scale’ farming complexes. A recent programme of dendrochronological dating has validated the known sequence of vernacular development in Radnorshire and throughout Wales. The latest fruits of this work result from a collaboration with the National Trust in which the earliest date for a domestic structure in Wales (1418–19; Holland 2001) was obtained in the early fifteenth-century Aberconwy House at Conwy. Participation of the Royal Commission in farm recording as part of Tir Gofal will contribute contextual knowledge to the understanding of building stock. This is another scheme that will help to ensure the continuance of the rural economy: this time through a greater understanding of its buildings.

Detailed Site and Building Surveys. Whereas Emergency Building Recording covers the survey and assessment of immediately threatened buildings this project area covers survey of nationally important buildings under some incipient threat or conservation need. Survey continues to underpin conservation work at the largest privately-owned castle at Usk and the key colliery buildings and machinery at Hetty Pit in the Rhondda. Major Cadw and Royal Commission programmes of work are being followed up with detailed surveys of the Telford Road depots and of selected important chapels. In the absence of detailed documentary evidence for all, or indeed most, chapels, the work of the key architects can only be identified and their influence understood by examination and recording of their internal planning and the composition and detail of show facades.

Aerial Photographic Survey This programme is discussed in detail elsewhere in this volume (Driver below). It is a mixture of record and discovery that has brought about fundamental changes in perception, for example in the density and type of prehistoric settlement patterns. Rectangular scouring tanks of the type found in the Roman period at Dolaucothi have now been found elsewhere (eg around the great opencast at Craig y Mwyn (Pistyll Rhaeadr, Llanrhaedr-ymMochnant in Montgomeryshire), and it is now realised that Upland mining does not consist solely of isolated heavily mechanised sites but forms a continuous landscape following long mineral lodes. There is a newly-revealed density of scouring channel networks and of previously largely unnoticed features such as mineral prospecting trenches.

In 2002 a project will evaluate the World Heritage Settlement of Blaenavon and continue much of the methodology already shown in the recent publication of the lower Swansea Valley industrial communities of Morriston and Trevivian (Hughes 2000). The Blaenavon townscape project will underpin development of a conservation plan for this internationally important industrial community.

Parks and Gardens This project commenced in May 1994, when a database was established to place the sites selected for the Cadw/ICOMOS Register in a setting containing information on the larger numbers of less important, fragmentary or lost gardens (RCAHMW Report 1994–95). Some information has been contributed by members of the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust, some of it

Finally, what of future methodology in survey: what common strands can be seen for the future? Firstly, in the recording of eighteenth-, nineteenth- and twentiethcentury archaeology and historic architecture there is a 52

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bibliography Briggs, CS 1985 ‘Problems of the Early Agricultural Landscape in Upland Wales as illustrated by an example from the Brecon Beacons’, in CB Burgess, and DA Spratt (eds), Upland Settlement in Britain, BAR British Series 143:Oxford, 285–315

fundamental need to assess and relate existing plans, written records, oral evidence and existing remains together if a greater understanding of the use and function of historical archaeology and buildings is to be achieved. Secondly, in archaeology computer-based mapping, making use of existing vertical aerial photographs to map whole landscapes, is an invaluable accompaniment to recording and surveying individual locations on the ground, and places them in a wider context.

Briggs, CS 1991 ‘Some Processes and Problems in Later Prehistoric Wales and Beyond’, in C Chevillot and A Coffyn (eds), Le Bronze Atlantique, Actes du Ier colloque du Parc Archeologique de Beynac, Beynac-Cazenac: Dordogne, 59–76

Analytical fieldwork can be assisted by generation of electronic atlases showing overall archaeological and architectural trends. The chapels project has piloted specific descriptive fields to record significant architectural features.

Briggs, CS 1992 ‘Worshipping Places in the Landscape’, Cymru Wledig/Rural Wales Autumn 1992, 9 Briggs, CS 1994 ‘Sennybridge Training Area: a fossil agricultural landscape’, Sanctuary (MoD Conservation) 23, 13–14 Briggs, CS 1997 ‘Gardens and Parklands in the Extended National Database on Sites and Monuments in Wales’, Gerddi: The Journal of the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust, I (i) (1996–97), 26–35

Straightforward structure recording may not be the most appropriate method of recording buildings and features. The Royal Commission has adapted the process recording methods of the Historic American Engineering Record for use in recording large functional complexes retaining machinery (Burns 1989).

Briggs, CS 1998 ‘A New Field of Welsh Cultural History: inference and evidence in gardens and landscapes since c 1450’, in P Pattison (ed), There by Design: Fieldwork in Parks and Gardens, RCHME: Swindon

Project areas are not completely compartmentalised but can be integrated to feed into more comprehensive area studies. This is happening with regard to the World Heritage Area at Blaenavon and is likely to happen in other prioritised areas in the future.

Briggs, CS 1999 ‘Aberglasney: the theory, history and archaeology of a post-medieval landscape’, Post-Medieval Archaeology 33, 242–82 Briggs, CS and Kerkham, CR 1991 ‘The Archaeological Potential of the Hafod Demesne’, in AE Brown, (ed), Garden Archaeology, CBA Research Report 78:London, 167–182

New computer-based survey applications offer the opportunity to increase accuracy and productivity. Rectified photography is now used to record building facades and very precise GPS equipment will be linked to CAD applications to produce archaeological plans at a much greater speed than hitherto.

Browne, DM 1992 ‘The Uplands Initiative: a Strategy for Archaeology in the Uplands of Wales’, CBA Wales Newsletter 3 (Autumn 1992), 1–4

To conclude, the use of new technology and methods in carefully targeted programmes has the future potential to greatly assist research.

Burns, JA and HABS/HAER staff (eds) 1989 Recording Historic Structures: Historic American Buildings Survey/ Historic American Engineering Record, The American Institute of Architects Press: Washington, DC Coulls, A 1998 Railways as World Heritage Sites: A Study for the World Heritage Convention: Compiled for ICOMOS, Institute of Railway Studies/National Railway Museum: York Hague, DB, Hughes, SR, Leighton, DK, Malaws, BA and Richards, ET 1975; 1976, 1977; 1978 ‘Glamorgan Canal Systems’, Archaeology in Wales 15, 83–7; 16, 53–5;17, 50–52; 18, 67–8 Hague, DB 1994 Lighthouses of Wales, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth Holland, E 2001 ‘Aberconwy House – the oldest townhouse in Wales?’, National Trust Wales News (Autumn 2001), 4 53

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Hughes, SR 1980 ‘The Swansea Canal: Navigation and Power Supplier’, Industrial Archaeology Review 4,1 (Winter 1979-80), 51–69

The Chapels Recording Project’, Capel: The Chapels Heritage Society Newsletter 38 (Autumn 2001), 1–3 Roberts DJ and Percival, DJ 2001 ‘Llandaff Cathedral’, Cofnod 4, 7, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth

Hughes, SR 1989 A Guide and Study in Waterways Archaeology: the Archaeology of the Montgomeryshire Canal, (4th ed), RCAHMW: Aberystwyth

Roberts DJ and Suggett, RJ 1999 ‘A late-medieval Monastic Hall-house Rediscovered: The King’s Court, Talyllychau’, The Carmarthenshire Antiquary 35, 5–11

Hughes, SR 1990 ‘Significant early railway remains in Wales’, The Archaeology of an Early Railway System: the Brecon Forest Tramroads, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth, 311–40

Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, 1997 An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments of Brecknock, vol I (i), Prehistoric burial and ritual monuments and Settlement to AD1000: Aberystwyth

Hughes, SR1996a ‘The Industrial Archaeology of Canals’ and ‘Canals of Great Britain’, Proceedings of the International Meeting of Experts on Heritage Transportation Canal Corridors (World Heritage Convention), Parks Canada: Ottawa

Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales Reports, 1994–95, 23–5; 1998–99, 22; 1999–2000, 38; 2000–2001, 23–4, 27–8 Smith, P 1988 Houses of the Welsh Countryside, (2nd ed), RCAHMW: HMSO, London

Hughes, SR (ed) 1996b The International Canal Monuments List, Occasional Papers for the World Heritage Convention, ICOMOS/TICCIH: Paris

Suggett, RF 1996 ‘The Chronology of Late-Medieval Timber Houses in Wales’, Vernacular Architecture 27, 28–37

Hughes, SR 2000a Copperopolis: Landscapes of the Early Industrial Period in Swansea, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth

Suggett, RF 1997 ‘Dyfed’, ‘Glamorgan’, ‘Gwynedd’, ‘Marches’, ‘Border Country’, Encyclopaedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World, in P Oliver (ed), University Press: Cambridge

Hughes, SR 2000b ‘Rethinking the Uplands Initiative’, Cofnod 3, 1–4, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth Hughes, SR 2001 ‘The Archaeology of the Uplands Revealed’, CBA Wales/Cymru Newsletter 21 (Spring 2001), 10–2

Suggett, RF and Miles DH 1998 ‘Introduction and Notes to Welsh Dendrochronology – Phase Two’, Vernacular Architecture 29, 126-29

Hughes, SR 2001b ‘The Uplands Archaeology Initiative’, Cymru Wledig: Rural Wales, Summer 2001, 4–6

Suggett, RF 1999 ‘New Discoveries at Talley’ and ‘Emergency Recording of Historic Buildings’, Cofnod 2, 1-4, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth

Hughes, SR (ed) 2002 The International Colliery Monuments List, Occasional Papers for the World Heritage Convention, ICOMOS/TICCIH: Paris

Suggett, RF 1998; 1999b; 2000; 2001 ‘Recent Emergency Buildings Recording in Wales’, Trans Ancient Monuments Society, 42, 103–116; 43, 123–34; 44, 107–118; 45, 81–108

Hughes, SR, Malaws, BA, Parry, M and Wakelin, P 1995 Collieries of Wales: Engineering and Architecture, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth Hughes, SR and Reynolds, P 1992 A Guide to the Industrial Archaeology of the Swansea Region, (2nd ed), RCAHMW: Aberystwyth

Thomas, D 2001 ‘Time Team and the Royal Commission’, Cofnod 4, 4, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth Vanderhulst, G 1994 The International Industrial Sites List, TICCIH and ICOMOS: Paris

Leighton, DK 1997 Mynydd-du and Fforest Fawr: The Evolution of an Upland Landscape in South Wales, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth

Ward, GA 2000 ‘Hidden Surprises’, Cofnod 3,5, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth

Malaws, BA 1997 ‘Process Recording at Industrial Sites’, Industrial Archaeology Review 19, 75–98

Unpublished Briggs,CS (ed) in preparation. Essays on the Garden Archaeology of Wales

Parkinson, AJ 1994 ‘Why study Chapels?’, The Carmarthenshire Antiquary 30, 43–50

Timberlake, S unpublished (2001) ‘A Chronological Listing of Artefacts, Structural Remains, Earthworks and the Terminology Associated with the Mining and Processing of Non-ferrous Metal in Wales (2000 BC to 1830 AD)’, paper in the NMR to be included in RCAHMW, forthcoming, The Archaeology of the Welsh Uplands

Percival, DJ 1998 ‘Inventory of Nonconformist Chapels and Sunday Schools in Cardiganshire’, in IG Jones, (ed), Cardiganshire County History, vol 3, University of Wales Press for the Cardiganshire Antiquarian Society in association with RCAHMW: Cardiff, 508–39 Percival, DJ 2001 ‘News from the Royal Commission: 54

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Websites Chapels database: www.rcahmw.org.uk Acknowledgements My thanks to my colleagues DJ Percival and RF Suggett for having assessed which levels of historic building survey are most applicable in Wales. Comments on their application in practice by others would be greatly welcomed.

55

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

11 Monument Records at RCAHMW; past, present and future David Thomas

Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, Crown Building, Plas Crug, Aberystwyth SY23 1NJ [email protected] www.rcahmw.org,.uk

Abstract Recent advances in digital technology offer significant opportunities not only for recording archaeological sites but also for the distribution of information to a wider audience through the Internet. This paper examines data management issues that need to be addressed to realise these opportunities and suggests strategies for integrating different forms of digital resource, such as text descriptions, images and mapping.

HEN DOMEN

Section

This paper presents possible ways forward for monument recording at the Royal Commission, in order to meet the challenges and expectations of a rapidly changing information environment. This environment has been facilitated by advances in digital technology, but has been accompanied by a wider interest in the historic environment and the records held in NMR Wales. As an archive of archaeological work the record contributes to a baseline of information to inform future research at a variety of levels – academic study, management of the historic environment, and for those who have a more general interest in the heritage of Wales or their local area. In order to take advantage of advances in digital technology to inform this increased interest several issues relating to information management and distribution need to be addressed.

Section through Base Court A. Mound

Before examining these issues it is useful to begin by reviewing how monument recording has developed. In 1911 the Commission published Montgomeryshire as the first volume of its Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Wales and Monmouthshire. It included records of 955 sites, described by a short narrative account with accompanying illustrations, drawn surveys and photographs. Many of the descriptions were original, collected in the field through extensive fieldwork. Other records were based on previously published accounts such as that for Hen Domen, which was drawn largely from a survey that appeared in the Montgomeryshire Collections

B. Base Court

D. Ditches

E. Banks

Fig. 11.1 Hen Domen, Montgomery, Powys. Reprinted from Montgomeryshire Collection, Volume 10, p.341. Monument recording has always been based on the integration of mapping, photography and text descriptions.

in 1877 (Fig.11.1; Clark 1877, 341–2). The records were arranged according to a structured indexing system to allow straightforward retrieval of information. Thus, the sites are presented parish-by-parish, and according to site form and site type. Locational information was also 57

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

carefully recorded, reflecting the influence of the Ordnance Survey, which developed the basic model for site recording in the nineteenth century.

themes such as location or monument type. Links to supporting information, such as thesauri, will make this searching interactive and comprehensible to specialists and non-specialists alike. Access to non-specialist users will also mean that cross-discipline searches become important, allowing information from other resources, such as museums and libraries, to be accessed simultaneously. Although many of these aims may only be achievable in the long term, it is necessary to formulate strategies now to ensure that full advantage will be taken from developing opportunities.

Monument recording remained the same in principle for subsequent inventories, and was adapted in the 1990s when recording migrated to a digital format. The highly structured format of the digital database allows retrieval of information from a dataset that currently runs to around 50,000 records. Monuments are described by class, type, form, broad class and related class and are located by National Grid reference, National Grid qualifier, altitude, county, community, quarter sheet, historic county and historic map. There is also ancillary information such as cross references to Cadw’s SAM number, and to SMR information. There is also a short descriptive field. The information has been collected in this way to enable a whole range of querying to be carried out. However, although it is a publicly accessible record, it has been largely designed for internal use within RCAHMW and for the benefit of a limited number of archaeological professionals. A first step towards widening its audience has been made through the publication of an index on the worldwide web, along with data from other archaeological organisations in Wales. This index can be found at http://www.rcahmw.org.uk/data/carn.html.

Accurate and consistent structuring of data will be fundamental for the retrieval of information. The structure of the first Inventory volume allows records to be retrieved from a list of 955, the current database structure allows retrieval from a database of around 50,000 records. It will become even more important for retrieval from a global resource, and this needs to be carried out with due regard to established cross-discipline metadata standards such as Dublin Core, a widely accepted structure based on fifteen elements including Title, Creation, and Description (http://dublincore.org). Agreed terminologies will be paramount, and work on a pan-Wales glossary for monument type is currently ongoing. These terms need to be mapped to terms in use in elsewhere, such as in Scotland and England, to allow cross border searches. Terminologies will also need to be mapped to crossdiscipline standards, and recent work on a high level thesaurus for inter sector searching will be useful in this regard (Wake and Nicholson, 2001). RCAHMW’s involvement in the Gathering the Jewels project will be relevant for establishing standards for image digitisation. The project, which includes the National Library, the National Museum and Galleries of Wales and other Welsh archives, museums and libraries as partners, intends to digitise 23,000 objects illustrative of Welsh culture and make them available over the Internet. RCAHMW will establish its own digital image archive of around 3000 images from the project, which will form the basis for further programmes of image capture. Standards for geographical information also need to be agreed, particularly with the increasing use of GIS for archaeological mapping and management. In this regard the partnership between the Royal Commission and Ordnance Survey for the provision of Antiquity Models will be particularly relevant. To ensure that data management is sustainable the implementation of appropriate data standards should be the responsibility of all those involved in the collection, management and dissemination of information. Therefore, those collecting information, whether from fieldwork, digitisation, or mapping need an agreed standard, rather than it being the responsibility of the ‘data manager’ to re-engineer results. The required standards need to be available and results of recording programmes adequately monitored.

Fig. 11.2 Montgomery Castle, Powys. The integration of digital images and text descriptions will create a more informative database.

To establish future agenda for information management we must assess what can be achieved. The current digital record does not reflect the richness of the resource held in NMR Wales, which includes a great deal of illustrative and mapped material (Fig.11.2). The advent of digital imagery, and the implementation of broadband Internet technology will enable remote access to this information. This is, of course, dependent on careful management of digitisation programmes and the proper collection of appropriate supporting data. The Internet will also, if configured correctly, facilitate more dynamic searching on different 58

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bibliography Wake, S and Nicholson, D 2001 ‘HILT – High-Level Thesaurus Project Building Consensus for Interoperable Subject Access across Communities’, D-Lib Magazine 7:9 (September 2001)

It is also necessary that data standards evolve as the understanding of archaeology develops. This should involve adding new terms to glossary lists, but it should also be more fundamental. The challenge of representing landscape archaeology, for example, needs to be addressed, as the current monument based information format is limited in this aspect.

Clark, GT 1877 ‘The Moated Mounds of the Upper Severn’, Montgomeryshire Collections 10, 329–348

To reach a more diverse audience the content of the data needs to be developed. The short narrative description of a monument is an important part of inventory records, but is less widely and consistently applied in the current digital database. If the information is intended to inform those outside the profession, these descriptions should be clear, concise, and jargon free. Consideration should also be given to increasing digital image content through digitisation schemes, building on the data from the Gathering the Jewels project mentioned above. More informative graphic depiction of sites in a GIS format is also desirable and is currently being pursued through RCAHMW’s National Archaeological Map, which identifies the geographical shape and extent of sites.

Websites RCAHMW online site index: http://www.rcahmw.org.uk/data/carn.html. The Dublin Core: http://dublincore.org.

In conclusion, if RCAHMW is to take advantage of the opportunities in information technology a clear strategy for the structure and content of the digital record should be established. Only then can we address the issues that will enable the digital record to more fully reflect our rich archaeological diversity and the collections of NMR Wales.

59

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

12 Landscape theory into practice: strategies for the future of historic rural landscapes John G Roberts Gwynedd Archaeological Trust Craig Beuno, Garth Road, Bangor, LL57 2RT [email protected] www.heneb.co.uk

Abstract Aspects of current archaeological curatorial practices are considered in the context of the rural environment of Wales. There is now increased awareness of the need to work at a landscape scale, as well as the importance for producing strategies integrating both nature and heritage conservation. A series of initiatives have been developed against this background over the past decade. One of the most significant is the Tir Gofal agri-environmental scheme. Its potential for curatorial archaeology is discussed and it is argued from a variety of perspectives on landscape, conservation and environment, that the emphasis placed on different areas of liaison arrangements between farmers, scheme staff and archaeologists could be shifted towards a more active engagement. The need for archaeologists to operate effectively as conservationists and heritage managers through ascribing value to and promoting an understanding of the past is emphasised. It is argued that theoretical concerns clearly inform conservation practice having implications for the way in which a research agendum for Wales might develop.

There is much cause for optimism about the measures which have been developed for the management of archaeology in the Welsh countryside. However, this is a time of crisis for the countryside as a whole, and the future is uncertain. As heritage practitioners we need not only to be aware of these debates, but to have an active voice within them, if we are to ensure that society continues to value and care for the historic environment in the future. The development of search agenda for Wales provides a good opportunity to address the theoretical underpinnings of conservation and ask whether current measures are working as well as they could. In addressing these issues, I intend to focus on my own experiences as an archaeologist working in the countryside sphere within the curatorial section of one of the four Welsh Archaeological Trusts (WATs), who are responsible for much of the archaeological heritage management advice provided in Wales. Like archaeological heritage managers, nature conservationists deal with issues of value and finite resources at a landscape scale. The past decade and a half has seen increasing recognition of the common ground between archaeology and ecology and the development of a more integrated approach to rural conservation (see for example Berry and Brown 1994; Grenville 1999; Lambrick 1985; MacInnes and Wickham-Jones 1992; Swain 1993). In Wales, the importance of the historic environment as a key component of today’s countryside has been actively promoted by the national heritage agencies (Cadw and RCAHMW), by the WATs, and by other groups and organisations such as the CBA Wales. This has led to a number of new initiatives. Furthermore, CCW, the National Assembly’s statutory advisor on wildlife, countryside and maritime conservation now employs fulltime an archaeologist as Historic Landscapes Officer.

Introduction This paper is about aspects of conservation and heritage management in the rural landscapes of Wales. It is about both practice and theory because we cannot hope to effectively conserve and manage without knowing what it is we are conserving, who for and why. How do we define and ascribe value such that we are able to confidently promote public understanding and enjoyment of the past as well as justify the considerable expenditure needed for the continued preservation of the remains of the past in the present? In other words explicitly philosophical issues underpin archaeological conservation. This is rarely acknowledged within current initiatives operating in the rural environment, where conservation is predominantly seen as purely practical and objective, almost ‘scientific’.

One of the most important initiatives in Wales to date is Tir Gofal, an agri-environmental scheme available to farmers 61

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

and landowners throughout the whole of Wales, which provides encouragement and financial support for environmentally friendly agricultural practices. A central pillar of the scheme since its inception has been the historic environment. This paper outlines current archaeological inputs to the scheme, as well as looking towards its future potential.

responsibility for managing the national forest, consults the WATs on its Forest Design Plans for felling and new planting. Furthermore, with financial assistance from the Heritage Lottery Fund, Forest Enterprise has carried out an extensive survey of the archaeological resource of its forests (known as the Welsh Historic Assets Project (WHAP); Forest Enterprise 2000). An increasing number of private commercial forestry organisations and consultants receive grant aid from the FC to prepare Forest Plans, a process which requires that archaeology is taken into consideration.

Tir Gofal has provided us with one of our best opportunities to work closely with nature conservationists and landscape managers. The experience has highlighted the need to re-establish the investigation of the changing relationship between people and environment through time as the true role of archaeology as a discipline. Instances of the way in which this shift in focus could be played out in practice are explored.

Over the past decade there has been a considerable shift in the motivation and philosophy behind the FC’s approach. Much of the forestry on the Forest Enterprise managed estate is barely profitable on an economic level. Sustainability has become an increasingly dominant concept in long term management and planning. Forestry and FC-owned land are seen as a broad public resource in which the interests of tourism, heritage, leisure, nature conservation and geology are balanced against economics. At Coed y Brenin north of Dolgellau, for example, it is estimated that mountain biking trails set up by Forest Enterprise brings approximately £4,000,000 in visitor revenue every year.

Current archaeological curatorial practice in the rural environment The total land area of Wales is 2.1 million hectares, of which 1.7 million hectares (82%) is in agricultural use (CCW u d). The majority of known archaeology is located in these areas. In England, the impact of agriculture on the archaeological heritage has been highlighted by the Monuments at Risk Survey (Darvill and Fulton 1998). This showed that agriculture has been responsible for 10% of all cases of monument destruction between 1945–1995, and that it has also been responsible for some 30% of piecemeal damage during the same period. Furthermore, natural processes, visitor erosion and forestry have been responsible for another 5% of loss (Trow 2001). Similar trends have been demonstrated by the threat related survey projects carried out by the WATs on behalf of Cadw. Together, agriculture and forestry represent the single most significant source of damage to the archaeological resource. Concerted efforts to address these issues over the past decade have resulted in a number of initiatives.

I experienced an interesting example of the striking turn around in forestry policy when asked to give advice on felling and harvesting works at Bryn Eglwys forest at Abergynolwyn, northeast of Tywyn. Forestry operations staff were concerned that harvesting works would cause further damage to surviving features associated with the large Bryn Eglwys slate quarry. One of the foresters with whom the meeting was held was from Abergynolwyn and had been working in forestry all his working life. Over three decades ago he was one of the team responsible for planting the forest. The sole objective of that was to ensure planting density targets were reached, and archaeological sites were frequently either planted on or within, or were torn down to make way for more trees. He himself had been involved in pulling down the quarry barracks, manager’s house and working sheds, which had survived in good condition. It seemed ironic that within relatively such a short space of time somebody who had been engaged in destruction of important industrial remains should be contacting archaeologists for advice on the conservation of the few (and mostly minor; inclines, trackways, boundary walls etc) features that survived.

Forestry The Forestry Commission (FC) itself acknowledges that ‘[t]he phase of major upland afforestation when environmental safeguards were not of current standards resulted in damage to an unquantified part of our archaeological resource’ (Forestry Commission 1995, 3). In 1995 the FC published a guidance document specifically related to archaeology, which made explicit their policy that ‘sites of archaeological importance should be conserved’, and laid out a series of practical management considerations and recommendations (Forestry Commission 1995). Forestry related consultation procedures in Wales are well laid out in an accord made between the FC, Cadw and the WATs (Forestry Commission 1997). WATs are routinely consulted by the FC on the possible archaeological implications of new planting proposals on private land arising through the Woodland Grant Scheme. Forest Enterprise (Wales), an Executive Agency of the FC with

Agriculture Perhaps the greatest opportunity for the management of archaeology in the countryside is Tir Gofal. Agrienvironment schemes represent a redirection of some funding away from the protectionist subsidy support system towards the ‘second pillar’ of the common agricultural policy. This supports farming communities and the rural economy by encouraging and funding farmers to 62

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

maintain and enhance the agricultural landscape and its wildlife and heritage. Successful applicants enter ten year management agreements with an opt-out clause after five years. The scheme is delivered on behalf of the National Assembly of Wales by CCW in partnership with DEFRA, the National Park Authority in Snowdonia, and with support of the FC Environment Agency and Cadw. The scheme’s objectives include (CCW u d):

The optional element of the scheme provides opportunities to follow prescriptions for the management and restoration of existing sites and habitats, or for the creation of new environmental features. Voluntary categories of specific relevance to archaeological and historic features are: • • • •

1) improvement of wildlife habitats on agricultural land by promoting positive management of existing habitats and by encouraging habitat restoration and the creation of new habitats 2) protection of characteristic rural landscapes and promotion of the management and restoration of important landscape features 3) protection of the historic environment, including historic landscapes and archaeological features by encouraging farming practices compatible with their conservation and enhancement. 4) providing opportunities for public access to the countryside 5) integrating agricultural, forestry, rural development and training schemes in order to enhance the rural environment, sustain rural communities, and promote the rural economy.

Regarding the former two categories, applicants can undertake work on a combination of boundary types to a maximum of 10 metres of boundary work per hectare of farm per year. There is a maximum payment of £3500 per farm per year. In addition, capital payments are available for coppicing, hedgelaying and planting for hedges, and for walling, earth banks and slate fences for solid boundaries. The latter two categories entail the development and implementation of site specific management plans. These cover issues such as scrub clearance (including separate payment rates for bracken control, and hand and machine clearance), invasive species control (including rhododendron), pest control, realignment of trackways, relocation of fencing and water troughs, and the repair of eroded earthworks. Capital payments are available for all these. Annual payments are available where practical action at a habitat scale (other voluntary categories) is implemented to benefit upstanding or buried archaeological remains. This includes reduction in grazing levels (conversion of improved grassland to semi-improved grassland, conversion of semi-improved grassland to unimproved grassland), conversion of arable land to grassland and increasing water levels on waterlogged sites. There is a new permissive access category which includes a £500 payment for access for educational purposes, which could incorporate an archaeological presentation and outreach element.

Tir Gofal consists of four elements through which these objectives are delivered: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Hedge rows Stone walls, earth banks and slate fences Historic earthworks and historic stone features Buried archaeological remains.

land management capital works creating new permissive access training for farmers

I will concentrate on the first two as these are most directly relevant to archaeology. The land management structure of the scheme consists of mandatory and optional elements. Within the mandatory element, applicants must comply with a broadly defined whole farm code. This makes provision for the protection of water features (such as ponds, rivers and streams), geological sites and features, and of trees. It stipulates maximum stocking rates, ensures that public access on foot must be allowed to all unenclosed moorland, heathland and grassland. Crucially, the whole farm code includes two clauses directly concerned with archaeological features. Firstly, that applicants must retain all existing traditional field boundaries (hedges, walls, banks, slate fences etc) and maintain stockproof boundaries. Secondly, applicants must safeguard archaeological and historic features, including traditional buildings. Furthermore, where any of seven habitat types are present on their land then they are bound to manage these according to standard procedures and guidelines. The habitat types are: woodland and scrub, heathland, semi-improved grassland, unimproved grassland, orchards and parkland, unimproved coastal habitats and wetlands.

There is an overall financial ceiling of £20,000 per farm over the ten years of the agreement, on top of payments made for boundary restoration. Capital funding is available for restoration work on traditional farm buildings, to a maximum of £10,000 of the overall allowance. Many of the capital works categories relevant to archaeological site management have been mentioned above. Other opportunities include payments for pond restoration, pruning of orchard trees, pollarding, posts and boards for displays and waymarking signs as well as a special projects category which can be provided for projects of ‘real environmental benefit’, at the discretion of the Tir Gofal project officer. There is clearly much potential within the scheme for conservation of archaeological features, and the protection of the historic environment is recognised as a key 63

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

objective. So how does the archaeological input play out in practice? Cadw fund the WATs to provide free archaeological advice and information to farmers considering applying to join the scheme. Applications are scored according to the natural and cultural heritage assets claimed to lie within the application area (in practice, the hectarage of particular habitat types and the number of archaeological sites and historic features), and all those attaining more than the 100 point threshold are accepted into the scheme. As SAMs, undesignated sites and traditional buildings all score points, applicants are encouraged to contact the relevant WAT for up to date information from the SMR with which to fill out their forms. Surprisingly, in northwest Wales where I work at least, there has been relatively little take up of this facility and we tend to receive very few enquiries at preapplication stage.

now been through two full application cycles. In northwest Wales, rough geographical information systems (GIS) based calculations show that the total area of farm land entering the scheme is approximately 34,000ha and 23,000ha respectively for the first and second application cycles. This represents approximately 15% of the land surface of the area (which includes Gwynedd, Anglesey and part of Conwy). GIS also shows that almost 750 archaeological sites recorded on the SMR are present within the cycle 2 farms alone (including 45 SAMs). The same figures are not available for cycle one, but by extrapolation from the cycle 2 data, the numbers would be about 1035 and 64 respectively. This means that approximately 1755 known sites and 109 SAMs are present on land coming into active management through Tir Gofal in cycles one and two of the scheme alone. This is all very positive, and through the whole farm code alone means that a basic level of protection is afforded to a great number of archaeological sites and features. However, what does this mean on the ground, and to what extent is advice influencing farmers decisions and land management? A recent review of the way in which archaeological information was filtering through to farm management agreements was carried out by Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust with the support of the other WATs. It produced some rather disappointing results. The majority of management plans contained little more than the location of sites revealed on the consultation gazetteers, and identified them only as Hs or Ms (‘undesignated’ and ‘scheduled’ sites respectively) rather than labelling them with a site name or with their unique SMR reference number (PRN – Primary Record Number). The supporting text which formed a key component of the consultation response (site description, condition, management recommendations etc) was not included in the management plan. There was therefore no way that the applicant could find out what type of site was represented by symbols, and by implication no way that they could ‘manage’ the sites beyond avoiding carrying out destructive or ground disturbing activities in the area indicated.

The greater share of our involvement in Tir Gofal comes through liaison procedures with CCW. We are consulted on every application which passes the points threshold and is accepted into the scheme. The response takes the form of a gazetteer of archaeological sites (based on the SMR) on the land and includes information concerning site condition, where known, as well as any management recommendations, and is sent directly to the relevant Tir Gofal project officer. The work is grant-aided by Cadw. Two further main stages of involvement are funded directly by CCW, namely farm survey visits and archaeological ‘call-out’ visits. The former are carried out by the WATs to approximately 20% of the farms entering the scheme. This sample is decided upon in collaboration between the curatorial sections of the WATs and CCW Tir Gofal project staff, on the basis of richness of known archaeological sites (particularly where it can be demonstrated that up to date condition and management information is not available for the sites), or potential for the presence of hitherto unrecorded archaeological features. Call-out visits occur at the request of Tir Gofal project officers where advice is needed on a particular, usually site specific issue, such as site identification, management, or monitoring of capital works).

Some of the problems reflected the usual teething problems associated with the setting up of any large scheme of this kind, in terms of liaison and consultation procedures, and these have now been refined. Furthermore, a review of the structure of the management plan itself is underway to ensure that archaeological information is fed into the agreement plan. WATs also now send copies of all consultation responses directly to the relevant applicant as a matter of course.

Most recently, mechanisms have been developed between Cadw, RCAHMW and CCW to ensure that historic farm buildings are properly catered for within the scheme. Cadw are providing training, information and specialist backup on historic buildings to Tir Gofal. RCAHMW are consulted via the WATs for information they hold on traditional farm buildings within each of the holdings entering the scheme. Furthermore, the survey expertise of RCAHMW is available for identifying and recording particularly important historic farm buildings.

Fundamentally however, it can be seen that the active potential offered by Tir Gofal is not being met through the basic consultation process. Why is our input so passive? To a certain extent this is because archaeological

This is a good point at which to assess the effectiveness and achievements of these procedures. The scheme has 64

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

conservation has to vie with other interests for the attention of project officers who are already stretched meeting national targets and deadlines for signing farms into the scheme and are therefore reluctant to involve themselves in the development of more complicated archaeological projects.

environment were originally touted as equal pillars of Tir Gofal, it is apparent that of the two spheres, habitat based concerns have been developed along more effective and active lines, and have greater potential for positive action. To a certain extent this relates to the scheme’s primary objectives of practical landscape management. However, in looking to why ecological and environmental concerns operate more effectively through the scheme, we may be able to improve upon our own practices.

It is easy to see why the information is reduced to symbols on maps; archaeological features are viewed as constraints, best treated through the whole farm plan element of the scheme. The format in which information is provided, the gazetteer, reinforces this approach. SMRs tend not to hold the detailed condition and management information required to make specific recommendations needed for voluntary management categories and capital works programmes. Cadw threat-related thematic survey are increasingly providing information of this kind. However, in some cases, even this information has yet to be incorporated into the SMR in a form which can be easily extracted within the confines of the consultation response.

Landscape approaches The notion of palimpsest has become an archaeological cliché. We are all familiar with the notion of time depth in landscape. This is particularly pertinent in Wales, where so much upstanding, stone and earth built archaeology survives. Layers of landscape history can be ‘read’ like superimposed slices through time in the modern day landscape. This makes us aware that contemporary landscapes are the product of the relationship between people and their environments through time and broadens our frames of interest and reference out from the site to the landscape as a whole. Various forestry initiatives and archaeological involvement in Tir Gofal have all developed from an awareness of the landscape perspective that collections of sites and features are greater than the sum of their parts. There was a need to develop strategies to assess and manage change at the level of patterns. Not just to measure loss in terms of numbers of single sites, but also in terms of destruction of groups of features resulting in the loss of cohesion and integrity of historic landscapes as a whole. This is reflected in the current development of approaches to the issue of setting (Colcutt 1999). The approaches are also reflected in the Register of landscapes of national importance in Wales (Cadw 1998 and 2001), and in the historic characterisation exercises grant aided by Cadw and carried out by the WATs.

Whilst the project officers visit each of the farms and produce fairly detailed baseline maps, and have copies of the gazetteers in advance of their visits, they have to map the distribution and condition of a wide range of features (habitat types, boundaries, stock levels, landuse, geological features) as well as archaeological interests. Each of the project officers has received basic archaeological awareness and identification training as part of the liaison procedures between CCW and the WATs. However, this hardly equips them to generate adequate management strategies, to make decisions on conservation priorities, or even in many cases to identify sites. This is precisely the kind of input we would need to be able to operate in a more active manner. In other words, there are serious limitations to the desktop approach.

Interestingly, the landscape Register initiative was met with some suspicion by archaeologists working on landscape character in other areas of Britain. It was argued that as landscapes are always and everywhere ‘historic’ to a greater or lesser extent, in that they are always a product of their particular pasts, it is not possible judge some landscapes as more “historic” and therefore as more “valuable” than others. For example, English Heritage (EH) have promoted and supported detailed projects looking at the variation in historic landscape character across large areas (for example at the county level) and have deliberately avoided the identification of more or less important areas at a national level. However, whilst the EH approach might be more detailed as well as more theoretical in its approach, the landscape Register has proved valuable in that it addresses particular objectives. That is, to promote awareness of the historic importance of landscapes in Wales, and to provide grist to the mill of protecting the integrity of the historic environment at a landscape level. Whilst no one wishes to deny that history

This is not to say that the current situation is without merit. Clearly there is great value in providing inventories of sites if only to ensure that known features are not adversely affected by habitat based proposals and land management actions arising through the scheme itself. However, considerable expenditure of time and resources is invested in the consultation process, and if the primary product of this work is a series of decontextualised dots on maps, then it may be time to ask whether these efforts could be more beneficially applied, and how. In thinking about these questions, I have found it helpful to approach the issues from two directions. Firstly, through an appraisal of conservation practice at a landscape scale. Secondly, through looking at how ecologists and environmentalists have dealt with similar issues surrounding the conservation of finite and threatened resources at a landscape level. Whilst the historic environment (broadly defined) and the natural 65

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

The meaning of ‘landscape’ Landscapes are more than collections of sites in space; they are the product of the relationship between people and place (Bender 1993; Hirsch and O’Hanlon 1995). I believe that separation between academic and field archaeology has prevented us as heritage managers from developing more fruitful approaches to conservation at a landscape level. Academic archaeology is producing some increasingly sophisticated accounts of the way that lived experience mediates the meaning of landscape in its accounts of the past (eg Thomas 2001; Bender 1998; Edmonds and Seaborne 2001). We have become familiar with the concepts that landscape and cultural identity are bound up with one another; that landscapes can be understood in different ways depending upon an individual’s cultural and historic context; and that meanings of landscape are inherently political and ideological. One exciting aspect of contemporary archaeology is that it is creating engaging and nuanced accounts of the past (eg Bender 1999; Bradley 2000; GardWeb 2001;Tilley et al 2000). Archaeology is a fundamentally interpretative discipline; our skill as a profession is to work with subjectivities (eg value judgements about monuments which merit protection, and the fact that the fragmentary material we recover only gives partial understanding) in finding out about what life was like in the past.

has influenced the development of the whole of the Welsh landscape, the need to inform and influence decisions made through the planning process requires judgements over the relative value or importance of different landscapes. A recent test case has established the status of the Register as a material consideration within the planning process (Anon 2001). The Register was drawn upon in the public inquiry into a proposed substantial housing development on the Gwent levels, an area subject to increasing development pressure. The quality of the historic landscape was cited as one reason for rejection of the appeal. Before working in Wales, I was employed on one of the historic landscape characterisation (HLC) exercises in England. It is my feeling that within these projects there is often little prior decision regarding how the final product is to be used and what their objectives are. In many cases, archaeologists have still to grapple with the potential applications of HLC. There is a rather nebulous hope that they will inform decisions made within the planning process, and generalised management objectives are often identified for different character areas. However, without addressing the issues of relative importance and value their practical application is limited. HLC exercises are currently underway in Wales, and it will be interesting to see how they are used and applied in future. The results of some of these projects are already freely available online via the internet sites of the WATs.

Barbara Bender has written that: ‘The experience of landscape comes together through space and time. Understanding the shifting experiences of landscape helps us relativise ‘our’ own experiences and gives us an awareness of ongoing processes through which people and societies contest cultural meanings and create identities’ (Bender 1993, 17). However, the understanding of landscape we espouse as heritage managers and conservationists has little of this sense of connection to and experience of place, of engagement, or even about the excitement of the past as a way of reflecting upon the present. We haven’t really moved far from the ‘dots on maps’ approach to landscape, just dealt with greater numbers of dots over larger areas. Our current practices tend to reiterate rather normative understandings of the past, and to close down, rather than open up, the potential for multiple interpretations and perspectives.

My reason for including this brief comparison of the two approaches to ‘landscape’ is that it demonstrates two key points about what works well in our current practice and why. Conversely, we may also consider why elements of our practice are less successful. I believe that currently HLC works best as a public outreach tool. My first point is that by providing accessible (both in terms of readability and physical access via the internet), broad-brush, summaries of the history of local areas it can promote people’s interest in, appreciation of and respect for the past. This is important, because through education and awareness we can engender greater public knowledge and support for our conservation objectives. I will return to this point in connection with the success that environmentalists have had in bolstering support for their causes by raising public awareness of the links between sense of place and environmental responsibility. My second point concerns the way in which our understanding of what landscape is informs our conservation strategies. As I have stated, the Welsh landscape Register ‘works’ because it is targeted towards a particular set of objectives. By contrast HLC is all-encompassing in its outlook and attempts to define or tie-down the historic essence of landscapes at a closely grained scale. Insights into the meaning of landscape shows us that the attempt to produce single readings or definitions of landscape may be flawed from the outset.

Is this necessarily a problem? Can heritage management not be held apart as a pre-eminently practical and immediate concern with little need of contact with theory and interpretation? I don’t believe that it can for two reasons. Firstly, successful conservation requires soundly considered priorities and objectives. These can only really be successful produced within a framework of research and interpretation. Secondly, management and conservation at a landscape level rely upon land managers and on public support. The passive approach to conservation that we currently follow does little to foster 66

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

interest in, understanding of and commitment to heritage as an important public resource. It is only by producing and disseminating more engaging and inclusive accounts of the past that we will be able to draw in greater support for our conservation objectives.

the WATs (Richard Avent above) are beginning to address these issues. However, we could clearly do more to promote better public understanding of the historic environment and greater participation in its future. In his work on landscape, Simon Schama explores the forces of memory, identity, politics, ideology that hold landscapes in tension:

The environmental movement; approaches and mechanisms The environmental lobby has developed successful approaches to the political and ideological underpinnings of landscape and engenders massive public support. Like heritage conservation, ecology which informs debates about the environmental crisis is technical in nature. However, discourse of environmentalism through which ideas are voiced ensures that vital public support is not distanced. Central messages regarding the causes of environmental crises operate successfully at many levels, from school children to adults, from the lay person to the professional. These discourses promote multiple understandings and different levels of engagement. The environmental lobby is particularly good at emphasising the linkages between the global environmental consequences of local actions (for example the critique of consumption practices and the promotion of awareness that cumulatively, personal consumption decisions can have wide-reaching impacts). It works towards the aim of reducing people’s impact on the global environment by fostering their awareness of the areas they live in and by encouraging environmental responsibility in actions at a local level.

‘For what it is worth, I unequivocally share the dismay at the ongoing degradation of the planet, and much of the foreboding about the possibilities of its restoration to good health. The point of Landscape and Memory is not to contest the reality of this crisis. It is, rather, by revealing the richness, antiquity, and complexity of our landscape tradition to show just how much we stand to lose. Instead of assuming the mutually exclusive character of Western culture and nature, I want to suggest the strength of the links that have bound them together. That strength is often hidden beneath layers of the commonplace. So Landscape and Memory is constructed as an excavation below our conventional sight-level to recover the veins of myth and memory that lie beneath the surface’ (Schama 1995,14). Schama breaks down some of the traditional barriers between nature and culture, as played out in the disciplinary boundaries between ecology and archaeology, to celebrate the strength of the links that tie them together. He also moves between very different frames of reference, from the local, the commonplace and the historical, to the present day environmental issues which operate at a global level. It is striking that Schama draws on an explicitly archaeological metaphor, that of excavation. This vision of a different type of ‘archaeology’ could prompt us to rethink and reconfigure what archaeology is as a practice and how we carry it out.

‘Sustainability’, ‘sense of place’ and ‘local distinctiveness’ were key concepts to emerge from the 1991 Rio Earth Summit on climate change (Clifford and King 1993; UK Biodiversity Steering Group1995; Countryside Commission, English Heritage and English Nature (u d)). They explicitly acknowledge that enhancing people’s awareness and understanding of the places they live in nurtures connection and responsibility. Together, the sum of locally rooted and small scale objectives can address the causes of the larger problems. The aim of the environmental movement is to change ways we think and live, a grand ambition. However, these aims are played out through attention to local concerns and to objectives which connect with peoples lives, which they can feel part of and within which they can participate.

One way forward would be to exploit the common ground between archaeology and the powerful environmental lobby. There are considerable common areas of mutual interest. The environmental lobby has developed a suite of tools, concepts and language which have many points of contact with archaeological concerns. For example, historic landscape character makes a fundamental contribution to sense of place and to the creation of identity by underpinning local distinctiveness.

Where the environmental lobby’s approach generates public support, heritage management practices tend to be alienating rather than inclusive. Heritage conservation is wedded to a decontextualised view of the past which does not reflect the way that people actually engage with and experience the historic environment. Recent initiatives, such as the growing interest in community heritage/archaeology projects, and a firmer commitment to outreach work (for example the ‘Caring For’ series of booklets published by Cadw, or through the websites of

By emphasising the links between society, politics and environmental change, the environmental movement prompts us to think about the relationship between nature and culture. Archaeology investigates the way that the relationship between people and landscape, culture and nature, has changed through time. As such it has a fundamental contribution to make to understanding modern environmental issues through establishing a baseline understanding of how changing human practices 67

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

have influenced present day ecology. This has important connections with the concept of biodiversity, the inextricably linked and highly intricate web of life on the planet. Fairclough has commented that ‘[t]he idea of biodiversity accepts that landscape is human habitat as much as it is natural habitat; and that people, in the past and still today, are the prime regulators of biodiversity’ (1995,17). With this in mind it is clear that historical ecology and environmental archaeology (which are still ghettoised within the discipline to a large extent) need to become central to the way we produce accounts of the past.

planting operations. However, a key stage of the forest design process is preparation of Concept Plans, which move beyond point data and individual sites to look at the landscape scale of analysis. This provides an opportunity to comment at a more proactive level on proposals in terms of the history of land use, the way that individual sites interrelate to form cohesive archaeological landscapes, and potential impact on the character of the historic landscape and the setting of monuments. Forestry bodies accept that archaeological sites should be preserved and, where possible and appropriate, actively managed. With the WHAP database, and the establishment of successful consultation procedures conservation of individual sites has become effective and routine. This frees up time for both the archaeologists and forest planners to have a more creative input at broader spatial scales, ie at the landscape rather than site based level.

In Wales a number of bodies have recently funded initiatives which take a more holistic view of landscape, integrating perspectives from ecology and archaeology. These include projects on the archaeology and historical ecology of ancient woodland in northwest Wales (funded by the FC, Gwyn et al forthcoming); on historic field boundaries (funded jointly by CCW and Cadw) and on the relationship between biodiversity and historic land use practices (Roberts and Wynne 2001).

With regard to Tir Gofal, archaeological farm surveys funded by CCW allow the greatest opportunity for positive input by archaeologists. They enable the archaeologist to provide engaged, and meaningful practical advice (regarding site condition information and management recommendations) to both the project officer and to the applicant. They also provide contact with farmers, a very direct way of raising awareness and interest in the historic environment amongst land managers. This is an important opportunity to convey information about the history of the landscape at a local level.

The latter project has been investigating how knowledge of past land use practices can inform better management for biodiversity today. Its aim was to understand how former management regimes have in some cases led to the creation of biodiversity-rich habitats. Changing agricultural practices have had a highly destructive impact. Certain habitats of high biodiversity value were more prevalent in the past due to particular land use practices. By looking into the extent, nature and history of these practices it may be possible to identify elements which could inform modern land use practices for environmental benefit. Examples of such biodiversity rich habitats include; reed beds, hay meadows, traditional small-scale mixed economy agriculture, cattle related ffridd management and water meadows.

Visiting restrictions related to the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic have limited development of sizeable archaeological management schemes to date. The true value of surveys will become increasingly apparent as closer interaction between archaeologists and Tir Gofal staff develops and allows more targeted management schemes to be pursued. However, visits are currently limited to the level of 20% of the farms entering the scheme.

Rethinking archaeological aspects of countryside management So how might this apply to current curatorial practice in Wales, and to the potential of Tir Gofal in particular? It is useful to return briefly to my earlier discussion of Forestry liaison procedures. Concern with the key environmental concept of sustainability has prompted Forestry bodies to develop integrated approaches to management of forest resources, to build partnerships with external bodies and organisations, and to recognise the wider value of assets which they manage. The size of blocks of land occupied by forest and the fact that they are often visually dominant means that management has to be pursued at a landscape scale. Site specific archaeological information provided to Forest Enterprise by their in-house WHAP database and by regional SMRs via the WATs is incorporated onto ‘opportunity and constraint maps’ to ensure that the location of all sites is known in advance of felling or

The greatest portion of time and resources expended on Tir Gofal relates to the more passive desktop consultation process. As outlined above, much of the information provided currently ends up as constraints symbols on the management agreement maps. Whilst we can change the format of management plans so that greater archaeological information can be included, information in the SMRs still doesn’t allow active management recommendations to be made. One way in which we could contribute in a more meaningful way would be comment on the management plan itself once it has been prepared to draft stage. This would allow us to monitor how archaeological information is being incorporated. It would also allow us to comment on the historical suitability of pursuing particular habitat based option, as well as on the impact on historic landscape character. However, under current 68

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bibliography Anon 2001 ‘A first for the Register’, Adain y Ddraig, Newsletter of the Countryside Council for Wales, Spring edition

arrangements both archaeologists and Tir Gofal project officers have too little time to liase effectively at this secondary stage. Drawing a parallel with the forestry liaison procedures may help us to move forward in this respect. Given the ease with which data can be exchanged in a digital format it would be possible to provide CCW with SMR data (in GIS form) for production of basic constraint maps, much as WHAP database information is used by Forest Enterprise to produce their ‘opportunities and constraint’ maps. Whilst this cuts out the expert archaeological advice at the desktop consultation stage, (when information is converted into little more than point data anyway) it means that resources will be freed up for a more active archaeological input in the later stages of the management agreement.

Bender, B 1993 ‘Landscape: meaning and action’, in B Bender (ed) Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, Berg: Oxford, 1–17 Bender, B 1998 Stonehenge: making space, Berg: Oxford Bender, B 1999 ‘Subverting the western gaze: mapping alternative worlds’, in P Ucko and R Layton (eds), The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape, Routledge: London, 31–45 Berry, AQ and Brown IW (eds) 1994 Managing Archaeological Monuments: an Integrated Approach, Clwyd County Council: Mold Bradley, RJ 2000 An Archaeology of Natural Places, Routledge: London

Whilst some may feel that this represents loss of control over the data, I believe that it would allow us to more fully exploit the full range of opportunities presented by the scheme. Resources could be channelled into providing targeted archaeological management advice. This could facilitate greater number of farm visits and would also allow us to focus on establishing informed priorities for archaeological heritage management at a landscape level, and constructing ways of implementing them. Ecological objectives are well catered for within the scheme because they tie into a broader mechanism for delivery, namely biodiversity targets set by national biodiversity priorities and at a local level by Local Biodiversity Action Plans (UK Biodiversity Steering Group1995a and 1995b). There is currently no similarly cohesive mechanism through which archaeological conservation priorities are identified and through which they can be pursued. It is my hope that such objectives may been drawn up through the current research agenda initiative. These would also allow archaeologists to identify key sites for priority treatment and even seek to actively encourage farmers in particular areas to consider entering the scheme.

Cadw 1998 Register of Landscapes of Outstanding Historic Interest in Wales, Cadw: Cardiff Cadw 2001 Register of Landscapes of Special Historic Interest in Wales, Cadw: Cardiff Clifford, S and King, A (eds) 1993 Local Distinctiveness: Place, Particularity and Identity, Common Ground: London Colcutt, SN 1999 ‘The setting of cultural heritage features’, Journal of Planning and Environmental Law, 498–513 Countryside Commission, English Heritage and English Nature (undated) Ideas into Action for Local Agenda 21, Countryside Commission: London Darvill, TC and Fulton, A 1998 MARS: The Monuments at Risk Survey of England 1995, English Heritage: London Edmonds, M and Seaborne, T 2001 Prehistory in the Peak, Tempus: Stroud Fairclough, G 1995 ‘The Sum of all its parts: An Overview of the Politics of Integrated Management in England’, in AQ Berry and IW Brown (eds), Managing Ancient Monuments: An Integrated Approach, Clwyd County Council: Mold, 15–27

Conclusion In conclusion, I have looked at how a more theoretical approach to landscape prompts us to think about a broader range of issues beyond our traditional preoccupations when dealing with conservation in a rural context. This is important in terms of the research agenda initiative because issues like the contemporary politics of landscape need to addressed if we are to influence debates over the future of the countryside. By looking to the environmental movement we can see how we could benefit from developing a more active voice. We also need to produce and disseminate more engaging accounts of the past, placing understanding of changing relationships between people and environment through time at the centre of our archaeological objectives.

Grenville, J (ed) 1999 Managing the Historic Rural Environment Routledge: London Hirsch, E and O’Hanlon, M 1995 The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space, Clarendon Press: Oxford Lambrick, GH (ed) 1985 Archaeology and Nature Conservation, Oxford University Department for External Studies: Oxford MacInnes, L and Wickham-Jones, CR (eds) 1992 All

69

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Natural Things: Archaeology and the Green Debate, Oxbow Monograph 21: Oxford Swain, H (ed) 1993 Rescuing the Historic Environment, RESCUE: Hereford Schama, S 1995 Landscape and Memory, Harper Collins: London Thomas, J 2001 ‘Archaeologies of place and landscape’, in IR Hodder (ed), Archaeological Theory Today, Polity: Cambridge, 165–186 Tilley, C, Hamilton, S, Harrison, S, and Anderson, E 2000 ‘Nature, culture, clitter: distinguishing between cultural and geomorphological landscapes; the case of the hilltop tors in south-west England’, Journal of Material Culture 5(2), 197–224 UK Biodiversity Steering Group1995a Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report Volume 1: Meeting the Rio Challenge, HMSO: London UK Biodiversity Steering Group1995b Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report: Volume 2 The Action Plans, HMSO: London

Unpublished CCW (undated) Tir Gofal: Staff Manual, Countryside Council for Wales: Bangor Forestry Commission 1997 Archaeology and Forestry in Wales: An Accord Made Between the Forestry Authority, Forest Enterprise, Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments and The Welsh Archaeological Trusts Forestry Commission 1995 Forests and Archaeology Guidelines, Forestry Commission: Edinburgh Forest Enterprise 2000 Welsh Heritage Assets Project: final report Gwyn, D Rh, Thompson, DJ, Radford, G, and Roberts, JG forthcoming Archaeological potential of ancient and seminatural woodland in north-west Wales, Gwynedd Archaeological Trust report no 441 on behalf of the Forestry Commission Roberts, JG and Wynne, C 2001 Historic Landuse Practices and Biodiversity in Wales, CCW policy research report number 01/2, prepared by Gwynedd Archaeological Trust and North Wales Environmental Services Ltd Trow, S 2001 ‘Caring for the Poor Relation? AgriEnvironment Schemes and the Historic Environment in England’, paper delivered at session on Agrienvironmental schemes to the IFA Annual Conference (Newcastle) 2001

Websites GardWeb 2001 Gardom’s Edge Project Website, http://www.shef.ac.uk/~geap/ 70

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

13 Environmental archaeology in Wales: potential and priorities Astrid E Caseldine Archaeology Department, School of Social Sciences University of Wales, Lampeter [email protected]

Abstract The potential for different types of environmental analysis and the opportunities offered by different landscapes in Wales are considered. Priorities for investigation are discussed on a period basis. Key research themes are identified.

or Palaeolithic. Generally, recent pollen diagrams have associated radiocarbon dates, and multiple radiocarbon dates should be routine for pollen profiles and archaeological sites in order to establish chronologies and enable correlations. Where possible, dendrochronological dates should be obtained. Environmental evidence needs to be integrated into reports rather than assigned to appendices, and the wider significance of the evidence needs to be taken into account.

It is perhaps partially a reflection of the level of research and funding that a number of recommendations made in Environmental Archaeology in Wales (Caseldine 1990) to a greater or lesser extent still remain to be achieved, and many of the suggestions below are based on them. But there have been some significant developments in the last ten years, most notably in the field of wetland archaeology. In the Severn Estuary (Bell 2001) well integrated archaeological/environmental projects have been funded from public and private developer sources. It is not the intention to give a detailed review of the state of environmental archaeology in Wales as this is currently in preparation, nor should the research priorities identified be considered a definitive list but simply an interim statement. Priorities are likely to be revised and modified as the current review proceeds and in the light of new developments.

Research Potential Environmental studies in Wales tend to be biased towards botanical studies (Fig 13.1) because soil conditions favour

A few general observations can be made that are applicable to research agenda for all periods. Whilst certain aspects of environmental archaeological/ palaeoenvironmental investigation, eg pollen cores, can be undertaken independently of excavation, for others, eg charred plant remains and animal bone studies, excavation is a prerequisite. Over the last ten to fifteen years many excavations have been on a comparatively small scale, which places limitations on data and interpretations that follow. This applies especially to the Iron Age and Roman periods. In drawing up a project design, appropriate sampling strategies need to be identified, with adequate provision for bulk sampling and sieving for botanical remains and animal bones as applicable, whether Iron Age

Fig 13.1 Pollen sites in Wales

71

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

preservation of pollen and plant macrofossils, whilst animal bone is less likely to survive. It is therefore important that when conditions do exist for the preservation of bone, particularly prehistoric, it is recovered. Soil studies, phosphate and magnetic susceptibility and soil micromorphology, especially the latter, have been under-used and should be more widely applied. As the survival of land molluscs is largely confined to restricted areas of Wales, mostly the limestones, dunes and tufas, there is only limited evidence on past species’ distributions and dates. Where the evidence does survive it should have a high priority. Although there has been some work on the analysis of marine molluscs, studies remain few. When marine molluscs are found in well dated contexts they should be saved for analysis, having the potential to provide valuable information about coastal exploitation. Similarly, studies of insect remains are few, although recent work (Smith et al 2000) has demonstrated the valuable contribution they can make to the interpretation of environmental conditions and human and animal activity at a site. The recent work at Caldicot (Nayling and Caseldine 1987) and in the intertidal area of the Severn Estuary (Bell et al 2000), in particular, has begun to help to fill the gap in wood studies in Wales, but very limited information is available from elsewhere. Other analyses which could be more widely applied include eg phytoliths, diatoms, ostracods, foraminifera, mites, rhizopods, fungal and food residue.

requires exhaustive investigation. Even when there is no detectable human presence important environmental information can be recovered, providing valuable information about the environmental tolerances of early hominids. Interdisciplinarity is a key fact of Palaeolithic research and there is a need for detailed work on geomorphology, sedimentary sequences and all associated biota to help elucidate the relationship of people to their surrounding landscape and environment and to enable landscape and predictive modelling. Such work needs to be closely linked with Quaternary research on nonarchaeological sites. The relative paucity of interglacial deposits in Wales means that suitable deposits, eg with pollen, macrofossils or beetles, should receive a high priority, especially if there is associated archaeology. Much of our environmental archaeological evidence comes from faunal remains in caves, eg Pontnewydd (Green 1984), Coygan (Currant and Jacobi 1997) and Paviland (Aldhouse-Green 2000). Environmental evidence has an important role to play in comparing human activities at cave and open sites and the culture and behaviour of groups and individuals. Upper Palaeolithic sites in Wales are of particular significance because of their marginal geographical location, and recently the westernmost site in Britain, Priory Farm Cave, has been reinvestigated (Barton and Price 1999). Current evidence suggests that Wales, like England, was largely or wholly deserted by humans during the period from c 23–15 k Cal yr BP, corresponding to the maximum spread and then retreat of the Devensian ice sheets. During the Late glacial, c 15–11.5 k Cal yr BP, the climate becomes more complex (Björck et al 1999) with evidence for climatic oscillations before the ameliorating climate of the early Holocene and there needs to be more precise chronologies established for Late Glacial sites. The relationship between human occupation and environmental change during the Upper Palaeolithic and into the Mesolithic requires an integrated study combining archaeology and Quaternary science.

Although there has been a move away from looking at sites in isolation to landscape-based projects these are still comparatively few. Much of the uplands is peat covered and the current Upland Survey should create the climate for more integrated environmental/archaeological work, but so far no palaeoenvironmental studies have been undertaken as a direct result of this. Lowland wetland contexts also offer potential for combined studies which have yet to be fully realised. Coastal areas are major contexts for the preservation of environmental sequences, eg intertidal peats, dune systems, and valley bogs separated from the sea by coastal bars. These offer particular potential for integrated archaeological and environmental study, as demonstrated by work in the Severn Estuary and identified by the Coastal Survey undertaken by the Welsh Archaeological Trusts. More detailed survey, as currently undertaken by Gwynedd Archaeological Trust, needs to be extended. Colluvial and alluvial deposits are relatively widespread but often difficult to date, and have received little attention compared to parts of England. Combined archaeological/environmental studies of such deposits have been limited in Wales.

Mesolithic With a few notable exceptions (Aldhouse-Green et al 1992; Barton et al 1995; Bell et al 2000), environmental work directly associated with Mesolithic sites has been very limited and should be given high priority. The period is one of considerable environmental change with human groups adapting to natural changes, whilst at the same time there is evidence to suggest that they were also modifying their environment (Simmons 1996). Further elucidation of anthropogenic manipulation of the environment needs to be determined. The uplands, especially where there is blanket peat, offer particular potential for the investigation of Mesolithic impact through pollen and charcoal studies. Such studies need to focus on sites where the lithic and palaeoenvironmental evidence can be closely correlated. The current Lithic

Research Priorities Palaeolithic Any Palaeolithic site with environmental evidence represents an important archaeological resource which 72

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Scatters Projects offer an opportunity for integrated research. The stratigraphic context of flint scatters, whether in the uplands or lowlands, needs to be investigated by means of soil, particularly micromorphology, and sediment studies in order to ascertain whether lithics are strictly coeval with associated palaeoenvironmental evidence.

As mentioned above, focus on the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition and the transition from hunter-gatherer to agriculturalist is highly desirable. Many submerged forests and coastal deposits span this critical period with the former having potential to provide a highly accurate timescale through dendrochronological studies, as in the Severn Estuary. The excavation of well preserved sites, both settlement and ritual, with a range of environmental and economic evidence against which the accompanying artefact record might be tested may help to elucidate the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition, as well as the social and cultural aspects of the sites themselves.

The relationship between exploitation of coastal, inland lowland and upland sites requires detailed critical examination in the context of palaeoenvironmental evidence from specific sites. Detection of Mesolithic activity in the lowland pollen record is more difficult because of the closed woodland environment and has received comparatively little attention. Lowland wetlands are key contexts for the preservation of Mesolithic faunal evidence which is otherwise rare, except in caves, and is potentially important for an understanding of the beginnings of domestication. Coastal wetlands offer particular potential for well stratified Mesolithic sites in association with a range of palaeoenvironmental evidence. Current research by Martin Bell and colleagues in the Severn Estuary aims to explore the nature of human activity and the environment during the later Mesolithic and into the Neolithic, with a detailed chronology established through dendrochronology and high precision radiocarbon dating. Such projects need to be extended to other areas. Midden contexts with mollusca firmly dated to the Mesolithic would be particularly valuable in providing evidence of coastal resource exploitation. Whether upland or lowland, sites with plant macrofossil evidence indicating the role of botanical resources in the Mesolithic economy deserve special attention.

With the clear link between the ‘elm decline’ and the beginning of the Neolithic no longer accepted, the identification and dating of the beginning of cereal cultivation has an added significance. As charred cereal remains are a more reliable indicator of cultivation than pollen, the recovery of plant remains by sieving from securely stratified contexts is of the utmost importance in determining the initial adoption of cultivation. The traditional view that early farmers were sedentary has been replaced by the view that they were more mobile in the landscape (Whittle 1997). Recovery of plant remains from Neolithic settlements, either permanent or transitory would not only augment the data base for crops and enable further examination of the relative contributions of cultivated and wild plant foods, but may also indicate how activity varied in the landscape. Recovery of good quality Neolithic animal bone assemblages are equally rare and would be of considerable value in determining animal husbandry and hunting practices, but on dryland sites bone only survives well in limited calcareous parts of Wales. Any well preserved and dated old land surface, below megalithic tombs for instance, deserves exhaustive soil analytical investigation especially if other palaeoenvironmental evidence is preserved. Although a research project involving a consideration of chambered tombs in their environmental context using existing evidence is currently being funded by the Board of Celtic Studies, the visibility of monuments both in the Neolithic and Bronze Age landscape requires further examination with integrated pollen and archaeological investigations.

A reliable chronological framework for palaeoenvironmental work, including the investigation of the relationship between Mesolithic activity and peat inception, in this period needs to be adequately supported by radiocarbon dates and/or dendrochronology. Environmental changes associated with the MesolithicNeolithic transition and especially the beginnings of agriculture warrant particular attention and are discussed further below.

Neolithic Environmental evidence from the Neolithic is, apart from pollen, limited in both quality and quantity. Furthermore, much of our knowledge is derived from pollen studies which did not have, primarily, archaeological objectives, and are from areas where little is known about the archaeology. Much of the evidence is from the uplands, whereas the earlier Neolithic sites occur in the lowlands, added to which many of the earlier diagrams are inadequately dated. There is a need for integrated archaeological/palaeoenvironmental studies, particularly where good palaeoenvironmental records exist in the lowlands.

Greater emphasis has been placed on farming practices in the earlier Neolithic, particularly in pollen studies in Wales, than the later Neolithic and the nature and extent of farming in the late Neolithic requires further study. So too do contrasts in human activity between upland and lowland situations, especially where palaeoenvironmental evidence enables examination of the question of seasonal occupation of the uplands.

Bronze Age The palaeoenvironmental record for the Bronze Age is overwhelmingly composed of pollen evidence, some of which is derived from archaeological sites or mire 73

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

sequences which can be tied in with archaeology (eg Walker 1993), but in other areas the chronology is unclear due to inadequate radiocarbon dating. Numerous ceremonial and burial monuments suggest expansion into upland regions, simultaneously the pollen record indicates increasing clearance activity (eg Chambers, 1982a; 1983; Smith and Cloutman 1988), although the evidence for the scale of activity is variable. Pollen sequences imply a predominantly pastoral Bronze Age economy, but there is some pollen evidence for cereal growing (eg Bostock 1980; Chambers 1982b); the possible role of transhumance also needs to be examined. Plant macrofossil and animal bone evidence, as for the Neolithic, is poor and the nature of the Bronze Age agricultural economy requires further investigation as does the transition from the late Neolithic. Unfortunately, the early Bronze Age settlement bases which could provide data remain largely elusive (Lynch 2000, 80) but would be of high priority for investigation. Scientific studies could also further enhance our understanding of Bronze Age ritual practices and their landscape context, and the level of impact of Bronze Age mining activity upon the landscape, as demonstrated at Copa Hill, Cwm Ystwyth (Mighall and Chambers 1993). Although evidence from the lowlands is much scarcer than from the uplands, recent work (Bell 2001) has demonstrated the exploitation of coastal wetlands during this period, and the potential of such environments for integrated archaeological and environmental study. As in earlier periods, work on the wetlands needs to be combined with investigation of the dry land hinterland to understand how agricultural systems operated. The potential of coastal dunes has also been indicated by the work at Stackpole (Benson et al 1990) where a range of sites from field boundaries to ritual monuments and domestic occupation has been preserved.

well integrated and well dated archaeological excavation combined with on-site and off-site environmental analyses (eg Chambers and Price 1988). As well as increasing our understanding of landscape organisation these would also allow recognition of broader landscape concepts, social and symbolic as well as economic.

The impact of climatic deterioration, particularly in the uplands, during the late Bronze Age requires combined archaeological and environmental investigation, as does alluviation in the lowlands and changes associated with sea level change and evidence of sanding. Changes in farming practices associated with the re-emergence of settlements during the first millennium and continuity of settlement into the early Iron Age should also be a focus of research.

Apart from the influence of farming on the landscape, the impact of iron working on the woodland environment has been investigated by pollen and charcoal studies (Mighall and Chambers 1997) but requires further elucidation. Recent work at Goldcliff (Bell et al 2000) has radically improved our knowledge of the use of woodland resources and wood-working techniques during the Iron Age in south Wales, and comparable sites in other parts of Wales would be invaluable. Similarly, such sites offer the opportunity for more precise dating through the application of dendrochronology.

The pollen record suggests a largely pastoral economy but cereal pollen is under-represented and plant macrofossil evidence suggests that cereal cultivation was more important in certain areas than others. Unfortunately, in the upland areas of acid soils, bone, pottery and metalwork seldom survives, consequently many of the traditional sources of evidence are unavailable. However, phosphate analysis and beetle faunas, where suitable conditions for the preservation of the latter exist, may be a useful source of evidence for pastoral activity. Equally, beetles and mites have proved particularly useful in determining the use of structures at the coastal wetland site of Goldcliff (Bell et al 2000), and the presence of animal footprints at the site provided additional information for faunal studies. Although major sieving programmes have been carried out on a few Iron Age and Romano-British sites (Williams and Mytum 1998; Fasham et al 1998), the majority of investigations are comparatively small scale. Farming regimes and the relative importance of pastoralism and arable cultivation regionally requires further research, as does inter-site comparisons. The exploitation of coastal wetlands has also been clearly demonstrated at Goldcliff (Fig 13.2; Bell et al 2000) and needs to be taken into account when considering other agricultural regimes during this period. Spatial and temporal contrasts in crop husbandry and processing practices have been investigated on some settlements, but environmental evidence associated with ritual and symbolic depositional practices has received virtually no attention.

Iron Age There are comparatively few pollen diagrams from Wales with well dated deposits spanning the Iron Age, but such evidence as there is indicates some variation in clearance activity. In certain areas substantial clearance had already taken place by the late Bronze Age and remained open; in other areas major clearance did not occur until during the Iron Age (eg Turner 1964). In others there is evidence of regeneration in the early Iron Age with renewed clearance during the late Iron Age (eg Smith and Cloutman 1988). Once again there is a need for landscape projects involving

Roman Investigation of biological evidence for continuity and change at the Iron Age/Romano-British boundary would help to establish the impact of the Romans on the Welsh landscape. Pollen records (eg Chambers 1982a; Walker 1993; Smith and Green 1995; Mighall and Chambers 1997) for the Roman period suggest regional variation in clearance activity and woodland regeneration, but much of 74

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Fig 13.2 Percentage Pollen Diagram (selected taxa) from Goldcliff showing the environmental changes at Building 2 (from Bell et al 2000, Fig 13.13, published with permission).

the evidence is from uplands and more well dated sequences from lowland sites are required. The impact of the Romans on agricultural production as a result of taxes and the need for a surplus requires further exploration. Although there are more data available for crop and animal husbandry than from prehistoric periods, the data base is still very limited compared with evidence from England, restricting inter-site comparisons and the identification of regional diversity. Adoption or rejection of new agricultural strategies is a key aspect of regional diversity (van der Veen and O’Connor 1997). Activities associated with crop processing, malting and storage provide a direct indication of the level of production on rural sites, whilst analysis of in situ stored crops can provide detailed information about urban consumption and storage (Murphy 2000a). Good bone assemblages exist from Caerleon (O’Connor 1986; 1983) and Segontium (Noddle 1993) but need to be supplemented by other sites, particularly from adjacent rural areas. Caerleon Fortress Baths (O’Connor 1986; 1983) highlight the value of sieving programmes, particularly for the recovery of birds, fish and small mammals. The changing roles of agricultural practice and food consumption need to be questioned further and explanations other than economic need to be considered. There is still comparatively little evidence, particularly botanical, for imports and exotic species. Environmental data have the potential to contribute to questions of diet and ethnicity, trade, contact and social status, industrial uses, fisheries exploitation, ritual and ceremony.

Barland’s Farm boat occur, environmental analyses may contribute to questions of trade and communications as well as helping determine cargoes and the use of the boat. Dendrochronological dating of the boat has been attempted, resulting in a date of AD 283–301 for its construction (Nayling et al 1994), but so far the technique has been little used during the Roman period.

Early Medieval, Medieval and Post-Medieval The questions of continuity and change in the Welsh landscape from Romano-British to medieval times have hardly begun to be explored. Pollen records covering the historical period have tended to receive less attention than those concerned with prehistory. Multiple radiocarbon dates and high resolution analyses are as important as for earlier periods, although correlation of the environmental record with historical events may not be without problems (Dumayne et al 1995). Other techniques that can be employed in dating the recent past include lead-isotope dating and the present of ‘soot’ particles from coal burning power stations. Specific palaeoenvironmental evidence for the early medieval period is very limited. Examination of pollen sequences spanning the period AD 400–800 shows a mixture of continuity of exploitation, increased activity and reduced activity (Dark 2000, Fig 5.6), the latter tending to be at higher altitudes. However, the sample size is small and dating unreliable, and further investigations are required before firm conclusions can be drawn about upland and lowland differences and regional variations. Animal bones and plant macrofossils have been recovered from only a handful of early medieval sites, eg Dinas Powys (Gilchrist 1988) and Longbury Bank (Campbell and Lane 1993), resulting in only a limited understanding of the agrarian landscape compared with England.

Romano-British activity and associated drainage on the Severn Estuary Levels (Allen and Fulford 1986; Fulford et al 1994) is well established and environmental evidence largely points to pastoralism, although there is some evidence for cereal production. The agricultural regime during this period requires further investigation, as does the evidence for increasing marine influence in late- and post-Roman times. When such discoveries as the

There is the potential for palaeoenvironmental work to be linked with detailed landscape analysis using multiple sources of evidence, and areas should be chosen where there are good environmental sequences (Bell and Dark 75

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Conclusions In conclusion, key research themes include the development of agriculture, continuity and change at key cultural interfaces, investigation of inter-site variability, evolution of the urban environment, effects of mining, relationships between people and environment, and the relationship between past landscapes and conservation of landscapes today.

1997). Palaeoenvironmental studies can play a greater role in understanding the complex relationship between settlement, cultivation, pastoralism and abandonment of the uplands, and climate change, epidemics, social and economic/agricultural changes. Whenever the opportunity arises, links between upland and lowland as represented by the hafod and hendre system should be investigated using palaeoenvironmental evidence. The upper levels of peat bogs can also be a valuable source of information in determining management and conservation strategies.

Acknowledgment The writer acknowledges the kind permission of the CBA in granting copyright clearance for Fig13.2, which is reproduced from Bell et al 2000.

Although there is more environmental information than from prehistoric sites, many of the bone, seed and marine mollusc assemblages are too small for meaningful interpretation, therefore appropriate sampling and sieving programmes need to be applied. As well as the investigation of changes in crop and animal husbandry practices, further investigation is required of assemblages from sites of a range of types and social status, eg rural farmsteads, ecclestiastical sites, castles, villages and towns. Then we can begin to understand the relationships between them, especially the relationship between towns and their rural hinterland, and to identify regional differences and the relationship with other parts of Britain. However, the taphonomic complexity of urban deposits, their time-consuming nature and the need for extensive sampling at large sites means that resources, to be fully effective, need to be carefully targeted (Murphy 2000b). Where there are sufficiently good documentary records and assemblages of biota it should be possible to test historically derived ideas about the agricultural economy, diet, disease and living conditions by comparative studies.

Bibliography Aldhouse-Green, SHR 2000 Paviland Cave and the ‘Red Lady’: a definitive report, Western Academic and Specialist Press: Bristol Aldhouse-Green, SHR, Whittle, AWR, Allen, JRL, Caseldine, AE, Culver, SJ, Day, H Lundquist, J and Upton, D1992 ‘Prehistoric human footprints from the Severn Estuary at Uskmouth and Magor Pill, Gwent, Wales’, Archaeol Cambrensis 141, 14–55 Allen, JRL and Fulford, MG 1986 ‘The Wentlooge Level: A Romano-British saltmarsh reclamation in southeast Wales’, Britannia 17, 91–117 Barton, RNE, Berridge, PJ, Walker, MJC and Bevins, RE 1995 ‘Persistent places in the Mesolithic landscape: an example from the Black Mountain uplands of South Wales’, Proc Prehist Soc 61, 81–116 Barton, RNE and Price, C 1999 ‘The westernmost Upper Palaeolithic cave site in Britain and probable evidence of a Bronze-Age shell midden: new investigations at Priory Farm Cave, Pembrokeshire’, Archaeol in Wales 39, 3–9

The potential for palaeoenvironmental work in coastal and maritime archaeology has been demonstrated by work in the Severn Estuary and could be extended to other parts of Wales. Thick peats at Llandevenny (if post-Roman and early medieval) would be particularly valuable in understanding landscape development and continuity and change (Bell 2001). Environmental studies can also provide information for maritime archaeology. The environmental context of the Magor Pill boat and the possibility of an earlier cargo of cereal has been ascertained from palaeoenvironmental analyses (Nayling 1998).

Bell, MG 2001 ‘Environmental archaeology in the Severn Estuary: progress and prospects’, Archaeology in the Severn Estuary 11 (2000), 69–103 Bell, MG, Caseldine, AE and Neumann, H 2000 Prehistoric Intertidal Archaeology in the Welsh Severn Estuary, CBA Research Report120: York Bell, MG and Dark, P 1998 ‘Continuity and change: environmental archaeology in historic periods’, in J Bayley (ed), Science in Archaeology, English Heritage: London,179–194

Few palaeoenvironmental investigations (eg Rosen and Dumayne-Peaty 2001) have been concerned with the impact of industrial activity, particularly during the postmedieval period and, although such multi-proxy approaches are not without problems, they could be more widely applied. Similarly, garden archaeology has become of increasing prominence in recent years and where suitable deposits occur paleoenvironmental studies may play a part in elucidating garden histories (Murphy and Scaife 1991). Similarly, dendrochronology may play a role in this in helping to date landscapes, as well as providing accurate dates for buildings.

Benson, DG Evans, JG and Williams, GH 1990 ‘Excavations at Stackpole Warren, Dyfed’, Proc Prehist Soc 56, 179–245 Björck, S, Walker, MJC, Cwynar, L, Johnsen, SJ, Knudsen, K-L, Lowe, JJ, Wohlfarth, B and INTIMATE Members 1998 ‘An event stratigraphy for the Last Termination in the North Atlantic region based on the Greenland ice core record: a proposal from the INTIMATE group’, Jnl Quat Sci 13, 283–292 76

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Campbell, E and Lane, AM 1993 ‘Excavations at Longbury Bank, Dyfed, and early medieval settlement in south Wales’, Medieval Archaeol 37, 15–77

Murphy, P 2000a ‘Food: consumption and production’, in N Brown and J Glazebrook (eds), Research and Archaeology: a framework for the Eastern Counties, 2. Research agenda and strategy, E Anglian Archaeol Occas Paper 8, 21

Caseldine, AE 1990 Environmental Archaeology, St David’s University College: Lampeter

Murphy, P 2000b ‘Urban environmental archaeology’, in N Brown and J Glazebrook (eds) op cit: 31–32

Chambers, FM 1982a ‘Environmental history of Cefn Gwernffrwd, near Rhandirmwyn mid-Wales’, New Phytol 92, 607–615

Murphy, P and Scaife, RG 1991 ‘The environmental archaeology of gardens’, in AE Brown (ed), Garden Archaeology, CBA Research Report 78:York, 83–99

Chambers, FM 1982b ‘Two radiocarbon-dated pollen diagrams from high-altitude blanket peats in south Wales’, Jnl Ecol 70, 475–487

Nayling, N 1998 The Magor Pill Medieval Wreck, CBA Research Report 115: York

Chambers, FM 1983 ‘Three radiocarbon-dated pollen diagrams from upland peats north-west of Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales,’ Jnl Ecol 71, 475–487

Nayling, N and Caseldine, AE 1997 Excavations at Caldicot, Gwent: Bronze Age Palaeochannels in the Lower Nedern Valley, CBA Research Report 108:York

Chambers, FM and Price, M 1988 ‘The environmental setting of Erw-wen and Moel y Gerddi: prehistoric enclosures in upland Ardudwy, North Wales’, Proc Prehist Soc 54, 93–100

Nayling, N, Maynard, D and McGrail, SF 1994 ‘Barland’s Farm, Magor, Gwent: a Romano-British boat find’, Antiquity 68, 593–603

Currant, AP and Jacobi, RM 1997 ‘Vertebrate faunas from the British Late Pleistocene and the chronology of human settlement’, Quaternary Newsletter 82, 1–8

Noddle, B 1993 ‘Bones of larger mammals’, in PJ Casey and JL Davies, with JG Evans, Excavations at Segontium (Caernarfon) Roman Fort, 1975-79, CBA Research Report 90:York

Dark, SP 2000 The Environment of Britain in the First Millennium AD, Duckworth: London

O’Connor, TP 1983 ‘Aspects of site environment and economy at Caerleon fortress, baths, Gwent,’ in B Proudfoot (ed), Site, Settlement and Economy, BAR British Series 173: York, 105–113

Dumayne, L, Stoneman, R, Barber, KE and Harkness, DD 1995 ‘Problems associated with correlating calibrated radiocarbon-dated pollen diagrams with historical events’, The Holocene 4,118–123

O’Connor, TP 1986 ‘The animal bones’, in JD Zienkiewicz, The Legionary Fortress Baths at Caerleon, Vol II, Cardiff, 224–248

Fasham, PJ, Kelly, MA, Mason, MA and White, RB 1998 The Graeanog Ridge The Evolution of a Farming Landscape and its Settlements in North-West Wales, Cambrian Archaeol Assoc: Aberystwyth

Schelvis, J 2000 ‘Remains of mites (Acari) from the Iron Age site’, in MG Bell, AE Caseldine, and H Neumann, Prehistoric Intertidal Archaeology in the Welsh Severn Estuary, CBA Research Report 120: York, 272–276

Fulford, MG, Allen, JRL and Rippon, SJ 1994 ‘The settlement and drainage of the Wentlooge Level, Gwent: excavation and survey at Rumney Great Wharf 1992’, Britannia 25, 175–211

Rosen, D and Dumayne-Peaty, L 2001 ‘Human impact on the vegetation of South Wales during late historical times: palynological and palaeoenvironmental results from Crymlyn Bog NNR, West Glamorgan, Wales, UK’, The Holocene 11, 11–23

Gilchrist, R 1988 ‘A reappraisal of Dinas Powys: local exchange and specialised livestock in fifth-seventh century Wales’, Medieval Archaeol 32, 50–62 Green, HSR 1984 Pontnewydd Cave, National Museum of Wales: Cardiff

Simmons, IG 1996 The Environmental Impact of Later Mesolithic Cultures, Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh

Lynch, FM 2000 ‘The later Neolithic and earlier Bronze Age’, in FM Lynch, HSR Aldhouse-Green, and JL Davies, Prehistoric Wales, Sutton Publishing: Stroud, 79–138

Smith, AG and Cloutman, EW 1988 ‘Reconstruction of Holocene vegetation history in three dimensions at WaunFignen-Felen, an upland site in South Wales’, Phil Trans Roy Soc London B322, 159–219

Mighall, TM and Chambers, FM 1993 ‘The environmental impact of prehistoric copper mining at Copa Hill, Cwmystwyth, Wales’, The Holocene 3, 260–264

Smith, AG and Green, CA 1995 ‘Topogenous peat development and late-Flandrian vegetation history at a site in upland south Wales’, The Holocene 5, 172–183

Mighall, TM and Chambers, FM 1997 ‘Early ironworking and its impact on the environment: palaeoecological evidence from Bryn y Castell hillfort, Snowdonia, North Wales,’ New Phyt 63, 199–219

Smith, D, Osborne, P and Barrett, J 2000 ‘Beetles as indicators of past environments and human activity at 77

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Goldcliff,’ in MG Bell, AE Caseldine and H Neumann, Prehistoric Intertidal Archaeology in the Welsh Severn Estuary, CBA Research Report 120: York, 245–261

Change and Human Impact on the Landscape, Chapman and Hall: London, 169–183 Whittle, AWR 1997 Europe in the Neolithic, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

Turner, J 1964 ‘The anthropogenic factor in vegetational history I: Tregaron and Whixall Mosses’, New Phyt 63, 73–90

Williams, GH and Mytum, HC 1998 Llawhaden, Dyfed Excavations on a group of small defended enclosures, 1980–4, BAR British Series 275: Oxford

van der Veen, M and O’Connor, T 1998 ‘The expansion of agricultural production in late Iron Age and Roman Britain’, in JC Bayley (ed) Science in Archaeology, English Heritage: London, 127–144

Unpublished Bostock, J 1980 The history of the vegetation of the Berwyn Mountains, North Wales, with emphasis on the development of the blanket mire PhD thesis: University of Manchester

Walker, MJC 1993 ‘Holocene (Flandrian) vegetation change and human activity in the Carneddau area of upland mid-Wales’, in FM Chambers (ed) Climatic

78

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

14 Moving the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Wales into the future Elizabeth A Walker Department of Archaeology & Numismatics, National Museums & Galleries of Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NP. [email protected] www.nmgw.ac.uk

Abstract A review of research covering the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods in Wales is presented. It commences by summarising the existing research database and outlines the aims and preliminary results of relevant current projects. Relevant research agenda are examined and used as a basis for developing future agenda for Wales. These emphasise the need for multi-disciplinary projects with a broad geographical perspective. A number of key research issues arise, including the need for a study of hunter-gatherer group territories and relationships between sites. Raw material studies, usewear and residue analysis of lithic artefacts could be applied to help explain mobility patterns and the organisation of technology. The current gaps in human presence require examination and there is a need to move the focus away from cave sites towards open-air sites. New sites with good palaeo-environmental evidence need to be identified and more reliable radiocarbon determinations obtained, particularly for the Mesolithic period. Introduction The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods in Wales cover some quarter of a million years of human history. With such a broad time-span to cover, research agenda will have a unique set of issues to address when compared with any later period. Not only have the cultural changes associated with the different periods of archaeology taken place, but also the climate and the landscape have changed and even humans themselves have evolved.

Fig. 14.1 Excavations at Pontnewydd Cave, Denbighshire. Copyright, National Museum of Wales.

The current state of knowledge Before research agenda can be formulated it is necessary to review some of the research projects that have either been completed or started within the last fifteen years. As well as pointing out the gaps in recent work this will highlight the more fully studied aspects and together these will provide the foundation for our understanding of the present state of the subject.

Suggested research agenda outlined below are intended to be the starting point for the formulation of a National Research Agenda for Wales from the arrival of the first humans to the start of the Neolithic period. This agenda is a personal view based upon the author’s own experience and knowledge of these periods as a Museum Archaeologist.

One of the most significant pieces of work is the National Museums & Galleries of Wales’ Palaeolithic Settlement of 79

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Fig. 14.2 Perforated Final Upper Palaeolithic teeth from Kendrick’s Cave, Llandudno. Copyright, National Museum of Wales.

Wales research project, initiated in 1978 by Stephen Aldhouse-Green. His work at Pontnewydd Cave in Denbighshire has recognised the remains of early hominids with Neanderthal-like characteristics, and revealed 1600 stone tools, an associated faunal assemblage as well as a separate Last Glacial fauna (Fig14.1; Green 1984; Green and Walker 1991, 40–43). This work is of international significance, Pontnewydd Cave being one of only three sites in Britain at which archaic human remains have been found. Occupation of Pontnewydd Cave dates to Oxygen Isotope Stage 7, around 230,000 years ago. The work is currently being drawn together towards final publication. Another site studied in this project is Coygan Cave, Carmarthenshire, now destroyed by quarrying activities. The late Charles McBurney and John Clegg’s work here in 1963–1964 has now been fully published following a recent re-evaluation of the records and collections (Fig 14.2; Aldhouse-Green et al 1995). The site is dated to Oxygen Isotope Stage 3, (40,000–60,000 BP) and has a faunal assemblage dominated by animal species tolerant of cold conditions. It is the only known site in Wales with bout coupé handaxes, a form typically made by true Neanderthals. Paviland Cave, Gower has also been afforded a long overdue reevaluation entailing small-scale excavation of the few surviving deposits within the cave and a detailed study of the faunal collections and artefacts. An impressive dating programme and synthesis of twenty-eight collectors’ work spanning more than 200 years has recently been published (Aldhouse-Green 2000). The research project has also entailed excavations at Hoyles Mouth Cave and Little Hoyle Cave, Pembrokeshire and at Cefn Caves and Cae Gronw in Denbighshire (Green 1986). Overall, this project has pushed the known date limits of the human presence in Wales much further back in time than had been anticipated

and it has also provided a considerable amount of information about the Upper Palaeolithic occupation of Wales. During 1996 John Wymer undertook a study that entailed examining the records for all known open-air localities from which Lower Palaeolithic implements have been found in Wales. The published report – The Welsh Palaeolithic Survey – was commissioned by Cadw and was the final stage of The English Rivers Palaeolithic Survey and thus extended coverage of this project to the whole of Britain. The results of this work, initially published in a regional document (Wessex Archaeology 1996) were later drawn into a two-volume publication that provides an interpretation of the Lower Palaeolithic archaeology of Britain (Wymer 1999). Cadw had previously funded the Welsh element of a survey of cave sites carried out across England and Wales (Barton and Collcutt 1986). These two studies together summarise the current state of knowledge about most sites of Palaeolithic age across the whole of Britain. A new five-year project The Ancient Human Occupation of Britain looking at the timing and nature of human occupation in the British Isles during the Quaternary commenced in October 2001. This is being directed by Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum and is funded by a Leverhulme grant. It involves an impressive list of specialists to examine all aspects of the human presence in Britain, along with the associated environmental and geological data. The resulting publication will draw together all the relevant recent research and will interpret this within the global framework now offered by the marine oxygen isotope palaeoclimatic sequence (Taylor and Aitken 1997, 8–12; 80

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Barton 1997, 26–29). This is an excellent example of a large-scale multi-disciplinary study that should help us to understand the presence and the absences of humans during different stages of the British Pleistocene. These wide-ranging projects are being augmented by some smaller-scale work that are designed to address sitespecific research questions or which may occasionally arise as a result of threat-related development work. For example, the discovery of Palaeolithic implements at Sudbrook in an evaluation undertaken by Cadw in advance of the construction of the Second Severn Crossing increases our knowledge of open-air sites in Wales (Green 1989). Single-site projects include, for example, the evaluation of Priory Farm Cave in Pembrokeshire being undertaken by Nick Barton and Cath Price (Barton and Price 1999) which is designed to address specific issues about the nature of the final Palaeolithic occupation and environment. A programme of re-dating and re-evaluation of the existing collections from Kendrick’s Cave, Llandudno by Jill Cook and Roger Jacobi of the British Museum aims to provide new dating evidence for the worked bone assemblage which will aid our understanding of the Welsh final Palaeolithic (Fig 14.3). On the whole, the current state of Palaeolithic research is healthy, but, as it should, all this work is throwing up new research questions which need to be addressed by an agenda.

Fig. 14.3 Mesolithic human footprints at Uskmouth, Newport. Copyright, National Museum of Wales.

Fig. 14.4 Excavations in progress at Burry Holms, Gower, Swansea. Copyright, National Museum of Wales.

Turning to the current state of research into the Mesolithic period in Wales the picture is not as rosy, for there have been few major advances made in Britain in the understanding of this period during the past fifteen years. That said, some work has been undertaken in Wales, particularly in the Severn Estuary where sites under threat from erosion in the peat and estuarine clays of the Severn Levels have been discovered and excavated. Martin Bell has undertaken work at Goldcliff, Monmouthshire, a site that has provided Wales with its best evidence to date for a later Mesolithic human activity and an associated fauna and environmental record (Bell et al 2000). Discoveries of later Mesolithic human footprints near Uskmouth and Magor (Aldhouse-Green et al 1992; Aldhouse-Green and Housley 1993) as well as at Redwick (Bell pers comm) provide the first visible evidence for the physical presence of Mesolithic people in Wales (Fig 14.4). During the late 1980s Andrew David undertook research into the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic settlement of Pembrokeshire (David 1990). This work, undertaken in conjunction with the Dyfed Archaeological Trust, entailed new excavation at The Nab Head, St. Brides and Daylight Rock on Caldey Island (David 1990; David and Walker in press). From this, some new, reliable radiocarbon determinations were obtained, but the detailed site reports still remain to be published. The National Museums & Galleries of Wales has commenced a new research project under the direction of the author, which is intended to build upon Andrew David’s work to improve the number of dated early Mesolithic sites in Wales. The focus of this project is currently Burry Holms, Gower where recent excavations have identified an early Mesolithic site. Evidence from the site may only provide for limited environmental reconstruction, but there is considerable potential for new dating (Figs 14.5, 14.6; Walker 1999; 2000). One of the project’s aims is to study the different lithic technologies dating to the early Mesolithic period and to seek to place these in a chronological framework that may enable comparisons to be drawn with 81

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

1990). Work is also continuing on the Severn Levels with a project recently commenced by Nigel Nayling. This is being funded by the Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) and aims to study the later Mesolithic – early Neolithic transition (Bell 2001). Finally, Rick Schulting’s work on the dietary evidence and dating of human remains from Welsh caves also deals with this transition (Schulting and Richards 2000).

The Future General Issues Building on these foundations, our understanding of the Welsh Palaeolithic and Mesolithic can be moved forwards. However, before such a research agenda can be drawn up, it is necessary to investigate what research frameworks might already be in existence that could influence the direction of future work. Two relevant documents encompassing all Britain and Ireland have been identified. The first – Research Frameworks for the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Britain and Ireland – was published in 1999 by a working group of the country’s Palaeolithic and Mesolithic specialists in conjunction with the Council of the Prehistoric Society. The second document is being prepared by the Lithic Studies Society to provide a research framework for Holocene lithics, thus covering the Mesolithic and all later periods of Prehistory (Lithic Studies Society in preparation). Several points from both documents considered to be of relevance to Wales are incorporated in this proposed research agenda.

Fig. 14.5 Looking out at the open landscape beyond Hoyles Mouth Cave, Tenby, Pembrokeshire. Copyright, National Museum of Wales.

assemblages from England. Other recent work has been undertaken by Nick Barton and Peter Berridge in the Brecknockshire uplands which has identified a number of small, opportunistic knapping sites around an old lake margin at Waun Fignen Felen (Barton et al 1995). This work links the palaeo-environmental reconstruction of the area by Smith and Cloutman (1988) with the archaeological record. An important group of Later Mesolithic material from Prestatyn, Denbighshire has been dated (Fig14.7; David

General points that are relevant to the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods must be taken into consideration. Firstly, it is important that the Welsh evidence is viewed within as broad a geographic perspective as possible. The evidence for the various stages of these periods is often sparse even within Britain as a whole, so it is essential to review evidence from similarly dated sites over a wide geographical area. Secondly, human response to and interaction with the environment marks out the huntergatherers of these periods in a very different way from those in later periods when farming takes a hold. It is essential, therefore, that the environmental evidence should be scrutinised just as closely as the cultural and physical remains of the humans. Those curatorial archaeologists dealing with development control and smaller-scale environmental evaluations should be aware that any deposits potentially containing Palaeolithic and Mesolithic evidence deserve investigation. Deposits sometimes considered ‘natural’ by those studying later periods could mark the upper horizons of a Palaeolithic or Mesolithic deposit. It is therefore essential that the potential of such contexts are always taken into consideration in case they contain evidence of earlier periods. Fig. 14.6 John Lord, flintknapper giving a demonstration to a school group. Copyright, National Museum of Wales.

A number of resources are available for consultation by 82

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Fig. 14.7 Palaeolithic handaxes from Coygan Cave, Carmarthenshire. Copyright, National Museum of Wales.

Mesolithic and later Prehistoric collections (Burrow forthcoming). Paddy Figgis’ catalogue of the Prehistoric collections held in the county and local museums of Wales already provides a very useful resource (Figgis 1999). Thus, there is an important and growing body of data already available from which new research can be developed.

researchers. Some of these have been in existence for some time, but with the opportunities afforded by new technology many are being re-cast into new, more easily accessible formats. Other resources are being created, such as the new Portable Antiquities Scheme database, which encourages the reporting of archaeological finds. Information about these finds and their findspots is accessible to professional archaeologists via SMRs and to the public via a website (www.finds.org.uk). Additionally, one of the aims of the current Cadw project assessing the Early Prehistoric Non-Defensive Settlement Evidence (otherwise known as the Lithic Scatters Project) is to produce regional databases of lithic finds. The anticipated regional reports will be used to inform future research projects, and they will also help promote better understanding of the usefulness, or otherwise, of lithic scatters in interpreting local archaeology. These new projects will build upon existing SMRs, the Extended National Database for Wales (ENDEX) co-ordinated by RCAHMW and the new CARN project which through the RCAHMW website provides access to certain fields in the ENDEX database (www.rcahmw.org.uk/data/carn.htm; see David Thomas, this volume). The contents of museum collections are often forgotten as a resource, yet many would merit new study. The National Museums & Galleries of Wales are about to publish a catalogue of the

Whilst the importance of the existing resource must not be overlooked, it is equally crucial that new sites should be sought where complete assemblages from securely stratified and dated contexts can be excavated and on which new dating and other scientific techniques can be deployed. It is also important that new fieldwalking projects be developed. The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Gwynedd Lithic Scatters Project report have both highlighted the potential for organised fieldwalking in Wales. Driver and Charnock (2001) have commenced fieldwalking in Ceredigion, an area in which previously little co-ordinated work has been undertaken. Such structured programmes of fieldwalking, led by an experienced person, have the potential to engage the interest of private individuals and local societies. Such work can make a significant contribution to the available data – especially in areas where traditionally fieldwalking has not taken place. 83

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Hunter-gatherers are understood to have led highly mobile lives, yet more evidence is required to understand further this mobility; where possible group territories need to be identified and any potential patterning recognised. It is possible, through detailed study of site assemblages, particularly the lithic evidence, to define such territories. It must of course be borne in mind that different factors may have influenced settlement type or locality at different times, so studies should look at site, topographic and geological records to see whether the existing data can suggest evidence for territory size. It should also be taken into consideration that there were differing amounts of land available for settlement at different times and, indeed, we will never know how many key sites are buried beneath the sea because of sea-level change. The differing size of the land may also have played a role in influencing settlement location at different times and is another factor that must be considered, especially when looking at today’s coastal sites, some of which may have originally been inland at the time of their use.

for an earlier human presence in the country is likely to have been scoured or washed away. Yet it remains a possibility that more sites like Pontnewydd Cave may exist. Wales plays an important role on the fringe of the known Palaeolithic World, but did this unique position give it a different role in the minds of the early humans and lead them to adopt different behavioural strategies? What effects did the extremities of climate and environment have on the people?

The study of raw materials is very important for early prehistory since it may help in the recognition of social territories and also throw light on the organisation of lithic technology. Recognising and understanding the reduction sequence from a nodule of stone into a finished tool can be of considerable importance, for such studies may identify different, yet related sites. During the manufacturing process, the roughing out of blanks for tools might take place at one site, while the tools were finished at another. Study of raw materials and their use may also indicate contact between groups and how they might have interacted. It is also useful to the understanding of past society to understand how different raw materials were selected, worked, used and discarded. In Wales, where there are no primary flint sources, secondary sources need to be identified, particularly what raw materials were available from the glacial drift deposits, from river deposits or as beach pebbles and what, if any, use was made of these different resources (see Briggs this volume).

Traditionally caves have been the main focus for research, but it should now be asked just how important such sites actually were to early humans at different times during the Palaeolithic? More work is required to identify the extent and role of open-air settlements at this time and how the occupation differed from that of the cave sites. It is particularly interesting why so few open-sir sites are known to exist that date to the end of the Last Glacial – a time after the last period of ice cover. Questions about how open-air and cave sites might be inter-related – if indeed they were – need to be asked (Fig 14.8).

John Wymer’s Welsh Palaeolithic Survey provides a starting point for locating new sites, for he observes that the river valleys, particularly the Severn and Usk systems could contain new evidence for open-air settlements (Wessex Archaeology 1996). It is possible that there are also buried caves awaiting discovery. Predictive modelling is currently being developed at Southampton University to identify areas of potential for the survival of Palaeolithic sites in Hampshire (Hosfield 1999); such modelling should also be undertaken in Wales.

It must be remembered that there are times when humans are believed not to have been present in Britain. Why these absences, particularly during Oxygen Isotope Stages 6 to 4, occurred remains a mystery and this is an area that is being addressed in The Ancient Human Occupation of Britain research project. There are sites in Wales that date to this gap in human presence, particularly for Oxygen Isotope Stage 5e, such as Bacon Hole and at Minchin Hole on Gower. These caves may hold clues in their faunal and environmental records which could help us understand the absence of humans at this time. Strategies should be developed to examine such gaps in the human presence and to achieve this it will be necessary for archaeological bodies to collaborate with organisations such as CCW, who have responsibility for sites of special scientific interest of geological rather than of archaeological importance.

Recent advances have been made in the recognition of use-wear patterns on the edges of stone tools and this technique should be used more widely as a means to identify tool function. The techniques of use-wear analysis also need to be applied across a broader spectrum of raw materials to help aid the understanding of whole patterns of activity. Likewise tools should routinely be scanned for traces of any residues, for example, one microlith from recent work at Burry Holms remarkably has traces of a wood tar adhering to it.

As is the case for all periods of archaeology, there are still many unpublished excavations which would undoubtedly merit further study and full publication. The two of particular note for the Palaeolithic are Cathole Cave, Gower, excavated by the late Charles McBurney in 19581959 (McBurney 1959) and the various sites on Caldey Island, particularly Nanna’s Cave dug by WF Grimes and

The Palaeolithic During this period Wales experienced the effects of ice, with the ice cap covering all but the southernmost parts of the country at the Last Glacial maximum. As a consequence much of the evidence that may have existed 84

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

1

2

6

3

7

4

8

11

5

9

10

12 13

14

15

16

Fig. 14.8 Early Mesolithic Artefacts from Burry Holms, Gower, Swansea. Copyright, National Museum of Wales.

85

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

1

12

23

2

3

13

14

24

4

5

15

25

16

26

6

7

17

27

8

18

19

34

35

20

10

21

11

22

28 29

33

9

30

31

32

36

37

38

39 42

43 41

Fig. 14.9 Later Mesolithic Artefacts from Prestatyn, Denbighshire. Copyright, National Museum of Wales

86

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

more recently by Brother James van Nédervelde (Lacaille and Grimes 1955). Both these sites contain evidence for an Upper Palaeolithic as well as an early Mesolithic human presence with stone tool assemblages and possibly an associated fauna. Work may, therefore, help to elucidate the technological and the environmental changes that occurred during the Pleistocene – Holocene transition.

site in Britain (Denison 2001). This occurs at Prestatyn where Andrew David obtained dates of 8,700BP on hazelnut shells which, and with the exception of the new date from Scotland, are the earliest dates for the narrowblade technology in Britain (David 1990). Further research into the reasons for this change from a broad-blade to a narrow-blade technology is required in general. But the apparent early transition in Scotland and in North Wales also remains to be explained.

A project funded by English Heritage which draws together evidence for the patterns of colonisation and depopulation during the later Upper Palaeolithic period and into the Mesolithic is to be undertaken in England. The project will commence with a pilot study, which will examine and record the country’s lithic collections, their associated environmental evidence and take a critical look at the dating chronology (Jacobi pers comm). Once the results of this pilot study have been evaluated consideration should be given to extending this project to cover Wales, for it would provide an accurate, up-to-date and accessible database of Wales’ Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic resource for research.

The Mesolithic period in Wales also has a number of key unpublished excavations. The most important of these are The Nab Head, Pembrokeshire; Daylight Rock on Caldey Island and the work on the Denbighshire uplands at Llyn Aled Isaf. All should be prepared for publication as a matter of urgency. It is necessary to understand more fully the impact later Mesolithic people had on the environment and to determine whether it was climatic change that caused alterations in human behaviour patterns during the early to later Mesolithic transition. Likewise, the causes and timing of a move towards agriculture require further investigation.

The Mesolithic Period The Mesolithic period suffers especially through a current lack of environmental data, for at most sites only lithic artefacts are preserved. It is essential, therefore to identify areas where there might be potential for good environmental preservation, and to develop research projects from this work. Faunal remains will help in our understanding of the local environmental conditions, the seasonality of a site and provide dietary evidence. It is to be hoped that the new project being undertaken by Nigel Nayling in the Severn Estuary will identify some new sites with such potential, for it is in the intertidal zone that efforts should be concentrated.

Education It is essential for any research agenda to address some general issues relating to the need to educate and to disseminate the results of the research work that is being undertaken to a wide audience. This is required to ensure that future archaeologists develop an interest in these earlier periods of prehistory and in the artefacts being recovered. We must ensure early prehistory features in the national curriculum and to continue to stress the need to educate younger people in this discipline (Fig 14.9). It is essential to ensure that the results of work reach as wide an audience as possible through swift publication at all levels and in various forms. Formal education programmes such as those many archaeologists are already engaged in should be run in conjunction with informal education. This should entail the enhancement of the representation of early prehistory in museum displays – an area that is lacking throughout museums in Wales – as well as placing information panels at significant sites, such as caves, to aid visitor understanding of the importance of some key sites.

There are a number of inland sites and findspots of new discoveries of lithic artefacts, particularly in the upland areas of Glamorgan, which require further investigation. These undoubtedly enhance the record for the Mesolithic period, but the potential relationships between the inland sites and those lying nearer to the present day coastline have not yet been investigated to the degree that has happened in some areas of England. It is important that more work is undertaken in this area, for there is an assumed relationship between such sites and group territories and these need to be further recognised and identified.

Conclusion Draft agenda outlined above are designed to be the first stage in a discussion towards full research agenda to cover the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods in Wales. It is important that future agenda be designed from as broad a perspective as possible – ideally working down from the existing document Research Frameworks for the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Britain and Ireland to a national document for Wales. From this regional agenda can be drawn up to cover aspects of specific relevance.

It is also essential that a better chronology is developed for the Welsh Mesolithic period. At present there are very few reliable radiocarbon determinations and as such there is a poor chronological framework into which to fit the lithic evidence (David and Walker in press). The author has commenced such a project for the early Mesolithic, but the same needs to be done for the later Mesolithic. With the exception of a recently published date in Scotland, Wales has the earliest date for a narrow-blade, later Mesolithic 87

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bibliography Aldhouse-Green, SHR 2000 Paviland Cave and the ‘Red Lady’: a definitive report, Western Academic Specialist Press: Bristol

discoveries from the Severn Estuary Levels’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 36, 187–199 Green, HS 1986 ‘The Palaeolithic Settlement of Wales Research Project: a review of progress 1978–1985’, in SN Collcutt (ed), The Palaeolithic of Britain and its Nearest Neighbours, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield: Sheffield

Aldhouse-Green, SHR and Housley, RA 1993 ‘The Uskmouth Antler Mattock: A Radiocarbon Date’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 142, 340

Green, HS and Walker, EA 1991 Ice Age Hunters: Neanderthals and early Modern Hunters in Wales, National Museum of Wales: Cardiff

Aldhouse-Green, SHR, Scott, K, Schwarcz, H, Grün, R, Housley, RA, Rae, A, Bevins, RE and Redknap, M 1995. ‘Coygan Cave, Laugharne, South Wales, a Mousterian site and hyaena den: a report on the University of Cambridge excavations’, Proc Prehist Soc 61, 37–79.

Hosfield, R 1999 The Palaeolithic of the Hampshire Basin: a regional model of hominid behaviour during the Middle Pleistocene, BAR British Series 286: Oxford

Aldhouse-Green, SHR, Whittle, AWR, Allen, JRL, Caseldine, AE, Culver, SJ, Day, MH, Lundquist, J and Upton, D 1992 ‘Prehistoric Human Footprints from the Severn Estuary at Uskmouth and Magor Pill, Gwent, Wales’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 141, 14–55

Lacaille, AD and Grimes, WF 1955 ‘The Prehistory of Caldey’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 104, 85–165 McBurney, CBM 1959 ‘Report on the First Season’s Fieldwork on British Upper Palaeolithic Cave Deposits’, Proc Prehist Soc 25, 260–269

Barton, RNE 1997 Stone Age Britain, BT Batsford and English Heritage: London

Schulting, RJ and Richards, MP 2000 ‘The Use of Stable Isotopes in Studies of Subsistence and Seasonality in the British Mesolithic’, in R Young (ed), Mesolithic Lifeways: Current Research from Britain and Ireland, Leicester Archaeology Monographs 7, University of Leicester: Leicester, 55–65

Barton, RNE, Berridge, PJ, Walker, MJC and Bevins, RE 1995 ‘Persistent Places in the Mesolithic Landscape: an example from the Black Mountain uplands of South Wales’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 81–116 Barton, RNE and Collcutt, SN 1986 A Survey of Palaeolithic Cave Sites in England and Wales, Consultative Report for English Heritage and Cadw, English Heritage: London

Smith, AG and Cloutman, EW 1988 ‘Reconstruction of Holocene Vegetational History at Waun-Fignen-Felen, an upland site in South Wales’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B322, 1209, 159–219

Barton, RNE and Price, C 1999 ‘The Westernmost Upper Palaeolithic Cave Site in Britain and Probable Evidence of a Bronze-Age Shell Midden: Investigations at Priory Farm Cave, Pembrokeshire’, Archaeology in Wales 39, 3–9

Taylor, RE and Aitken, MJ (eds) 1997 Chronometric Dating in Archaeology, Plenum Press: New York Walker, EA 1999 ‘Burry Holms, Gower’, Archaeology in Wales 39, 92–93

Bell, MG 2001 ‘A New Research Project in the Severn Estuary’, Severn Estuary Levels Research Committee Newsletter 3, 5

Walker, EA 2000 ‘Burry Holms, Gower’, Archaeology in Wales 40, 88–89

Bell, MG, Caseldine, AE and Neumann, H 2000 Prehistoric Intertidal Archaeology in the Welsh Severn Estuary, CBA Research Report no 120: York

Wessex Archaeology 1996 The Welsh Lower Palaeolithic Survey: a supplement to the English Rivers Palaeolithic Survey, Wessex Archaeology Limited: Salisbury

Denison, S 2001 ‘Earliest Evidence found of Settlers in Scotland’, British Archaeology 60, 4

Wymer, JJ 1999 The Lower Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain, The Trust for Wessex Archaeology and English Heritage: Salisbury

Driver, TG and Charnock, RB 2001 ‘Prehistoric flint finds from Plas Gogerddan, near Aberystwyth, Ceredigion’, Studia Celtica 35, 341–350

Unpublished Burrow, S forthcoming Catalogue of the Late Stone Age Collections in the National Museums & Galleries of Wales, National Museums & Galleries of Wales: Cardiff

Figgis, NP 1999 Welsh Prehistory: catalogue of accessions in the county and local museums of Wales and other collections, Atelier: Forge, Montgomeryshire Green, HS 1984 Pontnewydd Cave: a Lower Palaeolithic hominid site in Wales, National Museum of Wales: Cardiff

David, AEU 1990 Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Settlement in Wales with Special Reference to Dyfed, PhD Thesis: University of Lancaster

Green, HS 1989 ‘Some recent archaeological and faunal

David, AEU and Walker, EA In Press ‘Wales During the

88

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Mesolithic’, in A Saville (ed), The Mesolithic of Scotland in its European Context, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph: Edinburgh Lithic Studies Society in prep Research Frameworks for Holocene Lithics in Britain

Websites www.finds.org.uk www.rcahmw.org.uk

89

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

15 Finding those who died: priorities for the Neolithic and Bronze Age Frances Lynch Halfway House, Pont y Pandy, Bangor LL57 3D6 [email protected]

Abstract The defining characteristic of the first farming communities must be settlement, yet in Britain (as distinct from mainland Europe and, significantly Ireland) this has been difficult to find (leading to some rather lame excuses). The picture improves in the Bronze Age in many parts of Britain, but not so far in Wales. Neolithic tombs we have – and we think ourselves well endowed with them, but in fact they are not that plentiful (in comparison with Scotland or Portugal). In the Bronze Age, however, our monument record is better than most. What can we do to fill the gaps, to restore the balance to our view of this period of the past?

of British archaeology, Wessex. If you read Piggott’s Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles (1954 but still worth reading) this is the great gap and, after almost fifty years it is still a gap as far as southern Britain is concerned. In the 1950s there was not much to show in Ireland either – only Lough Gur, and House A didn’t really match up to Sittard (Fig 15.1; Piggott 1965; cf O’Riordain 1954). But now there are innumerable rectangular wooden houses in Ireland; every road scheme will produce at least one (Belfast Prehistoric Society Conference Spring 2001). Apart from Lough Gur I do not think any have been recognisable field monuments: they have all appeared accidentally during transect stripping.

Do we have a defeatist attitude to waste flint? Are we obsessed with stone? Can we learn where to look by identifying preferences from the past? Are we content to record rather than analyse landscapes? Are our research programmes too short term? Should we allow more time for the results to build? Are we starved of the life blood of new data from excavation?

But we, too, have had road schemes and we have not recognised houses. The twenty five miles of the A55 across Anglesey has been watched by archaeologists every bit as skilled as the Irish ones (I hope) and yet there was no Neolithic settlement. We cannot say this was because in Anglesey people were living in tree houses, or under a banana leaf, because at Llandegai near Bangor there is a perfectly good tripartite wooden house, like those in Ireland and in Europe (Fig 15.2: Lynch 1989)). And in fact Wales is not as badly off for houses as more densely occupied areas of southern Britain – Llandegai, Clegyr Boia, Gwernvale and perhaps Moel y Gaer, produced good wooden structures (Fig 15.3; Lynch et al 2000,50). But in the light of the Irish evidence we should have more.

When I was first learning archaeology the great distinction between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic – all over the world – was settlement. If people were going to grow crops they had to be on the spot to tend them – for most of the time – and they were going to have to care for the animals they had removed from their natural environments. If they were successful their numbers would rise but with densely grown cereals this was not a problem because small areas of land could support quite large populations. And from this close juxtaposition of people would grow a different attitude to neighbours and work patterns.

And the south of England definitely should have them if it wants to claim metropolitan status. The idea that everyone was so mobile and transitory that no one set a post in the ground does not seem convincing to me. If people are making trackways between dry islands in the Somerset Levels they have a commitment to that land, that spot (Coles and Coles 1986). The old idea of chalk erosion may be worth looking at again, but that should apply in northern France as well. Why are there no two posts you

This view stemmed from work on Middle Eastern tells, in southeast Europe and through to the Rhine, with villages and substantial wooden houses in Germany and Holland, subsequently found spilling over into eastern France. The embarrassment was that there were not any in the heartland 91

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Fig 15.1 Sittard Linear Pottery Settlement from S Piggott Ancient Europe 1965 (Fig 21). By permission of Edinburgh University Press

could rub together at Broome Heath (Wainwright 1972)? In Wales we do not have the pits that occur at places like Broome Heath and Hurst Fen; we have only the vaguest spreads of what is assumed to be domestic debris, for example beneath the cairn at Trefignath (Smith and Lynch 1987, 10–14), to provide us with dots on a ‘settlement map’. In a region without good sources of flint and not much arable agriculture fieldwalking has never been a popular hobby. Lampeter’s Bryn Celli Wen Project found thousands of struck pieces of pebble flint and chert, but were they humanly struck? I was not convinced, but perhaps in Wales we have always been a bit too defeatist about waste flint and stone scatters. The current Cadw/Trusts project will be interesting to watch and is an

Fig 15.2 Reconstruction of Llandegai House (FM Lynch Prehistoric Wales Fig 2.1)

92

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Fig 15.3 Welsh (and Irish) Neolithic house sites (FM Lynch, Prehistoric Wales)

93

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

dendrochronology (for the most part) but persistence in research programming is perhaps within our own control. Peter Crew could not have achieved his understanding of early iron in three years; that programme began in 1979 and is still continuing. The Severn Levels, on a broader front, is still going strong and the results get better as more of the pattern is filled in. Do we, or our paymasters, give up too quickly in the face of seemingly intractable problems?

example of how we should try to make the most of what we already have before we throw up our hands in despair. In the Late Neolithic there are more dots on the map, but not very many more (Darvill and Thomas 1996). This is a period of considerable dislocation. There is virtually no continuity of occupation area and the scale and shape of buildings (assuming that the undiscovered earlier ones should have been large and rectangular) have changed.

Coming through the ‘conjuror’s box’of the Late Neolithic one emerges in a Bronze Age which, in many parts of upland and even lowland Britain, is well endowed with comprehensible settlement. The Welsh Uplands contain broadly similar evidence and the quantity has been gratifyingly increased by the Uplands Initiative, but we still have not got much further than calling it ‘prehistoric’ (Leighton 1997). As that initiative comes to an end in the field the analysis must continue.

Undoubtedly one of our difficulties in understanding change is that we do not have a sufficiently precise chronology, nor much idea of the totality of the original distribution. Thus we cannot hope to match the historical understanding that can flow from areas with optimal organic survival, dendrochronology and a sufficiently extreme topography to restrict the total settlement area and facilitate total survey. The work at Clairvaux demonstrates the subtlety of history that can be written in such places – real history, not just archaeological theory. The Walton Basin has some of these attributes and the programme of survey and limited excavation there has proved exceptionally rewarding, but a more precise chronology would undoubtedly help us to a better understanding of the development of those astonishing monuments (Gibson 1999).

The admirable survey of Bodmin Moor in Cornwall has shown how much can be squeezed from detailed analysis, not just tracing the line of a wall from an air photo but examining the way in which it is actually put together on the ground (Fig 15.4; Johnson and Rose 1994). We have a great number of stone walls in Wales, from all periods, but we have not shown much interest in defining their varying characteristics. If they had supported roofs I am sure there would have been a stylistic typology of these walls developed by now. I do not think we should expect to find

The programme at Clairvaux has lasted for thirty years; we seldom think longer term than three. Chronology may be a key in more senses than one. Nature may have denied us

Fig 15.4 From Johnson and Rose, Bodmin Survey. By permission of English Heritage

94

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Dartmoor in Wales, but insights from Dartmoor have guided the interpretation of Bodmin – the shifts between arable, pasture, small fields and ranch boundaries over a thousand years – and Bodmin is the model we should use for Wales.

were so many people holding funerals and dancing round maypoles up in the hills. This was the problem with Welsh archaeology when I began work about forty years ago and I fear I have not done much to remedy it – a hearth and a few stakeholes under a cairn circle, left unpursued (Lynch 1986).

Upland fieldwork has concentrated, naturally enough, on stone remains and it is difficult to see how one can do otherwise. But we should always be aware that stone is not the only building material and that excavated sites have produced wooden buildings in the most unlikely locations. Moel y Gerddi (Fig 15.5), Crawcwellt and Bryn y Castell, all in the stone building country of Merioneth, have produced wooden houses, either plank or stake built (Lynch et al 162–72). Within hillforts such at Pen y Gaer, Llanbedr y Cennin there are clear platforms for wooden houses (RCAHMW 1956, 101). It has always worried me that we have never found unenclosed platforms of the Green Knowe type from the Scottish Borders (Feacham 1961). Upland Montgomeryshire has always looked a likely place for those, but I have never seen any and nor has anyone else. Perhaps we should ‘think wood’, especially for that elusive earlier Bronze Age when there

In both the Neolithic and Bronze Age tombs and ritual structures have dominated the scene. We have particularly fine monuments – Pentre Ifan is a wonderful piece of sculpture, in its present condition certainly, and obviously built to impress. And there have been significant excavations in Wales. The first really competent excavation of a megalithic tomb was at Tinkinswood (Ward 1915/1916), the beginning of Grimes’s brilliant career of cairn analysis at Ty Isaf (1939) and the convincing demonstration of multi-period building at Dyffryn Ardudwy (with the beginning of the slow recognition of Portal Dolmens as early) (Fig 15.6; Powell 1973). But we have rather few monuments compared to other megalithic areas. In Scotland they run to hundreds and in Portugal you can, on occasion, find five in one field. Perhaps we should pay more attention to the gaps – or perhaps we should go out and find more tombs.

Fig 15.5 Moel y Gerddi enclosure, Merioneth (RS Kelly, Proc Prehist Soc 1988. Published by courtesy of the Society)

95

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

opportunities and in Wales people exploited this in ways that were both dramatic and subtle. The greater number of Bronze Age monuments and their generally upland location make it easier to recognise patterns of location among them than among the Neolithic tombs in the valleys. I have always been gratified that Ordnance Survey fieldworkers found that what I said agreed with their observation, even if the Royal Commission never believed me! One final observation on the fraught subject of ring cairns and the like. That was work which was done, on and off, over a long period, from about 1966 to 1980 and it included the excavation of five monuments by myself and two by Anthony Ward, not counting those by Bill Griffiths and others (Lynch 1993). Without excavation the field survey would be interesting – you could shuffle the pack into various suits – but would not get very far in understanding the role and purpose of the monuments. Excavation has almost disappeared off the scene. We are still living off the fat of earlier work but this cannot last for ever. Archaeology cannot thrive without new data because it is only the multiplicity of examples which can give confidence to interpretation.

Fig 15.6 Dyffryn Ardudwy megalithic tomb (from FM Lynch, Prehistoric Wales)

The Cadw/Trusts Funerary and Ritual Sites Project is not planning to find more, but it is another example of trying to organise our existing knowledge to best advantage and for use as a springboard to new insights. Tomb typologies are now thought old hat as a subject for study, but I would still contend that you should know them. Landscape location is now the topic through which we try to unlock the mind of the builder. For such large structures built in such permanent form this must be a valid approach to attempt; but success in it may be a different matter if, that is, we can recognise success or failure in these matters. The small database must be a problem here, but the changes in vegetation context must be a more serious source of uncertainty. It points up the need to ensure that our understanding of climate and vegetation history is always fully developed alongside the study of human activities.

I have not said anything about artefact studies. We do not actually find very much here, which has had the advantage that analysis programmes have been able to envisage totality. We have been well served by analysis and our metallurgical studies, from mine to artefact, have vastly expanded over the last twenty years. There has been some debate recently about whether we are neglecting the topic of implement typology and becoming mushy in our thinking about palstaves (Fig 15.7; see CB Burgess in Antiquity 2001). What I would advise here is that people should draw their finds themselves, that way you really know them. The CBA has been stressing recently that heritage, conservation, archaeology are knowledge based subjects and it is not only the government and its planners that they are getting at.

Whereas our Neolithic tomb record is not really as fine as we like to believe, I would suggest that our Bronze Age monuments are amongst the best. Simple barrows are a bit dull and there is a limit to the number of variations that can be played with ditches, but stone rings give greater

Fig 15.7 Remains of the Gloddaeth Hoard (from FM Lynch, Prehistoric Wales)

96

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bibliography Coles, JM and Coles, B 1986 Sweet Track to Glastonbury, Thames and Hudson: London

Wainwright, GJ 1972 ‘The excavation of a Neolithic settlement on Broome Heath, Ditchingham, Norfolk’, Proc Prehist Soc 38, 1–97

Darvill, TC and Thomas, J 1996 Neolithic Houses in North west Europe and beyond, Oxbow Monograph 67: Oxford

Ward, J 1915/1916 ‘St Nicholas Chambered Tumulus, Glamorgan’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 69, 253–320; 70, 239–67

Feacham, RW 1961 ‘Unenclosed Platform Settlements’, Proc Soc Antiqs Scotland 94 (1960-61), 79–85 Gibson, AM 1999 The Walton Basin Project: Excavation and Survey in a Prehistoric Landscape 1973–7, CBA Research Report 118: York Grimes, WF 1939 ‘The excavation of Ty Isaf Long Cairn, Brecknockshire’, Proc Prehist Soc 5, 119–42 Johnson, N and Rose, P 1994 Bodmin Moor: an Archaeological Survey, vol 1, English Heritage/RCHME: London Leighton, DK 1997 Mynydd Du and Fforest Fawr: the Evolution of an Upland Landscape in South Wales, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth Lynch, FM 1986 ‘Excavation of a Kerb Circle and Ring Cairn on Cefn Caer Euni, Merioneth’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 135, 81–120 Lynch, FM 1989 ‘Presidential Address: Wales and Ireland in Prehistory, a fluctuating relationship’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 138, 1–19 Lynch, FM 1993 Excavations in the Brenig Valley: a Mesolithic and Bronze Age Landscape in North Wales, Cambrian Archaeol Association Mon 5: Cardiff Lynch, FM, Aldhouse-Green, SH and Davies, JL 2000 Prehistoric Wales, Sutton Publishing: Stroud O’Riordain, SP 1954 ‘Lough Gur Excavations: Neolithic and Bronze Age houses on Knockadoon’, Proc Roy Irish Acad 56 C, 297–459 Petrequin, P, Arbogast, R-M, Bourquin-Mignot, C, Lavier, C and Viellet, A 1998 ‘Demographic growth, environmental changes and technical adaptations: responses of an agricultural community from the 32nd to the 30th centuries BC’, World Archaeology 302, 181–92 Piggott, S 1954 Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles, CUP:Cambridge Powell, TGE 1973 ‘Excavation of the Megalithic Chambered Cairn at Dyffryn Ardudwy, Merioneth, Wales’, Archaeologia 104, 1–49 RCAHMW 1956 An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Caernarvonshire Vol 1: East, HMSO: London Smith, CA and Lynch, FM 1987 Trefignath and Din Dryfol: the Excavation of two Megalithic Tombs in Anglesey, Cambrian Archaeol Assocociation Mon 3: Cardiff

97

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

16 Inhabiting the landscapes of later prehistory Robert Johnston

John Griffith Roberts

Department of History and Welsh History University of Wales, Bangor, LL57 2DG [email protected]

Gwynedd Archaeological Trust Craig Beuno, Garth Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2RT [email protected]

Abstract Interpretation of settlement and landscape change during the second millennium BC has tended to lie at the margins of archaeological studies of later prehistory, both in Wales and in Britain as a whole. As part of research agenda for later prehistoric landscapes in Wales, it is argued that studies should be re-centred onto the middle of the Bronze Age, rather than upon its margins. This requires not simply investment in fieldwork but, probably most importantly, requires revised theoretical and methodological perspectives of settlement practices and landscape during the period. This paper briefly considers a few of these themes (constituting society and social change, occupation practices and the formation of a ‘settlement pattern’, and social and material landscapes), and relates them to a fieldwork project, currently being undertaken by the authors in Ardudwy, northwest Wales. In conclusion a few specific themes are proposed that could be usefully incorporated into research agenda.

a focus on ceremonial and ritual monuments to one dominated by defensive enclosures. In between, there is a ‘floating’ settlement record that has little in the way of chronological resolution, but which fits more closely with what we understand and expect first millennium landscapes to be.

Introduction On the upland pastures to the east of Dyffryn Ardudwy, on the coast of Meirionnydd, there are many upstanding prehistoric monuments. They range from Neolithic tombs and chambered cairns, through Bronze Age ring cairns and barrows, to Iron Age hillforts. Yet despite the certainty with which chronological and functional labels can be attributed to these prominent site types, there are still more numerous archaeological features for which we have little chronological understanding and whose function is often assumed rather than understood. These features consist of hut circles and platforms, field boundaries, lynchets, small cairns and so on. They are labelled ‘later prehistoric’ because by their morphology and topographic location they fit within our historical understanding of regional, national and Britain-wide landscape change, which links a more intensive exploitation of the uplands with the construction of hut circle settlements. In essence, from the third to the first millennium BC the landscapes shift from

This division between ceremonial and agricultural landscapes has tended to be dealt with in two ways: it either lies at the margins of the Neolithic and the Iron Age, or it is the pivot for major social changes that eventually led from the relatively expansive social networks of the third millennium BC to the more bounded communities of the first millennium BC. The former framework has become fashionable of late. In recent syntheses a split is made between the earlier and later Bronze Age with little attempt made to tackle the overlap (eg Hunter and Ralston 1999; ULAS 2001).

This is not, by any means, solely a national issue. In Britain, the Bronze Age (and specifically the second millennium BC) would seem to have a split personality: on the one hand, it is defined by large ceremonial enclosures, prominent burial mounds and enigmatic monuments such as stone circles and ring cairns; on the other, it is a landscape of settled farmsteads with their associated field systems. The division between these two ‘kinds’ – a term used recently in a discussion of this particular issue (Barrett 1999) – of landscape is chronologically distinguished on the basis of an earlier and a later, or an early and a middle Bronze Age.

Alternatively, the middle of the second millennium BC can be a focus of concern in its own right. The changes in agriculture, settlement and ceremony are seen as a socioeconomic threshold as important, if not more important, than that of the now blurred interface between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic (eg Richmond 1999). This latter option seems most relevant to regions of Britain 99

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

where there is a well dated and apparently quite rapid change in occupation practices starting from around 1700–1500 BC, such as in southern, southwestern and northern England. While, in other areas, including Wales, where processes of change were no doubt different, the evidence may be more difficult to interpret, and indeed few attempts have even been made to tackle these issues directly. The temptation is to marginalise the second millennium BC at the limits of our narratives and research agenda. A period which was neither quite one thing nor another. The call we wish to make in this paper, among other things, is that as a part of research agenda for later prehistoric landscapes, we should re-centre our perspective onto the middle of the Bronze Age, rather than its margins. This requires not simply an investment in fieldwork but revised theoretical and methodological perspectives of settlement practices and landscape during the period.

Inhabiting the landscape The evidence for second millennium BC settlement in Wales is patchy, and with only few exceptions (eg Smith and Ward 2001) restricted to the southern and eastern areas of the country (eg Benson et al 1990; Britnell et al 1997; Manley 1990). In many respects this is rather surprising considering the scale and extent of early Bronze Age monuments, the number of Iron Age hillforts and enclosures, and the palaeoenvironmental record, which indicates widespread episodes of woodland clearance (Lynch et al 2000). The problem, it has been argued, or more often intimated, is one of chronological precision. In terms of upstanding archaeological remains, there are many sites which could be of Bronze Age date, whether unenclosed hut groups or platform settlements (Griffiths 1950; Smith 1974). However, without excavation this hypothesis cannot be tested, eg at Cracwellt, Meirionydd, where the excavation of a possible Bronze Age settlement produced Iron Age dates (Crew 1998). For the moment, we wish to look outside the issues of morphology and chronology, and identify theoretical and methodological issues which affect how we define second millennium BC settlement. Although they are closely interconnected, we will deal with them under three headings: constituting society and social change; occupation practices and the formation of a ‘settlement pattern’; and social and material landscapes. Constituting society and social change A dominant view of the Bronze Age has been that it witnessed development of relatively permanent settlements, and that there was a move away from a focus on ritual monuments towards the domestic domain. This has led to rather cosy assumptions regarding the character of occupation practices. These have two consequences. In the first instance, archaeologists tend to have expectations

of what later prehistoric settlements should look like: round houses, usually identified as hut circles or platforms, often with some form of associated agricultural remains, such as banks of cleared stone and occasionally lynchets. Secondly, aspects of economic rationale are used to explain change. This includes the need to intensify production to meet the needs of a competitive exchange economy; the occupation of perceived marginal lands in response to population or resource pressure; and abandonment of uplands as a consequence of climatic downturn and/or environmental degradation due to overexploitation. This is partly explaining changes in terms familiar to ourselves, and it belies prejudices regarding the intentions and actions of Bronze Age people. There have been a number of tacks in critique of these frameworks, and they have as their basis the simple idea, expressed most clearly for the Iron Age (eg Hill 1995), that we cannot assume that people acted with similar rationales, or had the same world view as our own. Recent debates on marginality, for instance, have suggested that economic factors are only one aspect of what are often complex social processes (eg Young 2000). This perspective is supported by the evidence from second millennium BC sites where there is continued though periodic cultivation of soils that have already undergone significant podsolisation and even the onset of peat growth (eg Barber 1998). Similarly the contrasting of ritual and rationality has been broken down. Suggesting that the Bronze Age did not see a decline in ritual practice, but rather that within more fragmented and bounded communities there was no longer a role for communal sites such as henges and stone circles (eg Brück 1999). Instead, negotiating and understanding the world was undertaken in other ways and in other contexts. A feature of the latter was a continued interest in natural places. Whether it be watery contexts for the deposition of metalwork (Bradley 2000), or as has been suggested recently for Bodmin Moor, rock outcrops as shrines (Tilley et al 2000). We cannot assume that change can necessarily be understood in broadly functional terms (whether in response to economic, climatic or demographic factors).

Occupation practices and the formation of a ‘settlement pattern’ Familiarity is present in approaches to the form of settlements. The transition between the earlier and later Bronze Age, at about 1500 BC, is identified on the basis of the appearance of permanent, and in some areas enclosed, settlements (Barrett and Bradley 1980). Large scale surveys of upland areas and commercial excavations in regions of eastern and southern England have continued to sustain this apparently ubiquitous transition (eg Evans and Knight 2000; Johnson and Rose 1994). There are, however, strands of dissent, and of particular relevance to Wales, these come from regions with a predominantly 100

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

upland record. In the Peak District, for example, it has recently been argued that the hut circles with their associated cairnfields and ‘field systems’ were not permanently occupied (Kitchen 2000; cf Barnatt 1999). Human populations maintained varying degrees of mobility depending on circumstance, cultural affiliation, past and present land use practices, and perceived future intentions. As a corollary of this, a reassessment of second millennium BC hut circles in Scotland has emphasised the long term but intermittent use of such places (Halliday 1999). What, on surface evidence alone, seems like a single phase of occupation – a few huts surrounded by their fields – probably represents hundreds of years of occupation. Some of it seasonal, some semi-permanent, indeed at all points on the spectrum of mobility and practice. Adopting an open attitude to Bronze Age occupation practices changes entirely what we should expect to find during excavations of hut circles. This should not engender a negative attitude, since current techniques of excavation and analysis have greatly extended the knowledge that can be gained from stratigraphy. This is a challenge to refine and apply a broad range of techniques of survey, excavation and analysis rather than to focus on the potential redundancy of morphological schemes.

Social and material landscapes What might be seen as an obvious extension of this argument, but one that has emerged in a very different intellectual context, is the idea that ‘settlement’, or the process of living, involves habitation within the entire social and material landscape. Landscape is not a static backdrop against which actions take place, nor a record of events and action – it is the medium within which society and culture are/were created and reproduced during daily life (Barrett 2001). It is sometimes difficult to see beyond the theoretical implications of this approach (though see Edmonds and Seaborne 2001), but it does raise important matters of method and interpretation, and it prompts us to realign the focus of our work. For one thing, it provides a framework within which to account for the diversity of practices that make up Bronze Age occupations. These practices drew upon existing conditions, including ‘the archaeology of earlier inhabitations’ and indeed the social memory of such action. To understand changes towards a more settled lifestyle, we need also to engage with the character and extent of previous occupation practices. Also, and in the context of the suggestions that will be made in concluding this article, an important aspect is to situate ‘environmental evidence’ to the fore in accounts of change. It does not so much offer the context for social change nor is it a determinate of change. It is a way into the world that people inhabited. Their encounters with the natural world were as meaningful as their experiences of domestic architecture, material culture and social networks. This summary of theoretical and methodological issues

has bundled together different strands of complex arguments. It can therefore offer no more than pointers towards the sorts of approaches which we feel could contribute to a refining of our understanding of the second millennium BC, and as we will consider in the conclusion, it has broader ‘thematic’ resonances.

Ardudwy Early Landscapes Project Such approaches can best be explored through their practical implementation. To return to the area introduced in the opening example, a project, focused in the area of Mynydd Egryn, Ardudwy (OS SH 6120), has been set up by the authors through the University of Wales, Bangor and funded by the Board of Celtic Studies. As mentioned, Ardudwy is rich in prehistoric remains, but as with so much in upland Wales, there is little settlement evidence that can be confidently attributed to the second millennium (Kelly 1982). Rather than seeking to identify upstanding remains of later prehistoric date, and then attempt to situate them in their surrounding landscape, we take it that the nature of settlement and occupation during the second millennium was extensive and variable. Rather than ‘looking out’ from the settlement, we therefore aim to ‘look in’ from the landscape, so to speak. And consider ways in which we might identify the material and social conditions of inhabitation. The aims of the project are to: • Gain an understanding of later prehistoric human occupation of northwest Wales through a study of the agricultural and environmental context of settlement • Assess the potential of natural sediments located within the study area for a research-led environmental sampling strategy • Assess the potential of archaeological deposits of later prehistoric date to produce good quality stratigraphical, dating and palaeoenvironmental evidence • Evaluate the effectiveness of survey methods such as geophysics and test pitting to identify subsurface archaeological features in the study area To these ends, it is intended to harness the potential of a range of techniques and approaches. These include enhancement of air photographic mapping; large scale analytical ground survey and topographical mapping; environmental sampling and sediment studies; geophysical survey; transects of test pits; targeted excavations investigating the character and potential of deposits for dating and for soils/environmental analysis, and examining the character of features identified by geophysical survey. The elements of this project address issues discussed earlier in a number of ways. In the first instance, we wish to identify ‘settlement’ not in terms of the dating of specific sites, but by characterising and identifying the varied conditions that the landscape represented for 101

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

habitation. As a consequence, assessment of the potential of archaeological and environmental deposits for identification of such conditions forms an ongoing element in the fieldwork, rather than being decided during post-excavation analyses. Furthermore, there is the need to employ a range of methodologies for characterising extensive land use practices,and locating areas of later prehistoric activity that are not visible as upstanding remains. At an interpretative level, the project seeks to break down traditional distinctions between cultural and natural, by suggesting that the history of soils and fields, areas of grazing etc are fundamental to our understanding of later prehistoric settlement. An element within this approach is the need to study later prehistoric settlement practices in historical perspective, not only in terms of how practices changed through time, but also how previous land use structured aspects of later inhabitations.

Thoughts towards research agenda The Ardudwy Early Landscapes Project is still in its early stages. Nevertheless, we hope that some of the themes it has prompted us to engage with can be taken forward more generally. 1 The character of later prehistoric occupation practices is the character of landscape inhabitation (prompting us to think about scales and rhythms of mobility, based on reconstructing subsistence practices, identifying contemporaneity of settlement and prospecting for ‘offsite’ activity. We should consider the relationship between different zones of land use, and their role in forming geographic, symbolic and social identities). 2 The ways in which the physical environment affected and was affected by human occupation, as a two-way process, is a crucial issue to which archaeology can offer fundamental insights in partnership with environmental based concerns. 3 More specifically, there is a need to situate studies of the second millennium BC at the centre of explanations of change between the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age and the Iron Age rather than at the margins. The changes are regionally distinctive, and therefore research in Wales may have much to contribute to our still inadequate understanding of the picture in Britain as a whole.

Bibliography Barber, J (ed) 1997 The Archaeological Investigation of a Prehistoric Landscape: excavations on Arran 1978–1981, Scottish Trust for Archaeological Research: Edinburgh Barnatt, J 1999 ‘Taming the land: Peak District farming and ritual in the Bronze Age’, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 119, 19–78 Barrett, JC 1999 ‘The mythical landscapes of the British Iron Age’, in W Ashmore, and B Knapp (eds) Archaeologies of Landscape: contemporary perspectives, Blackwell: Oxford, 253–265 Barrett, JC 2001 ‘Agency, the duality of structure, and the problem of the archaeological record’, in I Hodder (ed) Archaeological Theory Today, Polity: Cambridge, 141–164 Barrett, JC and Bradley, RJ (eds) 1980 Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, BAR British Series 83: Oxford Benson, DG, Evans, JG, Williams, GH, Darvill, TC and David, A 1990 ‘Excavations at Stackpole Warren, Dyfed’, Proc Prehist Soc 56, 179–245 Bradley, RJ 2000 The Archaeology of Natural Places, Routledge: London Britnell, WJ Silvester, RJ, Gibson, AM, Caseldine, AE, Hunter, KL, Johnson, S, Hamilton-Dyer, S and Vince, A 1997 ‘A Middle Bronze Age round-house at Glanfeinion, near Llandinam, Powys’ Proc Prehist Soc 63, 179–198 Brück, J 1999 ‘Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in European archaeology’, European Journal of Archaeology 2, 313–344 Crew, P 1998 ‘Excavations at Crawcwellt West, Merioneth 1990–1998’, Archaeology in Wales 38, 22–35 Edmonds, M and Seaborne, T 2001 Prehistory in the Peak, Tempus: Stroud Evans, C and Knight, M 2000 ‘A Fenland Delta: later prehistoric land-use in the lower Ouse Reaches’, in M Dawson (ed) Prehistoric, Roman and Post-Roman Landscapes of the Great Ouse Valley, CBA: London, 89–106 Griffiths, WE 1950 ‘Early settlements in Caernarfonshire’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 101, 38–71 Halliday, S 1999 ‘Hut-circle settlements in the Scottish landscape’, in P Frodsham, P Topping, and D Cowley (eds) ‘We were always chasing time’: Papers presented to Keith Blood, Northern Archaeology 17/18 (Special Edition), Northumberland Archaeology Group: Newcastle upon Tyne, 49–65 Hill, JD 1995 Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: a study on the formation of a specific archaeological record, BAR British Series 242: Oxford

102

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Hunter, JR and Ralston, IBM (eds) 1999 The Archaeology of Britain: an introduction from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution, Routledge: London Johnson, N and Rose, P 1994 Bodmin Moor: an archaeological survey volume 1 – the human landscape to c1800, English Heritage: London Kelly, RS 1982 ‘The Ardudwy Survey: fieldwork in western Merioneth, 1971–81’, Journal of the Merioneth Historical and Record Society 9 (2), 121–162 Lynch, FM, Aldhouse-Green, S and Davies, JL 2000 Prehistoric Wales, Tempus: Stroud Manley, JG 1990 ‘A Late Bronze Age landscape on the Denbigh Moors, north-east Wales’, Antiquity 64 (244), 514–526 Richmond, A 1999 Preferred Economies: the nature of the subsistence base throughout mainland Britain during prehistory, BAR British Series 290: Oxford Smith, CA 1974 ‘A morphological analysis of late prehistoric and Romano-British settlements in north-west Wales’, Proc Prehist Soc 40, 157–169 Smith, G and Ward, M 2001 ‘The Llyn Crop Marks Project: Aerial survey and ground evaluation of Bronze Age, Iron Age and Romano-British settlement and funerary sites in the Llyn Peninsula of north west Wales: excavations by Richard Kelly and Michael Ward’, Studia Celtica 35, 1–87 Tilley, C, Hamilton, S, Harrison, S, and Anderson, E 2000 ‘Nature, culture, clitter: distinguishing between cultural and geomorphological landscapes; the case of the hilltop tors in south-west England’, Journal of Material Culture 5 (2), 197–224 Young, R 2000 ‘Continuity and change: marginality and later prehistoric settlement in the northern uplands’, in J Harding, and R Johnston (eds) Northern Pasts: interpretations of the later prehistory of northern England and southern Scotland, BAR British Series 302: Oxford, 71–80

Unpublished Kitchen, WH 2000 Later Neolithic and Bronze Age Land Use and Settlement in the Derbyshire Peak District: cairnfields in context, PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield Websites ULAS 2001 The East Midlands Archaeological Research Framework Project, University of Leicester Archaeological Services / English Heritage: http://www.le.ac.uk/archaeology/east_midlands_research _framework.htm

103

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

17 Understanding the Iron Age: towards agenda for Wales Adam Gwilt National Museums and Galleries of Wales, Department of Archaeology and Numismatics National Museum and Gallery, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NP [email protected]

Abstract Adopting the themes (1) chronologies, (2) settlements, landscape and people, (3) material culture, (4) regionality and (5) processes of change, this paper attempts to identify gaps in our understanding of the Welsh Iron Age. Some research priorities are suggested, addressing what we would like to know about these Iron Age societies. The study aims to encourage thinking and discussion about the Iron Age at the outset of developing inclusive and integrative research agenda for Wales. Introduction In giving this paper I wanted to support the view that archaeology in Wales strongly needed a strategic research framework (whilst only too aware of the perceived pitfalls of agenda writing exercises). Alongside many other speakers, I commented upon the benefits of such integrative writing exercises for planning archaeologists and field archaeologists alike, operating in a developerfunding environment. Elsewhere in Britain, research strategies have been encouraged, whilst the need for national frameworks to inform regional frameworks and vice versa has been endorsed (Olivier 1996; Barclay 1997; English Heritage 1998). As a museum archaeologist I wanted to highlight the importance of artefact studies in understanding our human past. In the clamour to discuss sites and landscapes, there seemed a danger that portable material culture might be relegated to the margins. As a researcher in Wales with particular interests in Bronze and Iron Age studies and some experience of agenda writing, I felt able to offer some preliminary thoughts on the first millennium BC. Until the recent publication for the British Iron Age, covering England, Scotland and Wales (Haselgrove et al 2001), this period had tended not to attract discrete agenda coverage. An early survey and policy document (CBA 1948), contained a chapter on the Early Iron Age. The

conference volumes ‘Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain’ (Frere 1961) and ‘The Iron Age in the Irish Sea Province’ (Thomas 1972) raised research questions of their time, yet were not written as cohesive agenda documents. Iron Age research priorities have since, often been included within wider reviews encompassing the whole of British Prehistory (eg Prehistoric Society 1988). In addition, research issues for the later Iron Age have, in England and Wales, increasingly tended to be discussed alongside the Romano-British period (eg Todd 1989; English Heritage 1998; James and Millett 2001). The plan to write a British Iron Age agenda for the twentyfirst century was endorsed in 1997 at an Iron Age Research Seminar in Cardiff. A draft document received initial comment at a later research seminar in Sheffield, and was made accessible for wider comment via the internet. The now completed document identifies key research priorities, as well as suggesting strategies for taking them forward, at regional and national levels. The five main themes adopted in this paper relate back to the content of this document. Here, I have exemplified and emphasised from a Wales perspective, although also with an eye on recent research trends (eg Hill 1995a; Champion and Collis 1996; Gwilt and Haselgrove 1997; James 1999; Bevan 1999).

Chronological issues No part of Wales has an Iron Age chronological framework that is understood in more than outline terms, whilst many parts have virtually no chronology at all. This is part of a wider pattern for most areas of Britain, exceptions being central-southern and southeastern England. Interpretations cannot progress, without improvements in the essential chronological ‘backbone’ for the first millennium BC. These cannot be made through extensive survey; they require careful intensive excavation and stratigraphic analysis, absolute dating programmes and material culture analysis. The formation of reliable chronological 105

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

frameworks will require a long term strategy and the adoption of best practice across Wales. A detailed region by region audit of the existing chronological framework, including artefact typologies (eg pottery, brooches, art styles) and structural sequences, in addition to radiometric dates, would initially help us to view, with clarity, the fragility of our current understanding. Fieldwork strategies could devote more careful thought and resource into the recovery of chronologically sensitive material. Multiple radiocarbon dating should become routine for all excavated Iron Age sites, with dendrochronological dating undertaken too, wherever possible (eg Bell et al 2000). The recently published radiocarbon date series for the enclosed settlement at Bryn Eryr, Anglesey demonstrates their critical importance in the identification of earlier Iron Age phases on settlements with continuity into the more visible Romano-British period (Longley et al 1998; Longley 1998). The series of radiocarbon dates from a number of neighbouring defended enclosures around Llawhaden in Pembrokeshire (Williams 1988; Williams and Mytum 1998) now enable us to talk about local patterns of settlement development and abandonment with some precision and therefore to make better informed interpretations about social continuity and change. Whilst the problems of the radiocarbon calibration curve for the Early Iron Age (c. 800–400BC) are recognised, large numbers of AMS dates and multiple samples can overcome many of these. Moreover, the application of Bayesian modelling may enhance the precision of dates by 25–35%, where suitable stratigraphic sequences exist (Bayliss 1998). Following guidelines issued by Historic Scotland (Ashmore 1999), the promotion of ‘single entity’ dating (ie AMS dating of single pieces of wood bone or seeds) will limit the generation of rogue and misleading dates in the future. Systematic palaeobotanical sampling during excavation would assure single entity samples from a wide range of contexts. Certain areas of archaeology would particularly benefit from improved dating. A paucity of burial evidence is a genuine and general phenomenon of the British Later Bronze and Iron Ages (Whimster 1981; Brñck 1995). Visible inhumation and cremation rites may however remain under represented in Wales, because many burials are not dated by absolute methods, their age tending to be allocated to the wrong period or left uncertain. In Wales, burials associated with Neolithic and Early Bronze Age ritual foci have been dated to the first millennium BC (Benson et al 1990; Murphy 1992), whilst isolated burials have also been found outside Iron Age settlement enclosures, areas infrequently excavated in the past (Williams 1985). Greater attention to possible burials at these locations, and to the dating of inhumations found within hillfort ramparts and ditches is merited (Whimster 1981; Murphy 1992).

The dating of poorly understood ‘classes’ of site would significantly enhance existing chronologies. For Wales, examples might include the multivallate hillforts with widely spaced concentric ramparts of south Wales (Fox 1952; 1961; RCAHMW 1976, 14–16) and open upland settlements in northwest Wales (Longley this volume). Establishing the currency of a range of small and variously shaped non-hillfort enclosures, for example in northern Powys (Whimster 1989; Gibson 1999), Monmouthshire (Driver pers comm; Gwilt in prep) or Ceredigion (Driver pers comm) would also provide valuable new contributions to existing knowledge. Any new excavated stratigraphic sequence containing associated pottery and metalwork should also be considered a high priority for multiple radiocarbon dating, because they would enable the simultaneous testing of multiple dating assumptions and could shed considerable light on the wider existing chronological framework. Mechanisms to ensure that these opportunities were not missed would clearly be advantageous. Finally, museums, and particularly the National Museums and Galleries of Wales, are in a strong position to encourage and initiate retrospective dating of key early excavated sites and their now curated assemblages, which continue to play an important role in wider thinking. This can be achieved through limited new fieldwork in conjunction with the reanalysis of old collections. Llanmelin hillfort could be considered as one of a number of potential examples of this kind (Nash-Williams 1933; Cunliffe 1991, 81, 185–6, 571). Secondly, sites of metalwork deposits and hoards can be evaluated or reevaluated with new fieldwork and dating programmes, an example being the Llyn Cerrig Bach, Anglesey votive metalwork deposit (Macdonald 2000; Macdonald in preparation; Hedges et al 1998). The dating of organic materials, associated with metalwork, such as carbonised seeds, bone (cremated and non-cremated), charcoal and surviving organic artefacts (eg hafts within the sockets of tools), is of key importance here.

Settlements, landscape and people Published reports, describing the results of Iron Age excavations in Wales over the past four decades contain significant information about Iron Age people and make familiar certain settlement forms (eg Bell et al 2000; Blockley 1989; Britnell 1989; Crew 1998; Fasham et al 1998; Hughes 1996; Jarrett and Wrathmell 1981; Kelly 1988; Longley 1998; Musson 1991; Robinson 1988; Wainwright 1967; 1971; Williams and Mytum 1998). Nevertheless, it remains the case that few settlements and hillforts in Wales have been the focus of large scale modern excavation. Therefore, each newly created opportunity through developer funding, for significant large area excavation, would make a prominent contribution to the understanding of any region’s Iron Age archaeology. It is regrettable that a number of key 106

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

excavations of hillfort interiors remain largely unpublished, for example Moel-y-Gaer hillfort (Guilbert 1975a; 1975b; 1976; 1980), Twyn-y-Gaer hillfort (Probert 1976) and Castell Henllys hillfort (Mytum 1989; 1999). Particular effort and resource is warranted, in aiding these projects through to publication. Historically, survey and excavation effort in Wales has tended to be concentrated upon hillforts and defended enclosures as the most important and imposing evidence, largely to the exclusion of other components of inhabited Iron Age landscapes (see Savory (1976) and Davies and Lynch (2000) for general discussion on Welsh hillforts). This fieldwork tradition went hand in hand with the culture-historical and ‘invasionary’ thinking prevalent during the mid twentieth century (Hawkes 1931; 1959). Hillforts also became central to the various historical, cultural and socio-economic models adopted by leading British academics during the late 1960s to early 1980s (eg Cunliffe 1974; Harding 1974; Peacock 1968; 1969; Collis 1977; 1981). Whereas the last three decades of Iron Age archaeology has, in southern and eastern England, demonstrated a multitude of farmsteads and settlements to be the rule (and hillforts to be exceptional), in Wales the abundance, or otherwise, of non-hillfort settlement remains to be fully demonstrated. Although the potential has in some areas been indicated (eg RCAHMW 1997; Whimster 1989; Davies and Hogg 1994), it remains a largely unexplored resource; most settlements in Wales are known solely through survey. A key challenge will be to understand in what ways the inhabitants of open and enclosed settlements articulated with neighbouring hillforts. Alternatively, were there communities or sections of societies who had little need or occasion to use hillforts during parts of the Iron Age? In addition to excavating enclosure interiors, we need to extend our searches to include areas immediately outside and around them, because they may contain houses, structures and activity foci, otherwise missed. Open and weakly defined settlements (eg Vyner and Allen 1988; RCAHMW 1997; Hughes 1996) probably remain underrepresented and poorly understood, due to their poor visibility in many areas, therefore continuing effort to redress this imbalance by locating and excavating them is required. Unfortunately, the Iron Age archaeology of Wales currently occupies a marginal position within a wider consciousness of the British Iron Age, despite the richness and diversity of hillfort and settlement evidence here visible (eg Whittle 1992; Rees 1992; Burnham 1995; Lynch 1995; Cadw 1998; 2001). Yet an interest in Celts has never been greater, whilst public interest in archaeology remains very high (see for example, the recent television series in Welsh on the Celts and secondly, the televised living history experiment at Castell Henllys hillfort, Pembrokeshire). In part, this peripheral

contribution to wider research issues may be related to modest levels of state and developer funded archaeology over large parts of the country, few high profile research excavations and a weakly visible material culture. Perhaps more critical however, is the dearth of synthesis and ongoing academic debate about the Iron Age of Wales at regional, national or international levels. This is the case, despite recent successes here, in publishing excavation reports within national archaeological journals and as discrete monographs (eg CBA Research Reports, BARs, Cambrian Archaeological Monographs), thereby ensuring wider circulation. Rare national overviews include Savory (1976 and b), Davies (1995) and Davies and Lynch (2000), whilst useful regional accounts include Lynch (1991), Savory (1984), Davies and Hogg (1994), Williams (1978; 1979; 1988) and Kelly (1990). Wider syntheses of the British Iron Age have included reference to prominent excavations, artefacts and papers from Wales. However, they have a tendency to make peripheral its archaeology, through cursory coverage and by centring on abundant excavation evidence, rich material culture and dramatic settlement architecture witnessed elsewhere (eg Cunliffe 1974; 1991; 1995a; James and Rigby 1997; Stead 1996). Whilst England, Ireland, and Scotland command general interest books about the Iron Age (eg Cunliffe 1993; Raftery 1994; Sharples 1991a; Armit 1997), no comparable account currently exists for Wales. Serious thought should be given into raising the profile of this subject area, over coming years. Although spatial analyses of artefacts and ecofacts have become increasingly common (eg Mytum 1989b; Hughes 1996; Longley 1998; Musson 1991), few studies in Wales have so far considered the possible impact of ritual and symbolic depositional practices within these societies. The 1990s saw radical changes in the understanding of pit and ditch deposits on settlements and hillforts in southern Britain. Many were deliberately placed (or structured) deposits, with cosmological and ideological reference (eg Cunliffe 1992; 1995b; Hill 1995a; Parker Pearson 1996). At the same time, the logic of house, settlement and hillfort layout has been shown as integral to the values and social dynamics of their Iron Age inhabitants (eg Oswald 1997; Hill 1996; Parker Pearson and Richards 1994; Parker Pearson 1996; Fitzpatrick 1994; 1997). For example, houses and settlements have deliberate and consistent entrance orientations, whilst boundaries and entrances were frequently elaborated and significant locations, marked with structured deposits (eg Bowden and McOmish 1987; 1989; Hingley 1990; Hill 1995; Gwilt 1997). This should not be viewed as a project in Wales aiming to replicate, with uniformity, discoveries made elsewhere. It is to argue for an exploration of how these Iron Age societies in western Britain identified and defined themselves through material culture expression and depositional practice. 107

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

In the light of this new thinking, project briefs and excavation approach may need to be reconsidered. It is essential that briefs and specifications contain explicit project research designs and statements of intent. A recommended minimum sampling fraction for Iron Age settlements should be at least 20% of archaeological features (preferably more), however samples should be flexibly set on the basis of the types of context anticipated. For example, the total excavation of graves, floor deposits and building features is desirable, whereas lesser fractions of ditches and gullies may be sufficient. Ditch and gully terminals should be excavated, in the recognition of the likelihood of structured deposits here. In addition to excavating sections at key stratigraphic intersections, it is important that multiple single phase deposits are also excavated at intervals around the circuits of enclosures or roundhouses or along ditched boundaries. These will enable the retrieval of relatively clear taphonomic information and assemblages, which exhibit low mixing and low residuality. At the same time, variations in depositional practice within roundhouse gullies and enclosures can be tested according to left:right, front:back, north:south:east:west, and entrance:non-entrance orientation principles. We still know very little about Iron Age farming regimes in Wales (eg Savory 1980a; Lloyd Jones 1984; Caseldine 1990; this volume; Bell 1996; Hambleton 1999), despite significant advances in technique and understanding in Britain over the past three decades (Fig 17.1). Key studies of animal and plant remains from Wessex and the Upper Thames Valley have led the way in developing these areas of bioarchaeology (eg Grant 1984a; 1984b; Jones 1984; 1985; Maltby 1981; 1985; Wilson 1978). Nevertheless, in parts of upland Wales, Hillman was early to point out the potential of collecting and interpreting charred cereal waste as a means of approaching the organisation of agricultural production and consumption (Hillman 1981a; 1981b; 1998; Jones 1996). More recently, van der Veen’s research (1992) has changed our view of farming in northern England, through systematic sampling for plant residues and comparative analysis of evidence from a range of settlements. Whilst a relative abundance of pollen studies in parts of Wales have suggested general landscape flora and episodes of forest clearance during the Iron Age (eg Turner 1964; 1981; Bell 1996), it is difficult to relate this to settlement evidence or landscape features. Unfortunately, there have been few integrated environmental studies in Wales, reports in Murphy (1985), Benson et al (1990), Musson (1991), Fasham et al (1998), Longley (1998), Williams and Mytum (1998) and Bell et al (2000) being exceptions to this rule. In spite of the frequent poor soil preservation conditions in Wales, bulk sampling for botanical remains and targeted sieving for animal bone (and artefacts) should here be routine requirements within excavation briefs. Absences

Fig 17.1 Iron sickle from the votive metalwork deposit at Llyn Cerrig Bach, Anglesey (by permission of the National Museum of Wales)

of evidence are better demonstrated than assumed. Even loose animal teeth, unidentifiable bone fragments and occasional carbonised cereal grains can provide important comparative taphonomic information and vital samples for AMS radiocarbon dating, if only limited evidence for species represented, herd structure or crop cultivation (eg Haselgrove and McCullagh 2000). To move away from the site based archaeology which dominated our approaches in recent decades we need to develop appropriate concepts of landscape for this period, which recognise inhabitation, the dynamics of farming and social and symbolic perceptions of space and place. Rather than viewing landscape as a geographically determined neutral backdrop of soils, terrain, climate and drainage pattern, we should be considering how landscapes were perceived through embodied movement and perception. Most Iron Age people were farmers, therefore a detailed understanding of how landscapes around settlements were farmed is necessary, in order to provide accurate pictures of life during the Iron Age. Mapping field systems and boundaries is one way of working towards this aim (eg Stoertz (1997) in East Yorkshire, RCAHMW (1997) in Brecknock, and Evans (1990) on Skomer Island), although few have been subsequently excavated and radiocarbon dated in Wales (eg Benson et al 1990). The existing fragmentary evidence warrants careful synthesis and discussion. At present, it is not clear which Iron Age landscapes were divided up into fields and bounded domains and which remained predominantly open. Increasing attention should also be given to locating and characterising ‘non-settlement’ places within landscapes. Examples of these might include seasonal activity spaces, salterns, iron smelting locations, shrines, livestock enclosures, boundary meeting points, 108

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

foci of ritual deposition, meeting places, ancestral and burial places. Coordinated and intensive studies of specific landscape blocks, firstly integrating survey and aerial photographic mapping with key previously excavated sites, and secondly, involving new targeted excavation, could transform our understanding of landscape organisation in selected regions of Wales. The recently published results of the Danebury Environs Programme in Wessex are in this manner informative (eg Cunliffe 2000; Cunliffe and Poole 2000a; 2000b). This might best be achieved in Wales, through the research collaboration of archaeological bodies over a sustained period of time, also enabling each new developer funded project to feed into an existing longer term programme. Archaeobotanical and archaeozoological studies have tended to be presented as isolated subjects, only loosely articulated with research in areas other than the environment and economy. Carefully researched reports are, unfortunately, often marginalised, being consigned to appendices, microfiche or, worse, left largely as unpublished internal archives. This information needs to be given more prominent position, although it also needs to be better integrated within interpretations of social life, thereby enhancing its relevance to non-specialist audiences. Writing agrarian sociologies might be one way in which a more holistic view of the importance of natural plant and animal resources, within these Iron Age societies could be communicated. So for example, animals may have been regarded as meat, draught and pack animals, a symbolic resource, wealth, raw materials for clothes, dairy providers and manure suppliers at one and the same time. Secondly, a consideration of the varying places where plant and animal resources were located and exploited, together with the scheduling of tasks within the annual agricultural cycle, might encourage more dynamic and landscape orientated subject treatment. Information, often contained within small scale evaluation reports, surveys and excavations generated over the past ten years by contractual archaeologists, deserves to be more widely interpreted and made more accessible. Too many currently reside as unpublished client reports. This could be achieved through greater imaginative ‘bundling’ of small projects into extended papers or within discrete monographs and, where the subject matter was appropriate, involving a number of contractors collaborating over publication, to mutual benefit. Curatorial and contract based field archaeologists should be encouraged to write regional syntheses, drawing upon new fieldwork and also information held within the regional SMRs. This information otherwise tends to remain poorly known and underutilised by the wider archaeological community and general public alike. Further, we should not assume that sites are ‘finished with’ as soon as they have reached publication. Reports are necessarily selective in content and approach, therefore

vast banks of data lie uninterrogated in museum archives. These need to be continually researched and reassessed in the light of new theory, research questions, discoveries and methodologies. Museums also contain collections which may never have been published. Examples include material from Old Oswestry hillfort (actually in Shropshire), recently the focus of renewed publication (Hughes 1994), Merthyr Mawr Warren (Fox 1927; Cunliffe and de Jersey 1997; Matthews 1999) and Clegyr Boia (Williams 1952; Burrow pers comm). Similarly, unplotted aerial photographs residing in Royal Commission and Cadw archives could provide fertile grounds for new later prehistoric research and synthesis. The formulation of strategically useful research projects with some funding attached, may be one way of encouraging wider interest in Welsh archaeology. Finally, burials form our most direct point of contact with Iron Age people: they provide insight into attitudes to death, social organisation, warfare, gender and age relationships and beliefs. They also provide information on diet, stature, health, genetic make-up and mortality rates, and therefore discoveries should be exploited to the full in both the field and the laboratory. In Wales, discoveries are unusual, yet more frequent than once assumed (see earlier discussion and references within Chronological issues section). Project briefs and specifications must allow for the eventuality of their discovery and provide for their study, alongside possible nearby associated structures, such as cremation pyres, shrines and enclosures. The prehistoric human skull discoveries in river and coastal contexts in southeast Wales (Bell et al 2000), should caution archaeologists to look for and date disarticulated human bones. These may provide evidence for rites of disposal, not involving burial in the ground (eg excarnation, sea and river disposal) or additional ancestral rites.

Material culture The view of the Iron Age of Wales being materially sparse and largely aceramic has been overplayed. Although assemblages from hillforts and settlements are often small, sufficient discoveries of certain artefact types are made to warrant greater attention than they currently receive. Examples include iron and bronze brooches (Fig 17.2), spindle whorls, glass beads, querns, iron tools and weapons. It is true that large parts of Wales were virtually aceramic during most of the Iron Age and that ceramic assemblages are rarely more than a few hundred sherds in size. However, the number of ceramic and briquetage assemblages belonging to the first millennium BC and first century AD is now large and deserves careful reappraisal. In broad quantitative terms, perhaps the Welsh material finds best parallel with material culture traditions of large parts of Scotland, northern and southwestern England. In addition, Wales boasts hoards, votive deposits and isolated discoveries of decorated bronze and iron 109

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

nature can only be sustained through well excavated and quantified data, even when finds remain sparse. Artefact retrieval can be maximised through the use of sieving and metal detectors. It is justifiable to target potential artefact bearing deposits and finds-rich sites: these are essential for tackling questions of sequence and chronology and artefact use and deposition. Artefact production sites (eg bronze foundry sites, glass working, ceramic production, quern quarries) remain a priority for excavation, because of the insight they provide in relation to the circulation and deposition of the finished products. For example, see Spratling (1979) and Foster (1980; 1995) in relation to bronze casting evidence. Waterlogged sites can also offer a window on the range of organic artefacts, which rarely survive in aerobic soils.

Fig 17.2 Horned animal head from the Capel Garmon Firedog, Conwy (by permission of the National Museum of Wales)

metalwork (Fig 17.3), standing on equal footing with prominent discoveries elsewhere in Britain (eg Fox 1958; Savory 1976b; Stead 1995; Green 1996). Material culture is central to our increasingly complex interpretations of Iron Age societies: it lies at the heart of studies of status, exchange, site function, identity, regionality and Iron Age/Roman interaction. Whilst researching artefacts is, by nature detailed and specialist, interpretations built on it may be exciting and profound. Indeed, it is often objects rather than sites which may bring the past to life. This importance is not adequately reflected within current undergraduate teaching, nor in the interests of staff within British universities. It also now appears to be a marginal concern within the archaeological trusts in Wales, specialists often being subcontracted from elsewhere. Given this paucity in coverage, museum archaeologists, and particularly national museum archaeologists, are well placed to contribute, drawing on their experience of curating, researching and presenting material culture to wide audiences. However, there is a need to encourage more archaeologists in Wales to develop an interest in artefacts and ecofacts, together with the particular knowledge and skills to ensure the reporting on assemblages to consistently high standards. In Britain, there is a danger that when the current generation of Iron Age specialists retire, they will not be replaced. Therefore, it must remain a priority to seek to maintain a depth of material expertise in Wales over coming years. Finds recovery strategies should be devised and made explicit in published reports. Interpretations of a complex

Higher standards of quantification and increasing attention to contextual information are required in accessible form within published reports, despite the space implications entailed. This will enable future researchers to extract additional information about assemblages and present it in new ways. Microfiche has outlived its usefulness, although much can be achieved by producing condensed data, as extra printed pages in monographs or as associated CDs. It should be easy to relate artefacts and ecofacts (both published and in the deposited archive) back to depositional context and locate the context within the overall site. This can be achieved through extensive crossreferencing, where necessary using additional lists and tables of data, and through the intelligent and thorough presentation of plans, material culture distributions and section drawings (eg Fasham 1985; Barrett et al; 2000; Fitzpatrick 1997). Assemblages quantified by context may be subsequently regrouped and recombined, however assemblages solely presented by ‘phase’ or by ‘area’ cannot be subdivided without quantification afresh. Fragment counts of animal bone by context, and identified to species and skeletal element, will enable other more derived calculations to be made, yet retain an absolute and comparable baseline (Hambleton 1999). Taphonomic studies of ceramics or animal bone may involve the quantification and presentation of fragment size, abrasion and conjoinedness within assemblages. Far greater attention too should be invested in recording the definable

Fig 17.3 Bronze La Tène I brooch from Moel Hiraddug hillfort, Flintshire (by permission of the National Museum of Wales)

110

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

characteristics of soil deposits, looking at soil micromorphology and using techniques of soil analysis wherever possible. Basic studies of the typology, dating, distribution and technology of artefacts are still necessary. The corpus continues to serve an important role as a vehicle of record and a springboard for future artefact research. Existing corpora include Morris (1983; 1985) on briquetage (salt containers), Spratling (1972) on decorated bronzes, Palk (1988) on horse harness items, Jope (2000) on Celtic Art, Guido (1978) and Henderson (1982) on glass beads (Fig 17.4), Earwood (1993) on domestic wooden artefacts, Boon (1988) and de Jersey (1994) for Celtic coins, Darbyshire (1995) for iron blacksmithing tools, Rees (1979) for agricultural implements and Hull and Hawkes (1987) for brooches. These studies tend to include material from Wales within a wider coverage of southern British material, yet in the light of significant numbers of discoveries over the past two decades, they urgently require updating. In many instances, separate coverage for Wales is now possible and manageable. Some artefact types have never been studied comprehensively (eg spindle whorls, querns), therefore new studies here are also merited.

Fig 17.4 Glass beads from Glanbidno-uchaf, Powys (large bead) and Twyn-y-Gaer hillfort, Monmouthshire (by permission of the National Museum of Wales)

The Portable Antiquities Recording Scheme for England and Wales (DCMS 1999; 2000; 2001) has encouraged the reporting of a number of significant Iron Age metalwork discoveries in Wales (Macdonald 2000a; 2000b; 2001). The reporting of the first decorated miniature shield from Wales, found near Barmouth (Fig 17.5) for example, shows how unique and perhaps unexpected discoveries are still to be made. Reports on these finds will need to be incorporated within wider artefact studies over coming years. This recording scheme deserves our continued funding and support in Wales, to ensure that the demonstrated yet hard earned improvements in the

Fig 17.5 Miniature decorated La Tène shield from near Barmouth, Gwynedd (by permission of the National Museum of Wales)

reporting of finds are not lost. In England, a recent English Heritage funded survey of later prehistoric pottery identified over 7000 recognisable pottery collections of first millennium BC date (Morris et al 1998; Morris and Champion 2001). A similar survey throughout Wales, to extend coverage seamlessly across modern national boundaries, would now be of great strategic benefit as a research and planning tool. Finally, scientific analyses of all classes of artefact are essential. They should not be regarded as unaffordable luxury within contract briefs and published reports. Universities and the national museum also have a role to play in developing facilities for analytical research within Wales over coming years. All stages of the life cycles of artefacts require attention, from their production, use and circulation, through to eventual deposition. The need to explore artefact production sites has already been mentioned, however experimental work also increases our understanding of production and usage of artefacts (Crew 1991). We need also to consider the organisation of material culture production (eg Morris 1994; 1996; Ehrenreich 1985), yet there have been few regional studies of this type in Wales. The potential for such studies clearly exists, for example, with respect to the ceramics of southeast Wales (eg Allen 2000; Woodward 1996), bronze casting in northeast Wales (eg Northover 1994; Musson et al 1992; Britnell 1989; Blockley 1989) and iron smelting and smithing in northeast Wales (eg Crew 1986; 1989; 1991; 1995; 1998). Recent research has also highlighted the complexity of social and ritual practices surrounding artefact deposition on settlements and sites (see previous section about Settlements, Landscapes and People). There are also strong and long lived practices involving deposition within natural places in the landscape: Iron Age communities in Wales chose to mark wet places such as bogs, rivers and lakes and isolated mountainous locations 111

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

(Fig 17.6) with ritual deposits of prestige metalwork (Wait 1985). Few of these findspots have been surveyed and excavated, yet the value of such work has been demonstrated (eg Macdonald and Young 1995; Stead 1998; Fitts et al 1999; Hunter 2001). These deposits are crucial to the understanding of belief systems and key to the investigation of regional diversity. In the future, particular archaeological attention should be focused on river drainage and maintenance schemes (eg Bourke 2001; Fitzpatrick 1984).

Fig 17.6 La Tène Stage 5 decoration and red enamelling on the Snowdon Bowl escutcheon, Gwynedd (by permission of the National Museum of Wales)

Rather than producing sterile and entirely descriptive catalogues of finds by material type within reports, we need to experiment rather more with writing styles and report formats. Examples of innovative reporting in recent times include the recently published Cadbury Castle, Somerset monograph (Barrett et al 2000) and excavations at Dun Vulan, South Uist (Parker Pearson and Sharples 1999). Since artefactual and ecofactual evidence is critical to site interpretations and taphonomy, it should be integrated within structural accounts of the occupation and development of excavated features. Thematic coverage of material culture within reports may also serve to associate artefacts in more interesting ways: possible themes might include identity, food and feasting, rubbish deposition, ritual deposits, decoration and colour and exchange relationships.

Regionality Over the last decade, the shortcomings of the previously prevailing, monolithic and Wessex centred model for British Iron Age society (Cunliffe 1984a and b; 1990; 1991; 1995a) have been exposed (eg Collis 1985; Haselgrove 1986; 1994; Hill 1991; 1993; 1995b; Sharples 1991b; 1991c; papers in Gwilt and Haselgrove 1997). In the past, the evidence from southern England was used as a base line, against which other parts of Britain, including

Wales, were either explicitly or implicitly compared, often negatively (Bevan 1999). Instead, the evidence now suggests that Iron Age Britain comprised a complex mosaic of regionally constituted societies, each marked by strong differences in settlement forms, identities, ritual practice and material culture expression. At the same time, the notion of a singular ‘Celtic Society’ across Europe, involving shared language and religion has been argued to be unhelpful by a number of British academics (eg Champion 1987; Hill 1989; 1995b; Fitzpatrick 1991; Webster 1995). It has tended to force uniformity, where regional diversity is now abundantly visible. If Iron Age Wales comprised a complex social mosaic of regionally constituted societies, then detailed input from all regions will be required, if we are to reconstruct the entire picture. We can no longer rely upon general models to gloss over areas about which we know little; interpretations must be made through careful examination of the regional evidences presenting themselves. General regional contrasts in the hillfort and settlement pattern have for long been recognised in Wales (eg Hogg 1972a; 1972b; Cunliffe 1974; Williams 1988) alongside regionalised distributions of artefacts (eg Cunliffe 1974; Burgess 1980; Morris 1985; Spencer 1983). However, the social consequences of these distributions have rarely received the attention they deserve. Moreover the full range of regional contrasts, remains to be examined and defined. Unfortunately, considerable variations in regional coverage and knowledge in Wales currently prevent this from being an achievable aim. Over coming years, every opportunity should be taken to remedy the gaps in regional coverage through targeted survey, fieldwork and excavation. Clear strategies need to be identified. Before such strategy can be defined, some assessment of the current level of Iron Age coverage across each geographical region of Wales will be required. Here, I suggest, it is possible to assign regions into three groups: 1. regions with established frameworks and syntheses 2. regions with partial frameworks 3. regions with currently no or little framework Inevitably, the definition of region and its allocation to category is based upon a subjective assessment and could prove contentious. However, it should be possible to gain some measure of cross-working party agreement, and later wider endorsement, through informed debate and discussion. Regions with established frameworks and syntheses are those in which new fieldwork might profitably focus upon clearly defined research themes. In addition, they might exploit significant new developer funding opportunities arising. In my opinion, few regions of Wales currently fit into this group: I would include Pembrokeshire alone in this category at present. This county has been the focus of 112

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

sustained excavation with clear research aims in recent decades (Williams 1988; Mytum 1989a; 1999; Williams and Mytum 1998; Crane forthcoming). That said, rapid advances could occur over coming years, to raise additional regions into this category, Gwynedd and northern Powys being likely candidates. Where a significant body of published Iron Age information is available, yet remains unsorted, then a region could be judged as one with a partial framework. These are likely to be areas where large quantities of settlement, landscape and material culture evidence exist, but where little effort has been expended in integrating the different categories of information. Such regions would benefit from long term research projects aimed at filling gaps in existing knowledge. I would consider Swansea, The Vale of Glamorgan, Cardiff, Carmarthenshire, Newport, Anglesey, Flintshire, Denbighshire, Gwynedd and northern Powys to be included here. Finally, regions with no framework are currently ‘black holes’ in understanding, areas where archaeological understanding has barely begun, with little coherent tradition of investigation apparent. Here, any single new discovery would contribute greatly to the region’s archaeology, and therefore to the wider understanding of the Iron Age in Wales. Too many regions can be included in this category, including Southern Powys, northern and central Monmouthshire, Ceredigion, Conwy, Wrexham and the South Wales Valleys . In offering a provisional threefold division of regional coverage in Wales, it is important to make clear an important distinction that has been made here, between ‘data collection’ and ‘understanding’. In my view, the latter is the principal aim, towards which we should all be striving, whilst the former should not be seen as a satisfactory end in itself. This is particularly true if we wish to make the past accessible and relevant to the widest possible public audiences. To take an example, extensive hillfort and settlement surveys have tended to contribute much information relating to where people lived (ie location, distribution, settlement morphology). Where presented without accompanying interpretive text, synthesis and accompanying excavation evidence however, they may leave us understanding very little, in the end, about the people who inhabited them. The value of surveys is not in doubt here. The point I wish to make is that one can have an abundance of archaeological data from a region, yet still understand very little about its people, their social relations and their identities. Interpretations of hillfort function in Wales have tended to suggest their urban characteristics, be cautious and inconclusive, or alternatively remain stubbornly adherent to invasionary thinking as an explanation for structural and cultural change (eg Stanford 1972; 1991; Hogg 1976; Guilbert 1976; 1981; Musson 1991; Savory 1976a and c;

1984). Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the Wessex centred model for hillforts as the defensive residences of chieftains engaged in redistributive economies, has coloured our expectations here too over the past two decades, particularly along the Welsh Marches (eg Cunliffe 1991; Davies 1995; Jackson 1999). According to this model, their power lay in the control of agricultural surpluses and specialist craft production. However, the material evidence for this hypothesis has been shown in Wessex, to be tenuous, when the excavated evidence is examined and compared with nearby settlement evidence (Stopford 1987; Hill 1995b; 1996; Morris 1997). Instead, hillfort defences may have performed symbolic or community status roles, as much as defensive provision (Bowden and McOmish 1987; 1989; Sharples 1991c). Rather than being permanently occupied, they may have been sporadically used as places of refuge (Collis 1981), whilst more recently, it has been suggested that they may have been the places at which egalitarian community and seasonal rituals, exchanges and festivals took place (Hill 1995b). This fundamental reassessment of the role of hillforts generally should lead us to examine the Welsh hillfort evidence afresh. Now, the regional diversity of hillfort characteristics, long described, deserves to come to the fore again in our thinking. These evidences could support a range of interpretations about their uses and roles within these regional societies (Jackson 1999; Davies and Lynch 2000; Buckland et al 2001).

Processes of change 1100BC–AD100 can be thought of as a time during which many deep-seated and long term transformations occurred within the societies of Wales. In global terms, it encompasses the period during which hillforts were first constructed and when international networks of bronze exchange were replaced by the production and use of iron and during which tribal structures developed from smaller community groupings. In the past, overly rigid boundaries between the Bronze Age, Iron Age and Romano-British periods have tended to isolate and fragment traditions of research in Wales. There must be flexible movement and thinking across these often, artificial boundaries, if longer term processes of change are to be understood. Increasingly precise chronologies (see Chronological issues section) are also needed, if we are to examine the rate, scale and cause of these social and economic changes. Unfortunately, we still know very little about social and economic developments that occurred during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, by comparison with the period 400BC–AD100. During this time, both bronze metalwork hoarding and ceramic production ceased, yet at the same time iron usage appears to have remained on a small scale. Settlements only really begin to produce significant ironwork artefact assemblages from the fourth century BC onwards. In combination, this leaves a relative paucity of material culture belonging to this period. Most 113

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

settlement and hillfort sequences in Wales tend to date to the second half of the first millennium BC, (although see Guilbert 1976; Musson 1991; Musson et al 1992; Benson and Williams 1987 and Davies and Lynch 2000, 150–1, for notable early first millennium BC exceptions to this observation). Additional well dated early settlement sequences and assemblages will continue to be vital, if we wish to understand this period more fully. Recent fieldwork along the Gwent Levels has considerably aided our knowledge of the occupation and exploitation of this coastal environment, despite the apparent trough in activity here between 900–400BC (eg Whittle 1989; Hughes 1996; Nayling and Caseldine 1997; Bell et al 2000; Bell 2000). Wales offers varied evidences about metalworking, including a wealth of Late Bronze Age metalwork (eg Savory 1980b; Burgess 1980; Needham 1981; Davies and Lynch 2000), early iron smelting sites and ore sources (Crew 1986; 1989; 1998), and information deriving from sustained smelting experiments (Crew 1991). In addition, many important and significant iron artefacts (Fig 17.7) and assemblages have here been discovered (eg Crawford and Wheeler 1920–21; Fox and Hyde 1939; Fox 1946; Probert 1976; Savory 1966; Saunders 1991; Darbyshire 1995; Fasham et al 1998). If carefully drawn together, these evidences could continue to contribute to our understanding of the transition from bronze to iron using societies in Britain (eg Barrett 1989; Thomas 1989). Secondly, the ceasing of ceramic production during the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age contrasts with many other parts of Britain, where production and use continued. The social and economic changes that led to this cessation, (and the later restimulated usage in southeast Wales during the Middle to Late Iron Age) deserve greater attention. A model for agricultural intensification and population expansion after 300BC in southern and eastern Britain, has now received widespread support in explaining the large increases in landscape subdivision and the quantity of settlement evidence now witnessed (eg Jones 1981; Haselgrove 1984; 1989; Hill 1995b; 1999; Tipping 1997). It remains to be seen, whether such a model can be sustained for the regional Iron Ages of Wales. What were the changes in landscape layout and settlement patterning over this time span here? How did trajectories of change vary by region within Wales? These are questions that remain to be convincingly answered over future years. Secondly, the broad model in southern Britain, of the increasing scale and organisation of craft production, during the Middle to Late Iron Ages (eg Morris 1996), deserve detailed investigation and inter-regional comparison in Wales. In addition, was there a significant increase in the quantity of material culture in use, for example items of personal adornment, towards the end of the Iron Age, as seems apparent in southern and eastern England (eg Haselgrove 1997; Hill 1997; Willis 1997)?

Fig 17.7 Early Iron Age iron socketed axe from near Cowbridge, Vale of Glamorgan (by permission of the National Museum of Wales)

Political centralisation and developing social complexity are themes which dominate interpretations of the Late Iron Age in southern Britain (eg Cunliffe 1991; 1995a; Haselgrove 1989; 1999; Hill 1995a; James and Rigby 1997; Creighton 2000). In Wales, we need to examine the evidences to determine how applicable such a model is, what the expressions of social change were, and how they contrasted with other parts of Britain. The timing of any such Late Iron Age developments will be critical in coming to an understanding of internal change as opposed to change brought about by direct Roman presence, so informing our views of Wales during the early Roman period too. In so doing, we might for example, reconsider the discoveries of horse and chariot equipment, as a possible expression of a martial ideology in certain parts of Wales (Fig 17.8). We could define more clearly, the appearance and dating of wheel-made ceramic technologies on native settlements, in order to examine changing eating practices. The apparent dearth of Late Iron Age shrines and temples here might be addressed, by considering how real this absence of evidence really is.

Fig 17.8 Late Iron Age harness mount with La Tène Stage 5 decoration and red enamelling from Alltwen, Neath-Port Talbot (by permission of the National Museum of Wales)

114

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Interpretations of Iron Age and native religious practice during the first centuries BC and AD might as a result be clarified. Finally, we might examine afresh the possible evidence for settlement hierarchies, through comparison with Early and Middle Iron Age settlement and through careful comparative material culture analyses. Whilst it is recognised that these long term processes have been largely defined through studies and research focusing and originating within southern and eastern England, their appropriateness, or otherwise, for Wales require investigation. In seeking to answer such questions, new relevant and searching questions will quickly suggest themselves. In this way, the study of Iron Age societies in Wales will move forwards with distinctive research foci, thereby also contributing to and influencing wider thinking about Iron Age Britain as well. For developer funded archaeology, there is great value in addressing long term themes: they enable the archaeologist to stand back from single projects and to contextualise new evidence through time as well as in space.

Concluding remarks This paper is offered at the very beginning of an inclusive agenda writing process and should not be viewed as complete in any way. It stands as an expanded record of a paper given at an enjoyable and important weekend conference, where a common goal was agreed. If it helps to encourage thinking, debate and discussion, then it will have fully served its purpose. The author encourages the reader to consult the regional and national framework documents for Welsh archaeology, when published. These will be the outcome of perhaps two years of intensive and integrative endeavour by much of the archaeological community within Wales. Here, gaps within our current understanding about the past will be clarified and important, as yet unanswered research questions will be identified. These documents, it is hoped, will come to influence decisions made over coming years, about what archaeological work must be afforded within Wales.

Bibliography Allen, JRL 1998 ‘Late Iron Age and Earliest Roman Calcite-tempered Ware from Sites on the Severn Estuary Levels: Character and Distribution’, Studia Celtica 32, 27–42 Armit, I 1997 Celtic Scotland, London: Batsford/Historic Scotland Ashmore, PJ 1999 ‘Radiocarbon dating: avoiding errors by avoiding mixed samples’, Antiquity 73, 124–30 Barclay, GJ (ed) 1997 State-funded ‘Rescue’ Archaeology in Scotland Past, Present and Future, Historic Scotland Ancient Monument Division Occasional Paper 2: Edinburgh Barker, GW and Gamble, CS (eds) 1985 Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe, Academic Press: London Barrett, JC 1989 ‘Food, Gender and Metal: Questions of Social Reproduction’, in MLS Sørensen and R Thomas (eds) 304–20 Barrett, JC, Freeman, PWM and Woodward, A 2000 Cadbury Castle Somerset; The later prehistoric and early historic archaeology, English Heritage Archaeological Report 20: English Heritage: London Bayliss, A 1998 ‘Some thoughts on using scientific dating in English archaeology and building analysis for the next decade’, in JC Bayley (ed) Science in Archaeology: an Agenda for the Future, English Heritage: London, 95–108 Bell, MG 1996 ‘Environment in the first millennium BC’, in TC Champion and JR Collis (eds) 5–16 Bell, MG 2000 ‘Environmental Archaeology in the Severn Estuary: Progress and Prospects’, Archaeology in the Severn Estuary 11, 69–103 Bell, MG, Caseldine, AE and Neumann, H 2000 Prehistoric Intertidal Archaeology in the Welsh Severn Estuary, CBA Research Report 120: York Benson, DG and Williams, GH 1987 ‘Note: Dale Promontary Fort’, Archaeology in Wales 27, 43 Benson, DG, Evans, JG, Williams, GH, Darvill, TC and David, AEU 1990 ‘Excavations at Stackpole Warren, Dyfed’, Proc Prehist Soc 56, 179–245 Bevan, B (ed) 1999 Northern Exposure: interpretative devolution and the Iron Ages in Britain, Leicester Archaeology Monographs No 4: School of Archaeological Studies: Leicester Blockley, K 1989 Prestatyn 1984–5, An Iron Age Farmstead and Romano-British Industrial Settlement in North Wales, BAR British Series 210: Oxford Boon, GC 1988 ‘Appendix: British Coins from Wales’, in BE Vyner and DWH Allen (eds) 92

115

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bourke, L 2001 Crossing the Rubicon; Bronze Age Metalwork from Irish Rivers, Bronze Age Studies 5, Department of Archaeology, National University of Ireland: Galway Bowden, M and McOmish, D 1987 ‘The required barrier’, Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 76–84 Bowden, M and McOmish, D 1989 ‘Little boxes: more about hillforts’, Scottish Archaeological Review, 6, 12–16

Collis, JR 1985 ‘Review: Danebury, An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire’, Proc Prehist Soc 51, 348–9 Crawford, OGS and Wheeler, REM 1920-21 ‘The Llyn Fawr and other Hoards of the Bronze Age’, Archaeologia 71, 133–40 Creighton, J 2000 Coins and power in Late Iron Age Britain, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

Britnell, WJ 1989 ‘The Collfryn hillslope enclosure, Llansantffraid Deuddwr, Powys: excavations 1980–1982’, Proc Prehist Soc 55, 89–134

Crew, P 1986 ‘Bryn y Castell Hillfort – A Late Prehistoric Iron Working Settlement in north-west Wales’, in BG Scott and HF Cleere (eds), The Crafts of the Blacksmith, Essays presented to RF Tylecote at the 1984 Symposium of the UISPP Comité pour la Sidérugie Ancienne, 91–100

Brñck, J 1995 ‘A Place for the dead: the role of human remains in Late Bronze Age Britain’, Proc Prehist Soc 61, 245–77

Crew, P 1989 ‘Excavations at Cracwellt West, Merioneth, 1986-1989; A late prehistoric upland iron-working settlement’, Archaeology in Wales 29, 11–16

Buckland, PC, Parker Pearson, M, Wigley, A and Girling, M 2001 ‘Is there anybody out there? A reconsideration of the environmental evidence from The Breiddin hillfort, Powys, Wales’, Antiquaries Journal 81, 51–76

Crew, P 1990 ‘Late Iron-Age and Roman Iron Production in North-West Wales’, in BC Burnham and JL Davies (eds), 150–60

Burgess, CB 1980 ‘The Bronze Age in Wales’, in JA Taylor (ed) 243–86 Burnham, BC and Davies, JL (eds) 1990 Conquest, Coexistence and Change; Recent Work in Roman Wales, Trivium, 25, St David’s University College, Lampeter Burnham, H 1995 A Guide to Ancient and Historic Wales: Clwyd and Powys, HMSO: London Cadw 1998 Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales; Part 2 of the Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales; Part 21: Landscapes of Outstanding Historic Interest, Cadw: Cardiff Cadw 2001 Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales; Part 2 of the Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales; Part 22: Landscapes of Special Historic Interest, Cadw: Cardiff Caseldine, AE 1990 Environmental Archaeology in Wales, Lampeter: Department of Archaeology, Saint David’s University College: Lampeter CBA 1948 A Survey and Policy of Field Research in the Archaeology of Great Britain I: Prehistoric and Early Historic Ages to the Seventh Century AD, CBA London Champion, TC 1987 ‘The European Iron Age: Assessing the state of the art’, Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 98–107 Champion, TC and Collis, JR (eds) 1996 The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends, JR Collis Publications: Sheffield Collis, JR 1977 ‘An approach to the Iron Age’, in JR Collis (ed), The Iron Age in Britain- a review, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology: University of Sheffield, 1–7 Collis, JR 1981 ‘A theoretical study of hill-forts’, in GC Guilbert (ed), 66–76

Crew, P 1991 ‘The experimental production of prehistoric bar iron’, Historical Metallurgy 251, 21–36 Crew, P 1995 ‘Aspects of the iron supply’, in BW Cunliffe 1995b, 276–84 Crew, P 1998 ‘Excavations at Cracwellt West, Merioneth 1990–1998’, Archaeology in Wales 38, 22–35 Crew, P and S (eds) 1997 Early Ironworking in Europe; archaeology and experiment, Abstracts from an international conference 19th to 25th September 1997, Occasional Paper 3: Plas Tan y Bwlch, Maentwrog Cunliffe, BW 1974 Iron Age Communities in Britain; An account of England, Scotland and Wales from the seventh century BC until the Roman conquest, Routledge and Kegan Paul: London Cunliffe, BW 1984a Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire Vol 2 The Excavations 1969–78: the finds, CBA Research Report 52: London Cunliffe, BW 1984b ‘Iron Age Wessex: Continuity and Change’, in BW Cunliffe and D Miles (eds), 1984, 12–45 Cunliffe, BW1990 ‘Before hillforts’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9, 323–36 Cunliffe, BW 1991 Iron Age Communities in Britain; An account of England, Scotland and Wales from the Seventh Century BC until the Roman Conquest, (3rd edition), London: Routledge Cunliffe, BW 1992 ‘Pits, preconceptions and propitiation in the British Iron Age’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11, 69–84 Cunliffe, BW1993 English Heritage Book of Danebury, Batsford/English Heritage: London Cunliffe, BW 1995a English Heritage Book of Iron Age Britain, Batsford/English Heritage: London 116

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Cunliffe, BW 1995b Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire; Volume 6: A hillfort community in perspective, CBA Research Report 102: York Cunliffe, BW 2000 The Danebury Environs Programme; The Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape, Volume1: Introduction, OUCA Monograph 48: Institute of Archaeology, Oxford Cunliffe, BW and de Jersey, P 1997 Armorica and Britain; Cross-Channel relationships in the late first millennium BC, OUCA Monograph 45: Institute of Archaeology: Oxford Cunliffe, BW and Miles, D (eds) 1984 Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, OUCA Monograph 2: Institute of Archaeology, Oxford Cunliffe, BW and Poole, C 2000a The Danebury Environs Programme; The Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape; Volume 2 – Part 2: Bury Hill, Upper Clatford, Hants 1990, OUCA Monograph 49: Institute of Archaeology, Oxford Cunliffe, BW and Poole, C 2000b The Danebury Environs Programme; The Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape; Volume 2 – Part 3: Suddern Farm, Middle Wallop, Hants, 1991 and 1996, OUCA Monograph 49: Institute of Archaeology, Oxford Davies, JL 1995 ‘The Early Celts in Wales’, in MJ Green (ed) The Celtic World, Routledge: London, 671–700 Davies, JL and Hogg, AHA 1994 ‘The Iron Age’, in JL Davies and DP Kirby (eds) Cardiganshire County History; Volume 1: From the Earliest Times to the Coming of the Normans, University of Wales Press: Cardiff, 219–74 Davies, JL and Lynch, FM 2000 ‘The Late Bronze Age and Iron Age’, in FM Lynch, SHR Aldhouse-Green and JL Davies, Prehistoric Wales, Sutton: Stroud, 139–219 DCMS 1999 Portable Antiquities: Annual Report 1997–98, Department of Culture, Media and Sport: London DCMS 2000 Portable Antiquities: Annual Report 1998–99, Department of Culture, Media and Sport: London DCMS 2001 Portable Antiquities: Annual Report 1999–2000, Department of Culture, Media and Sport: London

Evans, JG 1990 ‘An Archaeological Survey of Skomer, Dyfed’, Proc Prehist Soc 56, 247–67 Fasham, PJ 1985 The Prehistoric Settlement at Winnall Down, Winchester: Excavations of MARC3 Site R17 in 1976 and 1977, Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society: Monograph 2 Fasham, PJ, Kelly, RS, Mason, MA and White, RB 1998 The Graeanog Ridge, The Evolution of a Farming Landscape and its Settlements in North-West Wales, Cambrian Archaeological Monographs 6: Aberystwyth Fitts, RL, Haselgrove, CC, Lowther, PC and Willis, SH 1999 Melsonby revisited: survey and excavation 1992–95 at the site of the discovery of the ‘Stanwick’ North Yorkshire, hoard of 1843’, Durham Archaeological Journal 14, 1–52 Fitzpatrick, AP 1984 ‘The Deposition of La Téne Iron Age Metalwork in Watery Contexts in Southern England’, in BW Cunliffe and D Miles (eds) 1984, 178–90 Fitzpatrick, AP 1991’ ‘Celtic (Iron Age) Religion’ – Traditional and Timeless?’ Scottish Archaeological Review 8, 123–8 Fitzpatrick, AP 1994 ‘Outside in: the Structure of an Early Iron Age House at Dunston Park, Thatcham, Berkshire’, in AP Fitzpatrick and EL Morris (eds) The Iron Age in Wessex: Recent Work, Trust for Wessex Archaeology Ltd: Salisbury, 68–72 Fitzpatrick, AP 1997a ‘Everyday Life in Iron Age Wessex’, in A Gwilt and CC Haselgrove (eds) 73–86 Fitzpatrick, AP 1997b Archaeological Excavations on the Route of the A27 Westhampnett Bypass, West Sussex, 1992; Volume 2: the Late Iron Age, Romano-British, and Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries, Wessex Archaeology Report 12, Trust for Wessex Archaeology Ltd: Salisbury Foster, JAA 1980 The Iron Age Moulds from Gussage All Saints, British Museum Occasional Paper 12, British Museum: London

de Jersey, P 1994 ‘Gazetteer of Findspots of Dobunnic Coins’, in RD Van Arsdell, The Coinage of the Dobunni; Money Supply and Coin Circulation in Dobunnic Territory, OUCA Monograph 38, Institute of Archaeology: Oxford, 67–84

Foster, JAA 1995 ‘Metalworking in the British Iron Age: The Evidence from Weelsby Avenue, Grimsby’, in B Raftery (ed) Sites and Sights of the Iron Age; Essays on Fieldwork and Museum Research presented to Ian Mathieson Stead, Oxbow Monograph 56, Oxbow: Oxford, 49–60

Earwood, C 1993 Domestic Wooden Artefacts In Britain and Ireland from Neolithic to Viking Times, University Press: Exeter

Fox, A 1952 ‘Hill-slope Forts and Related Earthworks in South-West England and South Wales’, Archaeological Journal 109, 1–22

Ehrenreich, RM 1985 Trade, Technology and the Ironworking Community in the Iron Age of Southern Britain, BAR British Series 144: Oxford

Fox, A 1961 ‘South-Western Hill-Forts’, in SS Frere (ed), 35–60

English Heritage 1998 Exploring our Past 1998, English Heritage London

Fox, C 1927 ‘A Settlement of the Early Iron Age (La Tène I sub-period) on Merthyr Mawr Warren, Glamorgan, Archaeologia Cambrensis 82, 44–66

117

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Fox, C 1946 A Find of the Early Iron Age from Llyn Cerrig Bach, Anglesey, National Museum of Wales: Cardiff

Harding, DW 1974 The Iron Age in Lowland Britain, Routledge and Kegan Paul: London

Fox, C 1958 Pattern and Purpose; A Survey of Early Celtic Art in Britain, National Museum of Wales: Cardiff Fox, C and Hyde, HA 1939 ‘A Second Cauldron and an Iron Sword from the Llyn Fawr Hoard, Rhigos, Glamorganshire’, Antiquaries Journal 19, 369–404

Harding, DW (ed) 1976 Hillforts; Later Prehistoric Earthworks in Britain and Ireland, Academic Press: London Haselgrove, CC1984 ‘The later pre-Roman Iron Age between the Humber and the Tyne’, in PR Wilson, RFJ Jones and DM Evans (eds) Settlement and Society in the Roman North, Bradford, 9–25

Frere, SS (ed) 1961 Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain, Papers given at a CBA Conference held at the Institute of Archaeology December 12 to 14, 1958, Institute of Archaeology Occasional Paper 11: London

Haselgrove, CC 1986 ‘An Iron Age community and its hillfort: The excavations at Danebury, Hampshire, 196979 A review’, Archaeological Journal 143, 363–9

Gibson, AM 1999 The Walton Basin Project: Excavation and Survey in a Prehistoric Landscape 1993–7, CBA Research Report 118, York

Haselgrove, CC 1989 ‘The later Iron Age in southern Britain and beyond’, in M Todd (ed), 1989, 1–18

Glazebrook, J (ed) 1997 Research and Archaeology: a framework for the Eastern Counties, 1. Resource assessment E Anglian Archaeol Occasional Papers 3: Norwich

Haselgrove, CC 1994 ‘Social Organisation in Iron Age Wessex’, in AP Fitzpatrick and EL Morris (eds) 1–3 Haselgrove, CC 1997 ‘Iron Age brooch deposition and chronology’, in A Gwilt and CCHaselgrove (eds) 51–72

Grant, A 1984a ‘Animal Husbandry’, in BW Cunliffe 1984, 496–546

Haselgrove, CC 1999 ‘The Iron Age,’ in JR Hunter and IBM Ralston (eds) The Archaeology of Britain; An introduction from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution, Routledge: London, 113–34

Grant, A 1984b ‘Animal husbandry in Wessex and the Thames Valley’, in BW Cunliffe and D Miles (eds) 1984, 102–119

Haselgrove, CC and McCullagh, R 2000 An Iron Age Coastal Community in East Lothian: The Excavation of Two Later Prehistoric Enclosure Complexes at Fishers Road, Port Seton, 1994–5, Scottish Trust for Archaeological Research: Edinburgh

Green, MJ 1996 Celtic Art; Reading the Messages, Weidenfeld and Nicholson Ltd: London Guido, CM 1978 The Glass Beads of the Prehistoric and Roman Periods in Britain and Ireland, Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 35, Society of Antiquaries: London

Haselgrove, CC, Armit, I, Champion, TC, Creighton, J, Gwilt, A, Hill, JD, Hunter, F and Woodward, A 2001 Understanding the British Iron Age: An Agenda for Action; A Report for the Iron Age Research Seminar and the Council of the Prehistoric Society, Trust for Wessex Archaeology Ltd : Salisbury

Guilbert, GC1975a ‘Planned Hillfort Interiors’, Proc Prehist Soc 41, 203–21 Guilbert, GC 1975b ‘Moel y Gaer, 1973: an Areas Excavation on the Defences’, Antiquity 49, 109–17

Hawkes, CFC 1931 ‘Hill forts’, Antiquity 5, 60–97

Guilbert, GC1976 ‘Moel y Gaer (Rhosesmor) 1972-1973: An Area Excavation in the Interior’, in DW Harding (ed) 1976, 303–17

Hawkes, CFC 1959 ‘The ABC of the British Iron Age’, Antiquity, 33, 170–82

Guilbert, GC (ed) 1981 Hill-Fort Studies; Essays for AHA Hogg, University Press: Leicester

Hedges, REM, Pettitt, PB, Bronk Ramsey, C and Van Klinken, GJ 1998 ‘Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system, Archaeometry Datelist 25’, Archaeometry 40, 236

Guilbert, GC1981 ‘Hill-fort functions and populations: a sceptical viewpoint’, in GC Guilbert (ed) 1981, 104–21

Hill, JD 1989 ‘Rethinking the Iron Age’, Scottish Archaeological Review 6, 16–24

Gwilt, A 1997 ‘Popular practices from material culture: a case study of the Iron Age settlement at Wakerley’, in A Gwilt and CC Haselgrove (eds) 1997, 153–66 Gwilt, A and Haselgrove, CC (eds) 1997 Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, Oxbow Monograph 71, Oxbow: Oxford

Hill, JD 1993 ‘Can we conceive of a different Europe in the past: A Contrastive archaeology of Later Prehistoric settlement in Southern England’, Journal of European Archaeology 1, 57–76

Hambleton, E 1999 Animal Husbandry Regimes in Iron Age Britain; A comparative study of faunal assemblages from British Iron Age sites, BAR British Series 282, BAR Publishing: Oxford

Hill, JD 1995a Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex; A study on the formation of a specific archaeological record, BAR British Series 242, Tempus Reparatum: Oxford

118

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Hill, JD 1995b ‘How Should we Understand Iron Age Societies and Hillforts? A Contextual Study from Southern Britain’, in JD Hill and CG Cumberpatch (eds) 1995, 45–66 Hill, JD 1996 ‘Hill-forts and the Iron Age of Wessex’, in TC Champion and JR Collis (eds) 1996, 95–116 Hill, JD 1997’ ‘The end of one kind of body and the beginning of another kind of body’? Toilet instruments and ‘Romanization’ in southern England during the first century AD’, in A Gwilt and CC Haselgrove (eds) 1997, 96–107 Hill, JD 1999 ‘Settlement, landscape and regionality: Norfolk and Suffolk in the pre-Roman Iron Age of Britain and beyond’, in JA Davies and T Williamson (eds) Land of the Iceni: the Iron Age in northern East Anglia, Studies of East Anglian History 4: Norwich, 185–207 Hill, JD and Cumberpatch, CG (eds) 1995 Different Iron Ages; Studies on the Iron Age in Temperate Europe, BAR International Series 602, Tempus Reparatum: Oxford Hillman, G 1981a ‘Appendix – Possible Evidence of Grain-Roasting at Iron Age Pembrey’, in GH Williams, ‘Survey and Excavation on Pembrey Mountain’, The Carmarthenshire Antiquary 17, 25–8 Hillman, G 1981b ‘Reconstructing Crop Husbandry Practices from Charred Remains of Crops’, in RJ Mercer (ed) Farming Practice in British Prehistory, Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 123–62 Hillman, G 1998 ‘Charred Remains of Food, Plants, Weeds and Bedding’, in PJ Fasham, RS Kelly, MA Mason and RB White, The Graeanog Ridge; The Evolution of a Farming Landscape and its Settlements in North-West Wales, Cambrian Archaeological Monograph 6, Cambrian Archaeological Association: Aberystwyth, 46–52 Hingley, R 1990 ‘Iron Age ‘Currency Bars’: the archaeological and social context’, Archaeological Journal 147, 90–117 Hogg, AHA 1972a ‘The Size-Distribution of Hill-Forts in Wales and the Marches’, in FM Lynch and CB Burgess (eds) 293–305

Hunter, F 2001 ‘The Carnyx in Iron Age Europe’, Antiquaries Journal 81, 77–108 Jackson, D 1999 ‘Variation in the Size Distribution of Hillforts in the Welsh Marches and its Implication for Social Organisation’, in B Bevan (ed) 197–216 James, ST 1999 The Atlantic Celts; Ancient People or Modern Invention? British Museum Press: London James, ST and Millett, MJ (eds) 2001 Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda, CBA Research Report 125: York James, ST and Rigby, V 1997 Britain and the Celtic Iron Age, British Museum Press: London Jarrett, MG and Wrathmell, S 1981 Whitton; An Iron Age and Roman Farmstead in South Glamorgan, University of Wales Press: Cardiff Jones, MK 1981’The development of crop husbandry’, in MK Jones and GW Dimbleby (eds) The Environment of man: the Iron Age to Anglo-Saxon period, BAR British Series 81: Oxford, 95–127 Jones, MK 1984 ‘The plant remains’, in BW Cunliffe 1984, 483–95 Jones, MK 1985 ‘Archaeobotany beyond subsistence reconstruction’, in GW Barker and CS Gamble (eds), 107–28 Jones, MK 1996 ‘Plant Exploitation’, in TC Champion and JR Collis (eds) 39–40 Jope, EM 2000 Early Celtic Art in the British Isles, (2 vols), Clarendon Press: Oxford Kelly, RS 1988 ‘Two Late Prehistoric Circular Enclosures near Harlech, Gwynedd’, Proc Prehist Soc 54, 101–51 Kelly, RS 1990 ‘Recent Research on the Hut Group Settlements of North-West Wales’, in BC Burnham and JL Davies (eds) 102–111 Lloyd Jones, M 1984 Society and Settlement in Wales and the Marches 500BC to AD 1100, BAR British Series 121: Oxford

Hogg, AHA 1972b ‘Hill-Forts in the coastal area of Wales’, in C Thomas (ed), 11–23

Longley, D 1998 ‘Bryn Eryr: An Enclosed Settlement of the Iron Age on Anglesey’, Proc Prehist Soc 4, 225–73

Hogg, AHA 1976 ‘Castle Ditches, Llancarfan, Glamorgan’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 125, 13–39

Longley, D, Johnstone, N and Evans, J 1998 ‘Excavations on Two Farms of the Romano-British Period at Bryn Eryr and Bush Farm, Gwynedd’, Britannia 29, 185–246

Hughes, G 1994 ‘Old Oswestry Hillfort: Excavations by WJ Varley 1939-1940’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 143, 46–91 Hughes, G 1996 The Excavation of a Late Prehistoric and Romano-British Settlement at Thornwell Farm, Chepstow, Gwent, 1992, BAR British Series 244, Tempus Reparatum: Oxford Hull, MR and Hawkes, CFC 1987 Corpus of Ancient Brooches in Britain; Pre-Roman Bow Brooches, BAR British Series 168, Oxford

Lynch, FM1991 Prehistoric Anglesey, The Archaeology of the Island to the Roman Conquest, (2nd edition), The Anglesey Antiquarian Society: Llangefni Lynch, FM 1995 A Guide to Ancient and Historic Wales: Gwynedd: HMSO: London Lynch, FM and Burgess, CB (eds) 1972 Prehistoric Man in Wales and the West; Essays in honour of Lily F Chitty, Adams and Dart: Bath 119

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Macdonald, P 2000b ‘A Pilot Scheme for the Recording of Portable Antiquities in Wales’, Archaeology in Wales 40, 44–7 Macdonald, P 2000c ‘Note: Newton Moor, Penllyn (SS 98 75)’, Archaeology in Wales 40, 91–2 Macdonald, P 2001 Portable Antiquities: Wales; Newsletter 3 Macdonald, P and Young, T 1995 ‘Llyn Cerrig Bach: Field Survey 1995’, Archaeology in Wales 35, 20–4 Maltby, M 1981 ‘Iron Age, Romano-British and AngloSaxon animal husbandry: a review of the faunal evidence’, in MK Jones and GW Dimbleby (eds) The Environment of man: the Iron Age to Anglo-Saxon period, BAR British Series 87: Oxford, 155–204 Maltby, M 1985 ‘Patterns in faunal assemblage variability’, in GW Barker and CS Gamble (eds) 33–74 Matthews, KJ 1999 ‘The Iron Age of North-west England and Irish Sea Trade’, in B Bevan (ed) 173–95 Morris, EL1985 ‘Prehistoric Salt Distributions: Two Case Studies from Western Britain’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 32(3), 336–379 Morris, EL 1994 ‘Production and Distribution of Pottery and Salt in Iron Age Britain: a Review’, Proc Prehist Soc 60, 371–93 Morris, EL 1996 ‘Iron Age Artefact Production and Exchange’, in TC Champion and JR Collis (eds) 41–65 Morris, EL 1997 ‘Where is the Danebury Ware?’, in A Gwilt and CC Haselgrove (eds) 36–9 Morris, EL, Earl, G, Poppy, S, Westcott, K and Champion, TC 1998 The Later Prehistoric Pottery Collections Register and Bibliography for England: a Gazetteer, Report for English Heritage on behalf of the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group, University of Southampton Morris, EL and Champion, TC 2001 ‘Seven thousand collections – on the web’, Antiquity 75, 253–4 Murphy, K 1985 ‘Excavations at Penycoed, Langynog, Dyfed 1983’, The Carmarthenshire Antiquary 21, 75–112 Murphy, K 1992 ‘Plas Gogerddan, Dyfed: A Multi-Period Burial and Ritual Site’, Archaeological Journal 149, 1–38 Musson, CR 1991 The Breiddin Hillfort; A later prehistoric settlement in the Welsh Marches, CBA Research Report 76: London Musson, CR, Britnell, WJ, Northover, JP and Salter CJ 1992 ‘Excavations and Metal-working at Llwyn Bryn-dinas Hillfort, Llangedwyn, Clwyd’, Proc Prehist Soc 58, 265–83 Mytum, HC1989a ‘Excavation at Castell Henllys, 1981–89: The Iron Age Fort’, Archaeology in Wales 29, 6–10

Mytum HC 1989b ‘The Recognition and Interpretation of Intra-Site Patterning on Sites with Small Numbers of Finds: the Example of Walesland Rath’, Scottish Archaeological Review 6, 65–74 Mytum, HC1999 ‘Castell Henllys’, Current Archaeology 161, 164–72 Nash-Williams, VE 1933 ‘An Early Iron Age Hill-Fort at Llanmelin, near Caerwent, Monmouthshire’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 88, 237–346 Nayling, N and Caseldine, AE 1997 Excavations at Caldicot, Gwent: Bronze Age Palaeochanels in the Lower Nedern Valley, CBA Research Report 108: York Needham, SP 1981 The Bulford-Helsbury Manufacturing Tradition; The production of Stogursey socketed axes of the later Bronze Age in Southern Britain, British Museum Occasional Paper no 13,: British Museum: London Northover, JP 1994 ‘The crucible’, in G Hughes, 1994, 75–9 Olivier, A 1996 Frameworks for Our Past, English Heritage: London Oswald, A 1997 ‘A doorway on the past: practical and mystic concerns in the orientation of roundhouse doorways’, in A Gwilt and CC Haselgrove (eds) 87–95 Parker Pearson, M 1996 ‘Food, Fertility and Front Doors in the First Millennium BC’, in TC Champion and JR Collis (eds) 117–32 Parker Pearson, M and Richards, C 1994 ‘Architecture and Order: Spatial representation and Archaeology’, in M Parker Pearson and C Richards (eds) Architecture and Order; Approaches to Social Space, Routledge: London, 38–72 Parker Pearson, M and Sharples, NM 1999 Between Land and Sea; Excavations at Dun Vulan, South Uist, Sheffield Environmental and Archaeological Research Campaign in the Hebrides, Volume 3, Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield Peacock, DPS 1968 ‘A petrological study of certain Iron Age pottery from western England’, Proc Prehist Soc 34, 414–27 Peacock, DPS 1969 A contribution to the study of Glastonbury ware from south-western Britain’, Antiquaries Journal 49, 41-61 Prehistoric Society 1988 Saving our Prehistoric Heritage, Prehistoric Society: London Probert, LA 1976 ‘Twyn-y-Gaer hill-fort, Gwent: an interim assessment’, in GC Boon and JM Lewis (eds), Welsh Antiquity; Essays mainly on Prehistoric Topics Presented to HN Savory upon his Retirement as Keeper of Archaeology, National Museum of Wales: Cardiff, 105–19 120

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Raftery, B 1994 Pagan Celtic Ireland; The Enigma of the Irish Iron Age, Thames and Hudson: London RCAHMW 1976 An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan; Vol I: Pre-Norman; Part II The Iron Age and the Roman Occupation, HMSO: Cardiff RCAHMW 1997 An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Brecknock (Brycheiniog); The Prehistoric and Roman Monuments; Part I: Later Prehistoric Monuments and Unenclosed Settlements to 1000 AD, Sutton: Stroud Rees, SE 1979 Agricultural Implements in Prehistoric and Roman Britain, (2 vols), BAR British Series 69: Oxford Rees, SE 1992 A Guide to Ancient and Historic Wales: Dyfed, HMSO: London Robinson, DM (ed) 1988 Biglis, Caldicot and Llandough; Three Late Iron Age and Romano-British Sites in SouthEast Wales, Excavations 1977–79, BAR British Series 188: Oxford Saunders, C 1991 ‘Iron objects’, in CR Musson, 1991, 141–7 Savory, HN 1966 ‘A Find of Early Iron Age Metalwork from The Lesser Garth, Pentyrch (Glam)’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 115, 27–44 Savory, HN 1976a ‘Welsh Hillforts: A Reappraisal of Recent Research,’ in DW Harding (ed) 237–91 Savory, HN 1976b Guide Catalogue of the Early Iron Age Collections, National Museum of Wales: Cardiff Savory, HN 1976c ‘Presidential Address: Wales from a Wessex Point of View’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 125, 1–12 Savory, HN 1980a‘The Early Iron Age in Wales’, in JA Taylor (ed), 287–310 Savory, HN 1980b Guide Catalogue of the Bronze Age Collections, National Museum of Wales: Cardiff Savory, HN 1984 ‘Early Iron Age Glamorgan, (c 500BC– 100AD)’, in HN Savory (ed), Glamorgan County History; Volume II: Early Glamorgan – Pre-History and Early History, Glamorgan County History Trust Limited: Cardiff, 237–75 Sharples, NM 1991a English Heritage Book of Maiden Castle, Batsford/English Heritage: London Sharples, NM 1991b ‘Warfare in the Iron Age of Wessex’, Scottish Archaeological Review 8, 79–89 Sharples, NM 1991c Maiden Castle; Excavations and field survey 1985-6, English Heritage Archaeological Report 19, English Heritage: London Sørensen, MLS and Thomas, R (eds) 1989 The Bronze Age – Iron Age Transition in Europe; Aspects of continuity and change in European societies c 1200 to 500BC, BAR International Series 483: Oxford

Spencer, B 1983 ‘Limestone-Tempered Pottery from South Wales in the Late Iron Age and Early Roman Period’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 30(3), 405–19 Spratling, MG 1979 ‘The debris of metal working’, in GJ Wainwright (ed) Gussage all Saints; An Iron Age Settlement in Dorset, HMSO: London, 125–49 Stanford, SC 1972a ‘Welsh Border Hill-Forts’, in C Thomas (ed), 25–36 Stanford, SC 1972b ‘The Function and Population of Hillforts in the Central Marches’, in FM Lynch and CB Burgess (eds) 307–19 Stanford, SC 1991 The Archaeology of the Welsh Marches, (2nd edition), SC Stanford: Ludlow Stead, IM 1995 ‘The Metalwork’, in K Parfitt, Iron Age Burials from Mill Hill, Deal, British Museum Press: London, 59–111 Stead, IM 1996 Celtic Art in Britain before the Roman Conquest, British Museum Press: London Stead, IM 1998 The Salisbury Hoard, Tempus Publishing Limited: Stroud Stoertz, C 1997 Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds, RCHME: Swindon Stopford, J 1987 ‘Danebury: An alternative view’, Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 70–5 Taylor, JA (ed) 1980 Culture and Environment in Prehistoric Wales; Selected Essays, BAR British Series 76: Oxford Thomas, C (ed) 1972 The Iron Age in the Irish Sea Province, Papers given at a CBA conference held at Cardiff, January 3 to 5, 1969, CBA Research Report 9: London Thomas, R 1989 ‘The Bronze – Iron Transition in Southern England’, in MLS Sørensen and R Thomas (eds) 263–86 Tipping, R 1997 ‘Pollen analysis and the impact of Rome on native agriculture around Hadrian’s Wall’, in A Gwilt and CC Haselgrove (eds) 239–47 Todd, M (ed) 1989 Research on Roman Britain: 1960–89, Britannia Monograph Series 11, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies: London Turner, J 1964 ‘Anthropogenic factor in vegetational history’, New Phytologist 63, 73–89 Turner, J 1981 ‘The Iron Age’, in IG Simmons and MJ Tooley (eds) The Environment in British Prehistory, Duckworth: London, 250–81 van der Veen, M 1992 Crop Husbandry Regimes: an archaeobotanical study of farming in northern England 1000 BC–AD 500, JR Collis Publications: Sheffield 121

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Vyner, BE and Allen, DWH 1988 ‘A Romano-British Settlement at Caldicot, Gwent’, in DM Robinson (ed), 65–122

Ring Ditches and Roman Features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon (Oxfordshire) 1974–6, CBA Research Report 28: London, 110–39

Wainwright, GJ 1967 Coygan Camp A Prehistoric, Romano-British and Dark Age Settlement in Carmarthenshire, Cardiff: Cambrian Archaeological Association

Woodward, A 1996 ‘The prehistoric and native pottery’, in G Hughes (ed) 1996, 36–45

Unpublished Crane, P forthcoming The excavation of a coastal promontary fort at Porth y Rhaw, Solva, Pembrokeshire 1995–1998, Archaeological Journal

Wainwright, GJ 1971 ‘The Excavation of a Fortified Settlement at Walesland Rath, Pembrokeshire’, Britannia 2, 48–108

Darbyshire, G 1995 Pre-Roman Iron Tools for Working Metal and Wood in Southern Britain (2 vols), PhD Thesis, University of Wales, Cardiff

Wait, GA 1985 Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain, BAR British Series 149: Oxford Webster, J 1995 ‘Translation and Subjection: Interpretatio and the Celtic Gods’, in JD Hill and CG Cumberpatch (eds) 1995, 175–83

Gwilt, A in prep ‘The First Millennium BC’, in R Howell and M Aldhouse-Green (eds), Gwent County History, Vol I; Prehistory and Early History

Whimster, RP 1981 Burial Practices in Iron Age Britain; A Discussion and Gazetteer of the Evidence c 700BC–AD 43, BAR British Series 90 (2 vols): Oxford

Henderson, J 1982 X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Iron Age Glass, PhD Thesis, University of Bradford Macdonald, P 2000a A Reassessment of the Copper Alloy Artefacts from the Llyn Cerrig Bach, Anglesey, Assemblage, PhD Thesis, University of Wales College, Cardiff

Whimster, RP 1989 The Emerging Past; Air Photography and the Buried Landscape, RCHME: London Whittle, AWR 1989 ‘Two Later Bronze Age Occupations and an Iron Age Channel on the Gwent Foreshore’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 36 (3), 200–23

Macdonald, P in prep The Copper Alloy Artefacts from Llyn Cerrig Bach, Anglesey, Cardiff: University of Wales Press

Whittle, EA 1992 A Guide to Ancient and Historic Wales: Glamorgan and Gwent, HMSO: London

Morris, E L1983 Salt and Ceramic Exchange in Western Britain During the First Millennium BC, PhD Thesis, University of Southampton

Williams, A 1952 ‘Clegyr Boia, St David’s (Pembs): Excavation in 1943’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 102, 20–47

Palk, NA 1988 Metal Horse Harness of the British and Irish Iron Ages, Doctoral Thesis, University of Oxford

Williams, GH 1978 Aspects of Later Prehistoric and Native Roman Carmarthenshire: Part I’, The Carmarthenshire Antiquary 14, 3–19

Spratling, MG 1972 Southern British Decorated Bronzes of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age, PhD Thesis, Institute of Archaeology, London

Williams, GH 1979 ‘Aspects of Later Prehistoric and Native Roman Carmarthenshire: Part II’, The Carmarthenshire Antiquary 15, 15–37

Websites Cooper, N 2001 The East Midlands Archaeological Research Framework Project www.le.ac.uk/archaeology/east_midlands_research_frame works.htm

Williams, GH 1985 ‘An Iron Age Cremation Deposit from Castle Bucket Letterston, Pembrokeshire’, Archaeology in Wales 25, 13–5 Williams, G H 1988 ‘Recent Work on Rural Settlement in Later Prehistoric and Early Historic Dyfed’, Antiquaries Journal 68, 30–54 Williams, GH and Mytum, HC 1998 Llawhaden, Dyfed; Excavations on a group of small defended enclosures, 1980–4, BAR British Series 275, BAR Publishing: Oxford Willis, S 1997 ‘Settlement, materiality and landscape in the Iron Age of the East Midlands: evidence, interpretation and wider resonance’, in A Gwilt and CC Haselgrove (eds), 205–15 Wilson, B 1978 ‘The animal bones’, in M Parrington (ed) The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement, Bronze Age

122

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

18 Towards research agenda for the Roman period Edith E Evans

Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust Heathfield House, Heathfield, Swansea SA1 6EL [email protected]

Abstract Work on Roman Wales is generally hampered by the inadequacy or paucity of existing data. The results of a survey carried out on civilian settlement in the lowland area of southeast Wales are given. Suggestions for facilitating site detection are advanced. These were tested in the course of the survey. A summary is given of the main research themes which need to be addressed and for which data could be collected during the course of suitably designed survey and excavation projects, whether designed for research or as part of development proposals. Introduction Although this paper is entitled Towards research agenda for the Roman period, it is in fact as much concerned with research frameworks and strategies, as defined at the conference, as it is with agenda. There are compelling reasons why this should be the case. Earlier in 2001, a volume outlining research agenda for the period for the whole of Britain was published, containing a wide-ranging series of papers, from urban and rural studies and the army, to finds and animal bone (James and Millett 2001). Each paper puts forward topics which its author feels would profitably repay further research, and which are for the most part as relevant to Wales as to the rest of Britain. However, hardly any of the topics suggested here can be addressed for Wales, because available data are inadequate. Any discussion must therefore address not only the questions which need to be asked, but also what is needed to bring data levels up to a point at which answers are possible. The first part of this paper therefore concentrates on the methodologies devised for this purpose as part of the Romano-British South East Wales Lowland Settlement Survey, carried out by GGAT for Cadw. The second part presents the main topics for further work which arose from the survey. As noted above, these mainly cover civilian concerns. They are also biased towards the South East,

though many of them will have applications in other parts of the Principality. The purpose of the Romano-British South East Wales Lowland Settlement Survey was to aid the development control process. As the driving force was the increase in pressure for development land along the M4 corridor, the northern limit to the greater part of the area in Gwent was an artificial one, approximately 10km north of the motorway. From Newport eastwards, the northern limit was the edge of the coalfield, though the area to the south of Caerphilly and the mouth of the Rhymney valley were included since they partake more of the nature of the lowland area rather than the uplands. The western limit was set at the southeastern edge of Port Talbot, where the coalfield approaches the sea. Although the uplands were specifically excluded, this has not resulted in any significant exclusion of sites, since only a single upland settlement, Hen Dre’r Gelli (RCAHMW 1976, 78) is known for certain to have been occupied. The survey was concerned with civilian sites, and did not consider military sites other than as far as they formed part of the overall pattern of Roman-period activity in the area. It is only by being aware of the potential of sites affected by planning applications that curators can draw up briefs which allow for maximum data retrieval on site. A criticism levelled at research designs and research agenda for archaeological fieldwork is that they constrain thinking, leading excavators to ignore data outside the parameters of the agenda. On the other hand, without an appreciation of the problems of a particular area, data collection based on standard criteria may fail to address the questions which need to be answered. Unexpected data should be addressed not building in feedback from the results being produced during excavation (Boismier 1991, 11, 13). The survey fell into two halves. The initial stage consisted of a primarily desk-top review of existing archaeological 123

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

data, supplemented by examination of existing air photograph coverage of selected areas, and by a limited number of site visits. Data were then augmented in two ways. Detailed research, including geophysics, was carried out on a small number of sites that were considered likely to have significant structural remains, in order to establish their nature and extent. A detailed field survey of a limited area was also carried out to establish the patterns of land use and settlement within the area. The work permitted testing the validity of some aspects of the study methodology.

twenty-two farmsteads, six villas, four probable villas and six industrial sites in Glamorgan, besides definite or possible ‘small towns’ at Cowbridge, Cardiff and Kenfig, and six farmsteads, three possible villas and four industrial sites in southern Gwent. Whilst it would be possible to question some attributions, the map does show a real increase in the number of sites known. This was a reflection of the fieldwork carried out between the two publications, and of the extent to which increasing archaeological involvement in the development process had led to recording of sites before destruction.

Survey results

One initiatives was the Marginal Land Survey. This was an attempt to visit all fields that had been brought into cultivation during the intensification of farming in the 1960s in three separate areas, Gower, the Vale of Glamorgan, and Gwent. Few resources were however available, each area being the responsibility of a single field officer who worked on an opportunistic basis, walking fields as they were seen to be ploughed. The methodology was to walk round the edge of each field and along diagonals and quarter lines, and only to walk transects if finds were noted or there was other obvious evidence for occupation. Although the project led to the identification from finds scatters of a significant number of new sites, it was notable that the majority were prehistoric; only one new definite Roman settlement site was found in the Vale, New Mill Farm Monknash. Others were merely scatters of abraded pottery. It is therefore possible that Roman settlement patterns may be masked by more recent farmsteads and settlements. The Eastern Vale Survey, carried out as an ancillary to excavations at Cosmeston Medieval Village, concentrated on elucidating topography in the medieval period of the parishes surrounding Cosmeston. This survey concentrated on earthworks, and artefact collection played little part in the programme. It did however produce one major result pertinent to the Roman period, a resurvey and a suggested redating to the Roman period of the settlement/enclosure earthwork site of Ysguborgoch Farm, which had been published as medieval in the early 1980s by RCAHMW (1982, 62–3).

The general survey This general survey produced an overview of the current state of knowledge of Roman settlement in the area. Whilst the archaeology of the legionary fortress of Caerleon and the civitas capital of Caerwent have both been relatively well studied, that of the surrounding countryside in the Roman period is virtually unknown. It is certain that there must have been a reasonably flourishing rural economy, revenues from which will have been required to maintain the members of the ordo which is recorded at Caerwent (RIB 311). Some of the surrounding area seems to have been farmed from establishments inside the walls (Brewer 1993,58), but for logistical reason this cannot have been more than a fraction of the tribal area (that within easy reach of the town). Two villas close to the town itself (Five Lanes and Chapel Tump/Whitewell Brake), together with a couple of rather enigmatic high status sites (Portskewett Hill and Wyndcliff) a little further east, have been known for a considerable time (Morgan 1855, 427; Anon 1893, 340-1; Anon1923; Nash-Williams 1928, 266). That more such sites are not known is probably a reflection on low levels of investigation. The situation in Glamorgan as known in the mid 1970s is presented in RCAHMW 1976 on fig 46 and in the accompanying gazetteer. Compared with twenty military sites, there are only thirteen civilian sites, seven classed as villas and six of lesser status, and most of these were discovered by the efforts of the Barry and Vale Archaeological Group who were operating in the southeastern part of the Vale of Glamorgan. No such plan or gazetteer was ever produced for Gwent, but the level of knowledge was similar. Comparison with other civitates in the eastern half of lowland Britain, as presented at around the same date in the People of Roman Britain series is instructive. The density of villas and other rural settlements shown for the Trinovantes (Dunnett 1975, 95, fig 25, 108, fig 29) or villas and small towns/villages for the Coritani (Todd, 1973, 79, fig17) is many times greater than that for the Silures. The next review of the area was some ten years later, by Robinson (1988). The map which he produced (Robinson 1988, viii, fig1B) to go with his short overview, showed

In many parts of the survey area the known pattern of Roman settlement has been dependent upon the reporting of chance finds made over the last 150 years. Work carried out over the last twenty years elsewhere in Roman Britain has highlighted the inadequacy of any attempt to understand Roman settlement patterns without intensive fieldwork. The results of an entirely literature-based survey are, as Hall (1982, 349) points out, highly misleading, and the result of including sites where ‘no indication of occupation extent is given, grid references are wrong, and some [which] appear to be complete fabrications’ is that ‘uncritical information gains an unwarranted respectability and clouds the academic argument for years to come’. This phase of the Romano124

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

British South East Wales Lowland Settlement Survey was designed to evaluate the data for individual sites, and to set them in their topographical context. The survey identified six settlements with potentially urban characteristics: Caerwent itself, the ‘small towns’ of Cowbridge and Bulmore (Parkhouse and Evans 1996; Macdonald forthcoming), civil settlements attached to the fortress at Caerleon and the fort at Cardiff (Evans 2000; Webster 1981) and a metal-processing site at Lower Machen. This is potentially urban in view of its size, but geophysical survey revealed no sign of ordered layout. There were thirty-six rural sites for which structural evidence was known, of which seventeen can be classified as villas. Seventeen sites have produced evidence, mostly very slight, for field systems that are of definite or probable Roman date, and there are another seventeen for which a Roman date is possible. Twenty-nine sites produced evidence for industrial activity, but in most cases this consists only of a scatter of slag in an urban setting, or within a probably agricultural settlement; examples include Whitton (Jarrett and Wrathmell 1981, 204–10). Only the pottery kilns at Abernant (Celtic Manor Golf Course), Caldicot and Llanedeyrn (Marvell 1996; Vyner and Evans 1978; Barnett et al 1990), the lead mines at Draethen and Goldsland Wood (Tuck and Tuck 1965; Treseder 1978) with the associated processing site at Lower Machen (Nash-Williams 1939), and the ironsmelting sites at Miskin and possibly Bolton Gaer (Young and Macdonald 1997), seem to be primarily industrial. There are only nineteen burial sites, of which nine are associated with settlement or other activity, and no certain religious sites other than temples within towns (the temple at Gwehelog (Arnold and Davies 2000, 128, 130) lies just outside the survey area). The survey also looked into the way in which sites were placed within the surrounding topography. It was possible to identify ten character areas, defined by geology and topography, with potential differences as to the siting of settlements, and the way in which the land was used. The detailed surveys The purpose of the detailed surveys was not only to increase the level of knowledge but also to determine the types of technique that could usefully be employed to do so. The two main techniques to be evaluated were fieldwalking and geophysical survey. The Penmark-Porthkerry survey Fieldwalking was the main element of a detailed survey carried out in a limited area around Penmark and Porthkerry at the eastern side of the Vale of Glamorgan to the west of Barry. This area was already known to contain some Roman settlement, and air photograph plotting carried out by RCAHMW had identified a cluster of enclosures of late prehistoric form (Driver 1995). The

main purpose of the survey was to gain some idea of settlement density (Fig 18.1), but follow-up excavation and geophysics also took place on three sites to obtain more information on the type of settlement and to determine how the results of fieldwalking might reflect below-ground archaeology. The detailed study area, around Cardiff International Airport, comprised some 15km2, not all of which was available for study, partly because 4 km2 had been sterilised by building, quarrying and the airport itself, and partly because access was not granted on one large land landholding. However, a significant block (more than 1km2) of the available area was entirely given over to arable. This was walked after ploughing for artefact collection and to note any surviving earthworks; other smaller areas of arable and re-seeded pasture were walked, and land under established pasture was walked to identify earthworks. The results of this work (Evans 2001 and forthcoming) are summarised here. Areas under grass did not produce new Roman sites, but artefact collection in ploughed fields showed that Roman pottery: 1 Was not a common find in comparison with medieval and post-medieval pottery 2 Occurred on average at the rate of one find every 05km – 10km (apart from one cluster of finds in adjacent fields) 3 Normally occurred as single sherds rather than groups of sherds, but was frequently associated with other settlement debris 4 Frequently occurred in fields with air photograph or geophysical evidence for sites of late prehistoric/Romano-British form 5 Was likely to occur at locations typical for sites of late prehistoric/Romano-British form (particularly above the tops of cwms), as established by air photographic studies (Driver 1995) As part of the follow-up work, a small excavation was carried out at Nurston, in one of the fields producing a single sherd. This field was also the location of enclosures visible on air photographs, which were not apparently related to modern or medieval field systems. The excavation showed that, whilst all features above bedrock had been removed by ploughing, rock-cut features of Iron Age and Roman date survived. The artefactual and palaeoenvironmental evidence suggested these features lay on the periphery of a settlement whose economic basis was probably mixed agriculture, but where iron smithing was also taking place. Conclusions were: 1 That the use of midden material in manuring fields was unlikely to be significant in the presence of Roman pottery in ploughsoil 2 That all sites producing even a single sherd of Roman pottery should therefore be regarded as potentially sites where pottery was being used 125

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

A second, more limited excavation consisting of a single trench was carried out on Fonmon Castle Wood, one of the enclosures of late prehistoric form identified from aerial photography (Driver 1995, 5 fig 2b, 8; Evans and Driver 2000), where the field was under grass. The purpose of the excavation was to determine whether it was reasonable to suppose that activity might continue into the Roman period on sites of this type, and thus whether they should be included in interpretation of the general settlement pattern. This resulted in the recovery of a sherd of Black Burnished pottery from the enclosure ditch, which, in view of the fieldwalking results, suggesting that there was unlikely to be a connection with manuring, suggests that this hypothesis was reasonable. A third excavation also took place as the result of a development proposal on another enclosure of late prehistoric type, at Tredogan North (Driver 1995, 8; Evans 2001, 39). Here again there was limited artefactual evidence for use of the site in the Roman period. The second follow-up technique used was geophysical survey at Glebe Farm, a site in pasture known only from a tiny sherd of mortarium and the find of a third century coin by a metal detectorist. This coin had initially been explained by its proximity to the known Roman site at the Bulwarks, a few hundred metres away (Fig 18.1). However, geophysics revealed part of a ditched enclosure of late prehistoric form, suggesting that this was another Iron Age site occupied into the Roman period (Fig 18.2). The results of this survey suggest that Roman sites occur at a density of one site every 05km–10km over the Lias

Fig18.1 The Penmark-Porthkerry survey area: Distribution of entries associated with Roman settlement in regional Sites and Monuments Record (each entry is identified by its Primary Record Number)

limestone in the Vale of Glamorgan. The most favoured location was the high ground at the edges of cwms (narrow valleys with steep sides and flat bottoms), but there were also some sites in more central positions on the plateau

Fig 18.2 Results of geophysical survey at Glebe Farm, Porthkerry

126

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

between the cwms. Without a great deal more fieldwalking or excavation, however, it is not possible to determine which were occupied at the same time; some of the excavated sites have evidence for hiatuses in occupation, for example Biglis (Parkhouse 1988, 20-30) and Mynydd Bychan (RCAHMW 1976, 48). Individual sites Although geophysical survey was used at Glebe Farm in the Penmark-Porthkerry survey to determine whether a site actually existed, its more usual application was to clarify the nature and extent of sites where significant remains were suspected, but where little remained above ground. None of these lay within the detailed survey area. At three sites, Llanbethery, Llanmihangel and Monknash, stony mounds with scatters of Roman tile and pottery had previously been noted after ploughing and had been interpreted as possible villas. At the first two, which are normally under arable cultivation, nothing now remained of any upstanding earthworks; the third, which was under grass, still retained a slight bank. At a fourth, Wyndcliff, a possible villa building had been seen on an aerial photograph of a hilltop overlooking the River Wye from which Roman finds of high quality, including part of a bronze statue, had come in the past. The fifth site lay adjacent to the A426 at Lower Machen. Here, structural remains associated with first and second century pottery had been disturbed during roadworks over a distance of approximately 05km. Adjacent fields had also produced metalwork as a result of the activity of detectorists. Given the project remit, it was possible to determine the full extent of only a single site, Llanbethery, a small rectangular ditched enclosure; little evidence was found for the masonry structure suggested by trial work carried out in connection with the retrieval of a hoard of third century coins in the 1950s (RCAHMW 1976, 120). Pottery indicated that the site had an Iron Age origin. This site was on the Lias Limestone, and produced particularly good results from magnetometry, as did the other Lias sites of Glebe Farm, Llanmihangel and Monknash; the latter two sites were also more productive in terms of data retrieved by resistivity. Llanmihangel produced evidence for a masonry building of indeterminate form, as did Monknash, where there was also evidence for a ditched enclosure, which could be amalgamated with the results of a RCAHMW air photograph of a ditch in the adjoining field. Not all geological formations were equally suitable for providing good results. At Wyndcliff, which lies on Carboniferous Limestone with a generally very shallow soil cover, results were less satisfactory. Here, a building which had initially been picked out as a parchmark since it lay over a band of deeper soil also showed on the geophysics. However, neither magnetometry nor resistivity survey was able to discriminate between bedrock and foundations and thus identify clear evidence for the associated buildings. On the other hand, a site on

alluvium at Lower Machen, a complex system of ditched enclosures and possible buildings was revealed by a combination of magnetometry and resistivity. These must be associated with the processing of lead ores from the Roman mines on the opposite site of the river, attested by numerous finds of lead-working debris, but the unorganised nature of the plan suggests that this was not a formal settlement. Results from these surveys show how much is still to be understood about sites which have already been identified, and how valuable can be techniques suited to the site type and ground conditions. Air photography is unfortunately not particularly well adapted to the geological and pedalogical conditions of the survey area. It took the exceptionally dry summer of 1975 to produce the cropmarks mapped by Driver (1995) for example, and at only three known villa sites (Croes-carn-einion, Five Lanes and Wyndcliff) have cropmarks been noted of sufficient clarity to permit any idea of plans. Field systems predating the present arrangements are few and far between. Were they confined to areas around settlements (an infield/outfield arrangement) or did they run all the way between settlements? Only a greatly increased amount of detailed fieldwork examining the landscape as a whole is likely to produce any significant advances in answering questions of this nature.

The way forward Most of this paper has been occupied with a review of existing knowledge, and with evaluating the most profitable way of extending that knowledge in southeast Wales. A similar approach should also pay dividends in other parts of the Principality, though in areas where the predominant agricultural activity is stock-rearing, a longer term programme to take in the cycle of re-seeding improved pasture would be necessary. There is also a need for excavation programmes on groups of sites within restricted areas, like that carried out by Williams (1989). Such a programme could have been a natural follow-on from the Penmark-Porthkerry survey, had it been a pure research project; however, if the development of the area continues as expected, one can be drawn up and carried out as part of the planning process. This leaves wider questions of thematic research still to address, but is only meaningful when the database is sufficiently robust. An adequate dataset is the prerequisite of any theoretical enquiry, but there should also be awareness of current issues during the framing of any data-gathering exercise. Themes with particular relevance to the area are: 1 The interaction between the army and the native population (James and Millett 2001, 84). Did the presence of the army as a permanent garrison at Caerleon and in a significant number of forts, at least 127

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

2

3

4

5

6

until the army reforms of Diocletian, have a distorting effect on some, if not all, strata of society? How do vici fit into the patterns of both civilian settlement and the military establishment, and what changes occur in them during the course of the Roman occupation? Development, or lack of it, of the countryside in response to the stimulus of occupation. Is there a significant segment of the rural population living largely at subsistence level with little or no access to the market economy? If this is the case, every find of Roman pottery should be regarded as potentially signalling the presence of a Roman site. Detailed investigation of such sites should be designed to consider how far the site represents a subsistence economy and to what extent it is linked into the ‘normal’ trading networks for its area. In this way it should be possible to establish what hierarchies exist within any particular area. The type of trading contacts which existed with the rest of Britain; for example, Hughes (1997, 95) has identified an apparent lack of contact with the Midlands, which might have been expected to be a logical link, in contrast with southwestern England where trading links can be demonstrated through pottery. The degree of variability in settlement patterns in response to different local topographies. Do these represent different types of economic exploitation of the area? Even within the relative restrictions of the survey, it was possible to establish ten separate character areas, defined by their geology and topography. It was clear that land use was not necessarily the same between one area and another, and that any study of settlement patterns in Wales as a whole must take into account local as well as regional or national variations. The relationship between towns and the rural hinterland. Is it right to postulate that the market economy was not sufficiently robust to support more than a limited number of market centres? The extent to which known sites represent typical forms for the area. Because of the generally low levels of excavation, detailed knowledge of any particular type of site is low; it is frequently not possible to determine whether features encountered are typical or whether they are peculiar to the site in question. Neither is it possible to examine if there is any significant diversity in housing tradition over either time or space, as suggested by Taylor (in James and Millett 2001, 50). The problem of typicality is particularly great in watching briefs. This is further compounded by the fact that, in developments which will result in the fragmentation of ownership (for example new housing estates), it is unlikely that more than fractions of the site will be available for future investigation. In devising appropriate mitigation measures therefore, consideration should be given to whether full excavation before development is preferable to preserving the site in a fragmented state.

7 Patterns of agriculture and their relation to diet (James and Millett 2001, 54). Very little palaeoenvironmental work has been carried out in lowland Wales for sites of the Roman period. More data are urgently required on the environmental and agricultural background to the settlement economy; such work will also help determine whether apparent changes in the agricultural economy from the Iron Age to the Roman period noted over Wales as a whole are real or merely a function of changes in rubbish disposal strategies (Caseldine 1990, 77). The results obtained from the sites at Nurston and Fonmon Castle Wood show that useful information can be obtained from samples where the density of carbonised plant remains is fairly low. 8 Where suitable geological conditions exist, study of populations via skeletal remains would add immensely to our understanding of social and economic conditions. With regard to determining whether a low degree of Romanisation is or is not an indicator of wealth or poverty, human skeletal remains can now be tested to examine the nutritional status of the individual, including childhood development, children being one of the groups more at risk if food resources for the group are stretched. It should also be possible to determine the sources from which protein is being obtained (Garnsey 1999, 43-61, 101, 106, 112); what was the importance of seafood around the coasts and did it vary with the degree of Romanisation (James and Millett 2001, 41)? 9 The extent to which there is continuity in occupation of sites both from the late prehistoric period and into the post-Roman period. The latter interface is particularly complicated by the general absence of coinage and traded materials such as pottery reaching many sites, even the most highly Romanised, after the mid fourth century. Accordingly, in contradiction of normal practice for Roman archaeology, radiocarbon samples should be taken from the upper levels of all sites where fourth century occupation is present, to obtain dates if coins and/or pottery dated to at least the middle of the century are present. On sites where the dating material consists of very small amounts of Roman pottery only, radiocarbon dates should be obtained to determine whether these are sites of Roman date with little contact with the market economy, or Early Christian sites with residual material.

128

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bibliography Anon 1893 ‘Discovery of an ancient camp on the Wyndcliff’, Archaeol Cambrensis 48, 340–1

Archaeological Association within the walls of Caerwent in the summer of 1855’, Archaeologia 36, 418–437

Anon 1923 ‘Current work in Welsh archaeology’, Bull Board Celtic Studs 1 (1922–23), 339–70

Nash-Williams, VE 1928 ‘Topographical list of Roman remains found in South Wales’, Bull Board Celt Studs 4 (1927–29), 246–71

Arnold, CJ and Davies, JL 2000 Roman and Early Medieval Wales, Sutton: Stroud

Nash-Williams, VE 1939 ‘A new metal-working site’, Archaeol Cambrensis 94, 108–110

Barnett, C, Stanley, P, Trett, R, and Webster, PV 1990 ‘Romano-British pottery kilns at Caldicot, Gwent’, Archaeol Jnl 147, 118–47

Parkhouse, J 1988 ‘Excavations at Biglis, South Glamorgan’, in DM Robinson (ed) Biglis, Caldicot and Llandough: three Late Iron Age and Romano-British sites in southeast Wales, BAR British Series 188: Oxford, 1–64

Boismier, WA 1991 ‘The role of research design in surface collection: An example from Broom Hill, Braishfield, Hampshire’, in AJ Schofield (ed) 11–25 Boon, GC (ed) 1978 Roman sites, Cambrian Archaeol Assoc Monograph 1, Cardiff Brewer, RJ 1993 ‘Venta Silurum: A civitas-capital’, in S Greep (ed) 56–65 Caseldine, AE 1990 Environmental archaeology in Wales, St David’s University College: Lampeter Driver, TG 1995 ‘New crop mark sites at Aberthaw, South Glamorgan’, Archaeol in Wales 35, 3–9 Dunnett, R 1975 The Trinovantes, Duckworth: London

Parkhouse, J and Evans, EM 1996 Excavations at Cowbridge, South Glamorgan, 1977–88, BAR British Series 245: Oxford RCAHMW 1976 An inventory of the ancient monuments in Glamorgan Vol 1: Pre-Norman, Part II, The Iron Age and Roman occupation, HMSO: Cardiff RCAHMW 1982 An Inventory of the ancient monuments in Glamorgan Vol 3: Medieval secular monuments Part II Non-defensive, HMSO: Cardiff Robinson, DM (ed) 1988 Biglis, Caldicot and Llandough: three Late Iron Age and Romano-British sites in southeast Wales, BAR British Series 188: Oxford

Evans, EM 2000 The Caerleon canabae: excavations in the civil settlement 194-90, Britannia Monograph 16

Schofield, AJ (ed) 1991 Interpreting artefact scatters: Contributions to ploughzone archaeology, Oxbow Monograph 4: Oxford

Evans, EM and Driver, TG 2000 ‘Fonmon Castle Wood,’ Archaeol in Wales 41, 90

Todd, M 1973 The Coritani, Duckworth: London

Garnsey, P 1999 Food and society in classical antiquity, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Greep, SJ (ed) 1993 Roman towns: The Wheeler inheritance, CBA Research Report 93: London Hall, DN 1982 ‘The countryside of the south-east Midlands and Cambridgeshire’, in D Miles 1982, 337–50 Hughes, G 1996 The excavation of a late prehistoric and Romano-British Settlement at Thornwell Farm, Chepstow, Gwent, BAR British Series 244: Oxford James, ST and Millett, MJ 2001 Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda, CBA Research Report 125: York Jarrett, MG and Wrathmell, S 1981 Whitton: An Iron Age and Roman farmstead in South Glamorgan, University of Wales Press: Cardiff Marvell, AG 1996 ‘Celtic Manor Golf Course’, Archaeol in Wales 36, 74–5 Miles, D (ed) 1982 The Romano-British countryside: studies in rural settlement and economy, BAR British Series 103: Oxford Morgan, O 1855 ‘Excavations prosecuted by the Caerleon

Tuck, NW and Tuck, JP 1965 Roman mine, Bristol Exploration Club, Caving Report 15 Vyner, BE and Evans, GC 1978 ‘The excavation of a Roman pottery kiln in Llanedeyrn’, in GC Boon (ed), 120–129 Webster, PV 1981 ‘Cardiff Castle’, Morgannwg 25, 201–11 Williams, GH 1989 ‘Recent work on rural settlement in later prehistoric and early historic Dyfed,’ Antiquaries Jnl 68, 30–54 Young, T and Macdonald, P 1997 ‘Miskin, School Road’, Archaeol in Wales 37, 79

Unpublished Evans, EM forthcoming Towards an understanding of settlement patterns in southeast Wales during the Roman period Evans, EM 2001 Romano-British South East Wales Settlement Survey: Penmark and Porthkerry, (GGAT Contracts report 2001/020) Macdonald, P forthcoming The Roman road, settlement and cemetery at Bulmore in Gwent Report on the excavations carried out in 1983–84 Treseder, GC 1978 Goldsland Wood Excavation 1977, (typescript held by GGAT SMR)

129

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

19 Towards research agenda for Medieval archaeology Andrew Davidson

Gwynedd Archaeological Trust Craig Beuno, Garth Road, Bangor, LL57 2RT [email protected] http\\www.heneb.co.uk

Abstract An examination of recent sources for medieval archaeology in Wales has revealed a considerable quantity of new evidence over the last ten years. However, major works of synthesis have been few, and understanding has not always kept up with data. The necessity for setting clear research aims for projects involving data acquisition is recognised, though with the acceptance that these aims may alter as a project progresses, and that the final product(s) may not always be as anticipated. Various gaps in current knowledge, particularly in chronological development, are identified. The importance of understanding sites within their landscape context, though already appreciated in many studies, still has much to contribute. The need to broadcast knowledge to a wide public is recognised. Introduction This review summarises recent advances of knowledge and attempts to identify the principal areas where further research would be most fruitful. The bibliography contains a full list of sources consulted for this study, though not all are referenced in the text. Some subjects are covered summarily, and pottery and small finds are barely considered at all. The concluding section examines the structure of medieval archaeological studies within Wales, and examines how this influences the nature of research. The period covered is from the eleventh century to c 1500. The period covered is from the eleventh century to circa 1500, and does not include the Early Medieval period (fifth to eleventh century).

and partially excavated (Fig 19.1). This revealed the footings of a timber hall, a stone-built solar, and adjacent buildings (Johnstone 1997). Occupation was principally confined to the later thirteenth and early fourteenth century. More work is required to both understand the remains at Rhosyr and to place them in a national context. There exists considerable potential for more Welsh royal sites to be found, with a consequent improvement in our understanding. Sculptural remains can be important survivors, capable of shedding new light upon the subject even when found out of context (Lynch 1998). The need for these sites to be identified on the regional SMRs to ensure they are taken into account should they be threatened by development is fundamental to their management. Research issues include their date of foundation, the nature of the remains and construction styles. Studies of small finds will provide a clearer understanding of trading patterns. The setting and location of mottes and ringworks needs to be examined, and their relationship with royal or regionally important settlements needs to be clarified. Even if of Norman build, their location must have been influenced by the existing

Rural Settlement and Agriculture High status sites The study of high status medieval sites has been enhanced in north Wales during the last ten years as a result of work funded by Cadw to locate the sites of Welsh courts (llysoed) (Johnstone 1997; 2000a). Site locations are discussed in detail, and one site, Rhosyr, has been located

Fig 19.1 Rhosyr: the medieval Llys during excavation of the principal hall. Photo. A Davidson 1994

131

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

settlements. The llysoedd of Merionethshire, it has been suggested, may have been motte and bailey castles (Johnstone 1997, 61; Longley 1997, 41–44). Advances have also been made in our understanding of the Episcopal equivalent of the royal llys. Excavation at the Bishop’s palace of Bangor has revealed timber and stone structures of twelfth century date, probably lying adjacent to the main hall, lying on a river bank between the palace and the cathedral (Johnstone 2000b). A programme of work at Gogarth, Conwy, has ensured the remains are fully recorded before they are lost through coastal erosion (Davidson 2000). Substantial recording at the Bishop’s Palace of St David’s has shown the importance of the remains for understanding the Decorated period of architectural development in Wales, and a link with the Bristol school of sculpture is suggested (Turner 2000).

Fig 19.2 Cwm Brwynog, Llanberis is one of the few medieval settlements which can be identified with a site mentioned in the fourteenth century extents. Photo. A Davidson 1996

Identification of and evidence for moated sites has been recently examined (RCAHMW 1982, 69–118), though excavation is required for definite confirmation, particularly in north Wales where confusion with late prehistoric and Roman earthworks can exist. Tregarnedd, Anglesey, is the only certain site in northwest Wales. Firmer chronologies need to be established concerning the origin and decline of moated sites. Recent studies concerning other fortified sites will be examined below.

(similar to Cwm Brwynog, Llanberis, Fig 19.2), providing a previously unparalleled source of information for the archaeological study of rural settlement.

Low status sites The study of medieval settlement, particularly in north Wales, was dominated in the early period by historians and historical geographers, with few archaeological studies -– (in particular the the works of F Seebohm, T Jones Pierce, GRJ Jones and C Thomas (for references and summaries of the position to date see Jones 1996; Charles-Edwards 1993). These authors are essential reading for anyone trying to get to grips with the complexities of medieval rural settlement. However, the collection of archaeological evidence, and in particular the interpretation of that evidence, lagged far behind the historical. Townships were typically located by place name evidence preserved in farm and village names, and not by archaeological remains.

Despite these advances, there are still many gaps in our understanding and interpretation of medieval rural settlements. Research issues include identification of historically attested settlements with earthworks and their status within a township; the impact of tenure upon settlement morphology; understanding of the chronological development of building types and settlement morphology; and interrelationship between settlement, agriculture, environment, tenure and economics.

The archaeological study of medieval rural settlement has, to date, relied heavily upon the interpretation of visible field remains. Early analysis was undertaken by Gresham (1954), though the majority of work until recently was undertaken by the RCAHMW and published in county inventories or regional studies (for example 1956; 1960; 1964; 1982; 1997). These studies have recently been supplemented with the results of the Deserted Rural Settlement (DRS) project undertaken by the four Welsh Archaeological Trusts funded by Cadw (for summaries of this work see the Welsh entries in Atkinson et al 2000). This project has resulted in the identification of a large number of potential medieval settlements and dwellings

Excavations of medieval settlements have been few in number, though notable results were achieved at Cefn Graeanog (Kelly 1981–2; for an overview of excavation results see Butler 1971;1988 and 1991). Other excavations include work by Kissock (2000) and Smith (1997; 1999).

Interpretation is hindered by the survival bias between marginal land and good agricultural land, often reflected in a lowland-upland divide. Further progress will be made by, on the one hand, excavation of key sites, and on the other by more rigorous landscape analysis. Regional landscape studies (where historical and archaeological data are used in conjunction with a variety of techniques including map regression analysis, landscape characterisation and environmental archaeology) have been shown to work on the Severn Levels (Rippon 1997; 2000; see Caseldine 1990; this volume; Walker et al 1997). The landscape characterisation studies being undertaken by the WATs, funded by Cadw, will provide a dataset and background for further, more detailed, regional studies. These, combined with the identification of resource availability, will give a clearer understanding of the medieval landscape and help overcome the survival bias (see also the works cited on medieval granges below). 132

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Deserted medieval villages The deserted medieval villages which form a feature of the Norman colonisation of South Wales are reviewed for Glamorgan in the county Inventory (RCAHMW 1982). The principal excavated example is Cosmeston (Andrews 1996; Newman and Farwell 1993), but a large part of the work undertaken here has yet to be published, and, given the importance of the results, this must be considered a priority. Significant excavations have also been undertaken at Barry (Thomas and Dowdell 1987), Sully and Highlight.

More work has been undertaken on water and wind power used for grinding corn and fulling cloth (Barton 1997; 1999; Taylor 1997; 1999; Jack 1981), though here there are gaps concerning their date of introduction, the use of the horizontal mill, and the development of waterwheel and milling technology. A technique has been developed as part of a Cadw-funded project to identify medieval mill sites by concentrating upon locating ‘undeveloped’ medieval sites, that is, those that were not still in use in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Some success has been achieved, and it is hoped to refine the methodology further (Davidson 2000).

Secular buildings The study of medieval secular buildings in Wales is dominated by the work of Peter Smith (1988; 2000), though studies of individual structures are also increasing. The early examination at Hafodty, Anglesey (Fig 19.3), led the way as a detailed study combining excavation and structural recording, though it has only recently been published (Dixon 1995); similar, work has been undertaken at Ty Mawr, Castell Caereinion (Britnell 2001). Recent excavations which shed new light on the development of the medieval hall include those at Llys Euryn, Llandrillo yn Rhos (G Smith 1998), and Aber (Johnson 1997). Fig 19.3 Hafodty, Anglesey was extensively excavated and recorded prior to renovation by Cadw. Photo. A Davidson 2001

Recent survey work has been undertaken at Penterry, Monmouthshire (Leighton 1996a; Phillips 2000), and at Runston, Monmouthshire (Leighton 1996b). The contrast between Anglo-Norman settled lands and those in Welsh occupation, the affect of the conquest upon the latter, and the predecessors of the former are all studies requiring greater research. Work along these lines has been undertaken in Pembrokeshire, where morphological differences have been attributed to Norman and Flemish settlement (Kissock 1997). Agriculture Few studies have concentrated upon agricultural techniques, and for the researcher of medieval agriculture there is a dearth of secondary sources. Despite overviews by Jack (1988) and Owen (1991), there is much that is not understood concerning the development of farm implements, particularly the plough, use of ox and horse, and development of both animal and crop husbandry. Similarly the working of the open field system, and in particular its origins, are poorly understood. Environmental evidence preserved beneath existing field boundaries may provide useful information. Some recent advances include the work by Silvester (2000) and Kissock (1993). Excavation of agricultural features is rare, though two recent examples include a field corn-drying kiln, and a charcoal burning platform (Britnell 1984; Kissock 2001).

Regional studies include the earlier inventories of Anglesey and Caernarfonshire (RCAHMW 1936; 1956; 1960 and 1964), supplemented by the Glamorgan Inventory (RCAHMW 1982) and Morris’s work on Gower farmhouses (1998). Smith’s recent work on Merionethshire highlights the unexpected wealth of medieval secular architecture remaining in the county, and provides a summary of current thinking on architectural development (Smith 2000). Recent work within Radnorshire by the RCAHMW has similarly identified a high rate of survival, particularly within the smaller hall house (Suggett forthcoming). Large areas of Wales are still not covered by regional surveys; the Buildings of Wales series provides a base level of information (Haslam 1979; Hubbard 1986; Newman 1995 and 2000), though not yet for all of Wales. Advances in dendrochronology are providing a much securer dating sequence, and this is set to continue (for summaries see Esling 1996; Suggett 1996, and annual updates of results in Vernacular Architecture; see also Suggett this volume). Greater understanding of regional trends and chronological development will come from more detailed studies of individual buildings and continuation of the dendrochronological programme.

Towns Trade and Ports Towns The standard archaeological introduction to medieval towns has long been Soulsby’s work (1983), based upon a 133

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

series of studies of Welsh towns which were some of the first to take into account development implications. This has since been supplemented by rescue excavations in a number of small towns throughout Wales, in particular Clarke’s work in Monmouth (published annually in Archaeology in Wales); Cowbridge (Parkhouse and Evans 1996); Carmarthen (James 1980); Newport, Pembrokeshire (Murphy 1994), and Swansea (Sell 1993). Research excavations have been undertaken at Trelech (Howell 2000) for many years, and similarly work has been undertaken at Trostrey over a long period (Mein 1998).

is unusual. A recent survey of the coastal archaeology of Wales has drawn attention to the lack of archaeological remains of medieval ports, and the importance of locating them (Davidson 2002). The presence of pier or dock remains is known from documentary evidence, and some parts of the fourteenth-century pier remain at Tenby (Soulsby 1983, 250–1). Good potential for archaeological remains of ports may be found within intertidal areas, as at Abergwaitha, Monmouthshire (Nayling 1998), or within reclaimed areas which are now land-locked and sediment covered, but not developed.

Very little investigation has been undertaken in north Wales, though small rescue excavations have been carried out within the Edwardian boroughs of Conwy, Caernarfon and Beaumaris. Work on pre-Edwardian towns has been even less, with the exception of limited work at Llanfaes, Anglesey, one of the few towns of any size to have existed under the Welsh princes (Johnstone 2000, 202-7). However the exact location and morphology of Llanfaes are still poorly understood. Other north Wales urban settlements which may repay study are Pwllheli, Nefyn, Bala, Bangor, Tywyn (Fig 19.4) and Llangollen, some founded on important church sites, others associated with maerdref settlements. In contrast to the lack of investigations in north Wales, considerable research has been undertaken in southwest Wales within a number of small towns, throwing new light on their development and content (Murphy 1997). Similar rescue work undertaken throughout Wales would add considerably to our knowledge of the development of urban centres. However, even with the existing imbalance, a synthesis would be timely, particularly if combined with interdisciplinary studies involving environmentalists, geographers and historians. A number of Cadw funded studies have assessed the settlements of mid and south Wales for medieval origins. Summary reports are published in Archaeology in Wales (Locock 1997; 1998; Sylvester and Martin 1992) and Medieval Archaeology. Ports Travel throughout the Middle Ages was easier by sea than land, and the siting of Edward’s castles and boroughs with easy access to the sea is a well known feature of their design. Similarly the earlier successful Welsh towns nearly all had access to the sea, and records for Llanfaes indicate it was the premier trading port of Gwynedd, with some eighty ships calling each year, many importing wine from France (Carr 1982). Despite this importance as a port there are no visible archaeological remains of a dock or harbour. This is typical of medieval ports, for which there is little archaeological evidence despite their importance. A dock is visible at Beaumaris alongside the castle walls, but this

Fig 19.4 Aberlleiniog motte, Anglesey, is one of the known Norman earthwork defences. Photo. A Davidson 1998

Medieval wreck sites Only one wreck of medieval date has been extensively examined, namely the Magor Pill I wreck (Nayling 1998), a thirteenth-century clinker-built boat carrying iron ore. It probably lay within the harbour of Abergwaitha, where concentrations of imported pottery have also been found. The Pwll Fanog wreck in the Menai Strait, Anglesey, is also probably of late medieval date (Roberts 1979). Of related interest are the two medieval boats found in Llyn Peris, Gwynedd, and dated to c 1200 and 1547-9 by dendrochronology (McElvogue 1999a; 1999b; 1999c). The waterlogged silts of lakes, rivers and coastal environments must contain potential for the recovery of more wrecks. Identification and investigation of these will enable a clearer understanding of technological development, trading patterns, and regional economy. However, the first priority, particularly concerning maritime wrecks, is for a national register to be formed and maintained so that assessments of the resource can be undertaken and proper management guidelines put in place (Edwards 2002; Rees this volume).

Fortifications and castle studies Castles have always attracted considerable archaeological attention, and new work tends to be confined to specific sites rather than major syntheses. Exceptions are the 134

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Inventories of the Glamorgan castles (RCAHMW 1991; 2000) which offer a full description and synthesis of that county, and are essential reading for any castle studies in Wales (see also Spurgeon 2001 for town defences in Glamorgan). Individual site investigations tend to be undertaken as part of maintenance programmes, though work can continue for many years, as at Dolforwyn (Butler 1997; 2000). Similar programmes have been undertaken at Dryslwyn (Caple and Jessop 1996), Laugharne (Avent 1993), Hen Domen (Higham and Barker 2000) and Dinefwr. Excavations at Caergwrle have added to previous interpretations of the remains, and show that the founder, Dafydd ap Gruffydd, made full use of Edward’s design techniques and, probably, masons, though he retained a number of the traditional Welsh characteristics (Manley 1994). Excavations at Rumney Castle have added to our knowledge of structures within ringworks (Lightfoot 1992), and recording at Tomen Llansantffraid has shown how carefully mottes were constructed (Silvester 1991; see Fig 19.5 for Aberlleiniog motte, Anglesey). Many of the earthwork castles lack reliable plans, and thus new surveys of Erddig and Castell Prysor are of use to researchers and heritage managers alike (Lewandovicz 1998; Jones 1999). That revised interpretations of long-established ideas are possible is shown by Taylor’s recent identification of the great hall at Conwy castle as part chapel (Taylor 1995). Rescue excavations can elicit new evidence as at Eastgate Street, Caernarfon, where parts of the medieval bridge which underlies the street were observed during street improvements (Davidson 1999). Many lesser castles of unknown status exist, and geophysical survey, combined where necessary with trial excavation, will help to ascertain their date and significance, as undertaken at Castell Arnallt, Monmouthshire (Phillips 2000). Future research issues need to focus upon the provision of tighter chronologies, the development of defences, the construction of mottes, and the nature of buildings both within and adjacent to

Fig 19.5 Tywyn is one of the north Wales towns in which to look for early urban origins. Photo. A Davidson 1998

masonry and earthwork castles (Kenyon 1990, 208–9). The landscape setting requires further attention, particularly in respect of the isolated mottes and ringworks, where siting may be influenced by communication routes and/or earlier settlements. The origins of Welsh castles need to be further examined, and in particular the possibility of a native tradition of building as a primary influence prior to borrowing from the Norman motte and ringwork (as, for example, at Carn Fadryn, Gwynedd). Their role in economic and administrative affairs in addition to their defensive capacity requires further clarification (Longley 1997).

Fig 19.6 Llangar church is one of the few to have been extensively studied, though its origins remain obscure Photo. A Davidson 1999

Church and Monastic Studies The Church Research directions have recently been published for the medieval church in Wales (Butler 1996). In addition a major assessment of all medieval churches in Wales still in use has been undertaken by the four WATs as part of a Cadw-funded project (Holland and Ludlow 1997). Although some synthesis of the results of this project have been undertaken (Evans 2000), there remains considerable potential for regional summaries which draw from the project data (for example Davidson 2001). Other recent thematic works include Gray’s study of iconography (2000; see also Redknap 2000), and Ridgeway’s study of the church plate of St Asaph (2000). Detailed individual church studies combining excavation and survey can make significant contributions to our knowledge, and such is the case with work undertaken at Llangar (Fig 19.6; Shoesmith 1980), Pennant Melangell (Britnell 1994), Capel Maelog (Britnell 1990), and Llandeilo Tal-y-bont (Redknap and Brassil 1999). Outstanding research questions revolve around the siting of churches; church origins; external influences, particularly for Romanesque work; the impact of the Norman conquest in South Wales and the Edwardian conquest in North Wales upon local church architecture; the location and development of sculptural schools of 135

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

work, both for early and later medieval work; and tighter chronologies for moulding and tracery development. The recording of mouldings has received less attention in Wales than in England, and yet a catalogue of these would make a major contribution to many of the research themes. The very few excavations undertaken mean that the location of liturgical fixtures is little understood. Pilgrimages played a significant role in medieval religion, both in raising funds, many of which were used to pay for costly refurbishment or new church buildings, and in the movement of people and consequently the transfer of ideas. The recognition of this through archaeology has, however, rarely been attempted. Similarly little work has been undertaken on the cult of saints, with the exception of James’s (1993) publication concerning St David. The glory of many of many Welsh churches is not so much the masonry but the wooden roofs, rood screens and lofts. Much tighter chronologies could be supplied by expanding the dendrochronological programme to church roofs and other woodwork (see Suggett pXX). It is important to build research themes into major church renovation programmes, particularly those funded by Heritage Lottery grants. Programmes of work to include dating and detailed surveys should form a major element of these renovation schemes. Monasteries and friaries Monasteries, like castles, have been the subject of many archaeological studies, and the outline is now well known. David Williams has made the history of the Cistercian Order his own, and the results of recent research are conveniently brought together in his latest book (Williams 2001). However, despite this wealth of knowledge there is still room for information from archaeological programmes of work, as can be seen at Cwmhir (Jones and Thomas 1997; Rees et al forthcoming) and Whitland (Ludlow 2000). That major discoveries remain possible is shown by the ‘rediscovery’ of the fourteenth century screen at Tintern, its recognition as an important member of the southwestern school and its possible attribution to William Joy (Harrison et al 1998). The remaining Orders in Wales have been typically less studied, though in some respects they may have considerably more to tell us about the Welsh church. Whereas the Cistercians were deliberately given lands away from settled areas, the Augustinians and Benedictines, in contrast, absorbed or took over important Welsh clas churches. Excavations have been undertaken at the Augustinian Priories of Haverfordwest (Rees 1987) and Carmarthen (James 1985), where there is evidence for early medieval activity. Research themes must address the nature of the impact of the new Orders upon the Welsh church, and upon the spread of Romanesque and Early English gothic styles of architecture. Little work has been undertaken on Welsh Friary sites in recent years, with the exception of Carmarthen where extensive excavations have revealed

the chronological development and plan of the site (James 1997). Small-scale work has been undertaken at Llanfaes Friary, Anglesey (Longley and Ward 1994). New research has, in a number of instances, shifted from the primary abbey and monastic sites to their lands, and in particular Cistercian granges. These have the potential to throw much new light upon the medieval landscape, agriculture, economy, trading patterns and building traditions. The advantage of studying a single grange is that a known part of the medieval world can be studied as a microcosm, and a real understanding can be obtained into its working. Unlike secular ownership of land, church ownership was relatively static, and the bounds are often recorded in charters. Many of the granges were on marginal land, and thus there is good preservation of archaeology. Examples of existing studies include those by Gray (1998), Weeks (1998) and Briggs (1998). In addition Cadw has funded a study of monastic landscapes which involved examination of land use in two granges (Davidson and Kenney 2001). There is considerable potential for multi-disciplinary studies in landscape projects, including environmental, historical and geographical techniques in order to maximise the return from archaeological studies. The latter, also, must use a wide range of techniques including topographical survey and field evaluation, combined with estimation of resource availability and usage.

The organisation of medieval archaeology in Wales A brief review of current archaeological publications and projects would suggest that medieval archaeology is thriving. Over fifty percent of archaeological sites managed by the state are medieval. A high proportion of WAT grant-aided project work is spent on the medieval period. Work by RCAHMW has led the way in studies of domestic architecture and field survey. Publication results are also high; the medieval section in Archaeology in Wales is typically the largest period review, and there are more medieval than prehistoric articles in Archaeologia Cambrensis in recent years. In order to understand if this state of affairs is as healthy as it appears, it is necessary to examine the structure of archaeological organisation in Wales. Cadw is responsible for administering a large part of public finance for archaeology. Constraints mean research is often undertaken as a by-product of, for example, the maintenance of Guardianship and scheduled monuments. Examples include St Davids Bishop’s Palace (Turner 2000), and excavations and recording at Dolforwyn, Havorfordwest Priory and Dinefwr. The primary aims of RCAHMW are to carry out accurate and scholarly surveys which are made readily accessible to the public; to maintain an archive and a national database; and to publish the results of its investigations. It is moving 136

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

firmly away from production of county inventories, but considerable work has recently been published for Glamorgan and elsewhere which provide good syntheses and high quality data sets to aid current research (RCAHMW 1982; 1991; 2000; forthcoming; and Leighton 1997). Little work has been undertaken by RCAHMW on ecclesiastical monuments since the Caernarvonshire Inventories, but perhaps this is merely the catching up of secular monuments, the study of which certainly lagged behind up to the Second World War. One exception has been the survey of Brecon Cathedral (RCAHMW 1994), an excellent and useful study. However, this particular work highlights the point that similar studies are urgently needed of the other major churches, so that we can build up a better picture of the development of ecclesiastical architecture throughout Wales. The funding of the Uplands survey has increased our knowledge of medieval sites in marginal areas, though this is a data collection exercise only, and the data could be subject to greater interpretation. A substantial part of the WATs’ work grant-aided by Cadw involves assessment of monument type, either by period or theme. It can also involve assessment of specific environments, for example the survey of the coast edge. Principal examples of medieval date are summarised below. The Llys and Maerdref survey of Gwynedd greatly increased understanding of the nature of the royal court, and has led to the first substantial excavation of a native Welsh court at Rhosyr, Anglesey. This was a high status site, with hall, solar, chapel and ancillary buildings located on raised ground adjacent to the parish church. Assessment of medieval churches was undertaken with the specific aim of contributing towards better management and to provide sufficient information upon which to base planning decisions. A particularly important aspect of this project was that it was deliberately extended to cover all of Wales, and results were drawn together to form wider conclusions (Evans et al 2000). Similarly, the deserted rural settlement study has looked at thousands of rectangular structures throughout Wales (see annual entries in Archaeology in Wales, for example Locock 2000a; Sambrook 2000a; Sylvester 2000a, and Welsh entries in Atkinson et al 2000). A study of medieval settlement on Anglesey has attempted to take forward the DRS results and examine the archaeological remains alongside the tenurial and historical evidence (Longley 1998), and this is, potentially, the way forward. Many other Trust projects have been undertaken which concern medieval archaeology, some concentrating exclusively on medieval sites (for example Monmouthshire Historic Settlements (Locock 1999), Anglesey medieval mills

(Davidson 2000)), and others on wider chronological themes (for example Anglesey coal mines (Gwyn 2000) and Gwynedd fish weirs (Hopewell 2000)). Contract work, certainly in north Wales, has rarely resulted in the discovery of new finds of the medieval period. For example excavations in advance of 36 km of new road across Anglesey found major Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman and Early Medieval sites, but no medieval ones. This paucity of sites revealed during linear crosscountry construction schemes needs explaining in greater detail than has yet been attempted. The National Museum of Wales, apart from its major excavations at Llangorse, Breconshire, and Glyn, Anglesey, which just fall outside the chronological period examined here, have published work on a number of important artefacts (for example Redknap 2000), and undertook a major role in the excavation and post-excavation of the Magor Pill boat. Of related interest is the remarkable success of the Portable Antiquities Reporting Scheme (Macdonald 2000). Although the universities have traditionally played a larger role in historical and historical-geographical studies of medieval Wales than in archaeological research, a number of important projects have been, and are being, undertaken. An important summary of medieval settlement studies was compiled by Austin (1989), who also undertook a programme of work at Bryn Cysegfran (1988). Considerable work has been carried out on the Black Mountain by Ward (1997; 1999), whilst Kissock is working at Cefn Drum, Gower (2000), and has contributed to the study of medieval field systems (1991; 1993); a programme of research is being undertaken at Trelech by Howell (2000). Recent work has been carried out by Hooke (1997) and Withers (1995) in the Conwy Valley, building on earlier landscape work by Hooke in Merionethshire. Gray has published work on both monastic granges and Christian iconography (1998; 2000). Remarkable results from the Gwent Levels have been achieved by many people, with major contributions S Rippon, J Allen, M Bell, N Nayling and A Caseldine (see Rippon 2001). A summary of environmental work for Wales is given by Caseldine (1990).

Conclusions Medieval archaeology in Wales is in a healthy state with considerable outputs of important research. This has led, in certain circumstances, to an ample supply of data, but a lack of interpretative material. However, publication of the coastal survey (Davidson 2002), synthesis of the church project (Evans 2000) and the forthcoming volume on Deserted Rural Settlement will help to redress this balance. Nonetheless, problems of synthesis can arise as a direct result of the specific aims of a project which were not research orientated. For example the assessment of churches did not take into account redundant churches, cathedrals or 137

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

monasteries and abbeys. Similarly, the Deserted Rural Settlement project, by definition excluded settlements and structures of comparable age which remain occupied.

Bibliography (in subject order, some entries are repeated in different sections)

Despite the relatively healthy state of medieval studies substantial gaps do exist in our knowledge. For example assessment studies of industry and communications are rare, and our understanding of the origin, development and decline of medieval field systems is poor. Other studies, such as urban archaeology, would benefit from wider publication. Similarly there is still considerable data in the reports of the Cadw funded Church project which is unavailable elsewhere. Fuller publication would aid interpretation and synthesis, and a greater understanding of the development of medieval ecclesiastical architecture in Wales.

Rural settlement Landscape and settlement Atkinson, JA, Banks, I and MacGregor, G 2000 Townships to Farmsteads: Rural settlement in Scotland, England and Wales, BAR British Series 293: Oxford

Landscape studies still have some way to go to reach their full potential. Consolidation of recent technical advances and the use of a wide range of techniques will be necessary, including GIS, global positioning systems, mapping and analysis of resource potential, and a greater understanding of the products of excavation and survey. Environmental archaeology has a significant role to play to provide a secure understanding of climatic change, to chart regional vegetation change and resource use, and to enable a better understanding of environmental determinism in archaeological models.

Barnes, FA 1982 ‘Land tenure, landscape and population in Cemlyn, Anglesey’, Trans Anglesey Antiq Soc, 15–90

A wider understanding may, on occasion, be better provided by thematic projects which run across all chronological periods, for example coastal and maritime studies (ports and harbours, boats and shipping) and inland communications. The contribution of contract and rescue archaeology to medieval studies should be better examined, as this, at present, is not the major source of new information it could be. Major pipeline and road schemes should be able to contribute to the study of field systems and inland communications even if known settlement sites are typically avoided. Finally archaeological information must be interpreted and broadcast in an informative and interesting way, so that those outside the profession are alerted to the importance and enjoyment of the subject. This will ensure that present and future generations of Welsh inhabitants will be able to better appreciate and understand the significance of medieval archaeology, and hence the need to resource both preservation and research.

Acknowledgements I am grateful to all those who have provided information, including Richard Suggett and Owain TP Roberts. David Longley, Director of GGAT, has been very helpful in discussing many of the themes with me, and reading an earlier draft. The editor, Stephen Briggs, has been generous with his knowledge and advice, for which I am very grateful. I remain responsible for all errors and omissions.

Austin, D 1988 ‘Excavations and survey at Bryn Cysegrfan, Llanfair Clydogau, Dyfed, 1979’, Medieval Archaeology 32, 130–65 Austin, D 1989 ‘The excavation of dispersed settlement in medieval Britain’, in M Aston et al (eds) The rural settlements of medieval England, Basil Blackwell: Oxford

Barnes, FA 1988 ‘Land tenure and landscape in Llanynghenedl, Anglesey’, Trans Anglesey Antiq Soc, 33–43 Barton, PG 1997 ‘Medieval windmills in Montgomeryshire and the Marches’, Montgomerys Collns 85, 51–61 Barton, PG 1999 ‘A history and conspectus of Montgomeryshire water corn mills’, Montgomerys Collns 87, 1–90 Cadw 1998 Register of Landscapes of Outstanding Historic Interest in Wales, Cadw: Cardiff Cadw 2001 Register of Landscapes of Special Historic Interest in Wales, Cadw: Cardiff Charles-Edwards, TM 1993 Early Irish and Welsh Kinship, Oxford University Press: Oxford Edwards, N (ed) 1997 Landscape and settlement in Medieval Wales, Oxbow: Oxford Hooke, D 1997 ‘Place-names and vegetation history as a key to understanding settlement in the Conwy Valley’, in N Edwards 1997, 79–96 Howell, R 2000 ‘Trelech, Medieval site west of Trelech Church’, Archaeol in Wales 40, 119–20 Jones, GRJ 1996 ‘The Gwely as a tenurial institution’, Studia Celtica 30, 167–88 Jones, N 1997 ‘Llandrillo-yn-Rhos fish weir’, Archaeol in Wales 37, 91–93 Jones, S and Thompson, D 2000 ‘The archaeology of deserted rural settlement in north-west Wales’, in JA Atkinson et al (eds) 50–57 Lewis, JM 1999 The Medieval Tiles of Wales, NMGW: Cardiff Leighton, DK 1996a ‘Penterry, St Arvans’, Archaeol in Wales 36, 92–3 138

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Leighton, DK 1996b ‘Runston’, Archaeol in Wales 36, 93 Leighton, DK 1997 Mynydd Du and fforest Fawr: the evolution of an upland landscape, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth Linnard, W 2000 Welsh Woods and Forests, Gomer: Llandysul Locock, M 2000 ‘Deserted Rural Settlements’, Archaeol in Wales 40, 64 Longley, D 1994 ‘The royal courts of the Welsh princes in Gwynedd’, in Edwards (ed) 1997, 41–54 Muckle, P 1994 ‘Caerwys, Hen Caerwys Medieval Settlement Survey’, Archaeol in Wales 34, 64 Owen, DH (ed) 1989 Settlement and Society in Wales, Cardiff Phillips, N 2000 ‘Penterry, St Arvans’, Archaeol in Wales 40, 112 RCAHMW 1982 An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan, Volume III: Medieval Secular Monuments, Part II: Non-defensive, HMSO: Cardiff Rippon, SJ 1996 Gwent Levels: the evolution of a Wetland Landscape, CBA Research Report 105: York Rippon, SJ 1997 The Severn Estuary: Landscape Evolution and Wetland Reclamation, Leicester University Press: Leicester Rippon, SJ (ed) 2000 ‘Estuarine Archaeology: The Severn and Beyond’, Archaeology in the Severn Estuary 11 Sambrook, P 2000a ‘Medieval or later deserted rural settlement in west Wales’, in JA Atkinson et al (eds) 90–95 Sambrook, P 2000b ‘Deserted Rural Settlements Survey 2000’, Archaeol in Wales 40, 62–3 Spurgeon, CJ, Roberts, DJ and Thomas, HJ 2000 ‘Salt House, Port Eynon: a sixteenth-century saltworks in Gower’, Archaeol Cambrensis 146 (1997), 117–26 Sylvester, R J 2000a ‘Deserted rural settlement of Medieval or later date in north-eastern and central Wales’, in JA Atkinson et al (eds) 100–108 Sylvester, RJ 2000b ‘Deserted Rural Settlements Project’, Archaeol in Wales 40, 62 Thomas, C 1978 ‘The rural landscape of North Wales in the later Middle Ages’, Geographica Polonica 38, 271–7 Thomas, C 1980 ‘Field name evidence in the reconstruction of medieval settlement nuclei in North Wales’, National Library of Wales Journal, 21, 340–56 Thomas, C 2001 ‘Rural society, settlement, economy and landscape’, in Smith and Smith (ed) 168–224 Walker, MJC, Lawler, M and Locock, M 1997 ‘Woodland clearance in medieval Glamorgan: pollen evidence from Cefn Hirgoed’, Archaeol in Wales 37, 21–27

Ward, AH 1997 ‘Transhumance and settlement on the Welsh uplands: a view from the Black Mountain’, in N Edwards (ed) 1997, 97–112 Ward, AH 1999 ‘Transhumance and place-names: an aspect of early Ordnance Survey mapping on the Black Mountain Commons, Carmarthenshire’, Studia Celtica 33, 335–48 Withers, CWJ 1995 ‘Conceptions of landscape change in upland North Wales: a study of Llanbedr-yr-cennin and Caerhun parishes, c 1560–c 1891’, Landscape History 17, 35–47 Yates, MJ 2000 ‘Medieval or later rural settlement in Wales: an introduction to the present work programme funded by CADW: Welsh Historic Monuments’, in AJ Atkinson et al (eds) 31–33 Unpublished Gwyn, D 2000 ‘The Anglesey Coal Mines’ GAT Report Hopewell,D 2000 ‘The fish weirs of Gwynedd’ GAT Report Longley, D 1998 ‘Medieval settlement on Anglesey: an assessment of the potential for fieldwork’, GAT Report 308 Settlement excavations Andrews, P 1996 ‘Excavations at Cosmeston Medieval Village, near Penarth, South Glamorgan, 1993,’ Archaeol in Wales 36, 11–35 Beresford, MW and Hurst, JG 1971 Deserted Medieval Villages, Lutterworth Press: Guildford and London Butler, LAS 1971 ‘The study of deserted Medieval settlements in Wales’, in MW Beresford and JG Hurst (eds) 249–69 Courtney, P 1991 ‘A native-Welsh mediaeval settlement: excavations at Beili Bedw, St Harmon, Powys’, Bull Board Celtic Studies 38, 233–55 Gresham, CA 1954 ‘Platform houses in north-west Wales’, Archaeol Cambrensis 103, 18–53 Kissock, JA 2000 ‘Farmsteads of a presumed medieval date on Cefn Drum, Gower: an interim review’, Studia Celtica 34, 223–248 Kelly, RS 1981–2 ‘The excavations of a medieval farmstead at Cefn Graeanog, Clynnog, Gwynedd’, Bull Board Celtic Studs 29, 859–908 Johnstone, N 1997 ‘An Investigation into the locations of the Royal Courts of thirteenth-century Gwynedd’, in N Edwards 1997 (ed) 55–70 Johnstone, N 1999 ‘Cae Llys Rhosyr: a court of the princes of Gwynedd’, Studia Celtica, 33, 251–95 Johnstone, N 2000a ‘Llys and Maerdref: the royal courts of the princes of Gwynedd’, Studia Celtica 34, 167–210 139

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Newman, C and Farwell, D 1993 ‘Cosmeston medieval village’, Medieval Settlement Research Group Annual Report 8, 65

Smith, P 1988 Houses of the Welsh Countryside, (2nd ed), HMSO: Cardiff

Parkhouse, J 1984 ‘Cosmeston’, Archaeol in Wales 24, 67–9

Smith, P 1984 ‘Hall, Tower and Church: Some themes and sites reconsidered’ in RR Davies, RA Griffiths, IG Jones and K O Morgan (eds) Welsh Society and Nationhood, University of Wales Press: Cardiff, 122–160

Parkhouse, J 1985 ‘Cosmeston’, Archaeol in Wales 25, 38–41 Smith, G 1997 ‘Gwynedd deserted rural settlement trial excavations’, Archaeol in Wales 37, 93–94 Smith, G 1998 ‘Llys Euryn, Llandrillo-yn-Rhos’, Archaeol in Wales 38, 128–9 Smith, G 1999 ‘Hafod Rhug Uchaf, Waunfawr’, Archaeol in Wales 39, 110 Thomas, HJ, and Dowdell,G 1987 ‘A shrunken medieval village at Barry, South Glamorgan’, Archaeol Cambrensis 136, 94–137 Secular buildings Britnell, WJ (ed) 2001 ‘Ty-Mawr, Castle Caereinion’, The Montgomeryshire Collections, Volume 89 Butler, LAS 1988 ‘Rural building in England and Wales: Wales’, in HE Hallam (ed) 933–65

Smith, P 1995 ‘Dolgun Uchaf, A late-medieval hall-house’, Journal of the Merioneth Historical and Record Society, 95–109 Smith, P 2001 ‘Houses c 1415 to 1642’, in JB Smith and LB Smith (eds) 422–506 Suggett, RF 1996 ‘The chronology of late-medieval timber houses in Wales’, Vernacular Architecture, 28–35 Turner, RC 2000 ‘St Davids Bishop’s Palace, Pembrokeshire’, Antiquaries Journal 80, 87–194 Unpublished Suggett, RF forthcoming The Houses of Radnorshire, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth

Butler LAS 1991 ‘Rural building in England and Wales: Wales, in E Miller (ed) 891–919

Agriculture Britnell, WJ 1984 ‘A 15th-century corn-drying kiln from Collfryn, Llansantffraid Deuddwr, Powys’, Medieval Archaeology 28, 190–4

Davidson, A 2000 ‘Excavations at the Bishop’s Palace, Gogarth’, Trans Caernarfonshire Historical Society, 1–12

Godbold, S, and Turner, RC 1994 ‘Medieval fishtraps in the Severn Estuary’, Medieval Archaeology 38, 19–54

Dixon, P 1995 ‘Hafoty, Llansadwrn, Anglesey: excavations and survey of a medieval manor house’, Studia Celtica 29, 53–126

Hallam, HE (ed) 1988 The agrarian history of England and Wales Volume 2 1042 to 1350, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

Esling, J 1996 ‘Tree-ring dating of medieval and early postmedieval buildings in North Wales’, Studia Celtica 30, 223–253

Jack, IR 1981 ‘Fulling mills in Wales and the March before 1547’, Archaeol Cambrensis 130, 70–127

Hallam, HE (ed) 1988 The agrarian history of England and Wales Volume 2 1042 to 1350, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Johnstone, N 2000b ‘Excavations at the Bishop’s Palace, Bangor’, Archaeol in Wales 40, 51–7 Miles, DH and Worthington, MJ 2000 ‘Welsh Dendrochronology Project: Phase 4’, Vernacular Architecture 31, 112–130 Miller, E 1991 The agrarian history of England and Wales Volume 3 1348–1500, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Morris, BH 1998 Old Gower Farmhouses and their families, The Gower Society: Swansea Nenk, BS, Margeson,S and Hurley,M 1995’Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1994: Llawhaden Medieval Hospital’, Medieval Archaeology 39, 283–6 Smith, J Beverley, and Smith, L Beverley (eds) 2001 History of Merioneth: Volume II The Middle Ages, University of Wales Press: Cardiff

Jack, IR 1988 ‘Farming techniques: Wales and the Marches’ in HE Hallam (ed) 412–96 Kissock, JA 1991 ‘Farms, Fields and hedges: aspects of the rural economy of north-east Gower c 1300–1650’, Archaeol Cambrensis 140, 130–47 Kissock, JA 1993 ‘Some examples of co-axial field systems in Pembrokeshire’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 40, 190–7 Kissock, JA 2001 ‘The excavation of a charcoal-burning platform at Llanelen, Gower’, Studia Celtica 35, 143–59 Miller, E 1991 The agrarian history of England and Wales Volume 3 1348–1500, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Owen, DH 1991 ‘Farming Practice and Techniques: Wales and the Marches’ in E Miller (ed) 1991, 238–53 Silvester, RJ 2000 ‘Medieval upland cultivation on the Berwyns in North Wales’, Landscape History 22, 47–60 Taylor, BS 1997 ‘The watermills of the lordship of Gower’, Melin 13, 2–20

140

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Taylor, BS 1999 ‘The watermills of the lordship of Gower (Part two)’, Gower 50, 20–37 Unpublished Davidson, A 2000 ‘Medieval mills of Anglesey’, GAT Report Towns, Trade and Ports Carr, AD 1982 Medieval Anglesey, Anglesey Antiquarian Society: Llangefni Clarke, SHH 1997 ‘Monmouth (various entries)’, Archaeol in Wales 37, 100–102 Davidson, A 2002 The Coastal Archaeology of Wales, CBA Research Report: York Hamilton, M and Howell, R 2000 ‘Trelech: the geophysical survey of a possible medieval hospice site’, Medieval Archaeology 44, 229–33 Howell, R 2000 ‘Excavations at Trelech: 1996–1999’, Monmouthsire Antiquary 16, 131–45

Sell, SH 1993 ‘Excavations at St Mary’s Street, Swansea, 1976-77’, Archaeol in Wales 33, 1–15 Soulsby, I 1983 The Towns of Medieval Wales, Chichester Sylvester, RJ and Martin, C 1992 ‘Historic settlements in Brecknock, Montgomeryshire and Wrexham Maelor’, Archaeol in Wales 32, 54–5 Sylvester, RJ 1997 ‘New Radnor: The topography of a medieval planned town in mid-Wales’, in N Edwards (ed) 1997, 157–164 Wrecks Edwards, G 2002 ‘The archaeology of shipwrecks’, in Davidson 2002 McElvogue, D 1999a ‘Llyn Peris log boat, Llanberis’, Archaeol in Wales 39, 110–11 McElvogue, D 1999b ‘Llyn Peris boat, Llanberis’, Archaeol in Wales 39, 111

Hutchinson, G 1994 Medieval Ships and Shipping, Leicester University Press: London

McElvogue, D 1999c ‘The forgotten ways: evidence for water-borne transport in Nant Peris, Gwynedd’, Industrial Gwynedd 4, 5–15

Jones, NW 1998 ‘Excavations within the medieval town at New Radnor, Powys’, Archaeol Journal 155, 134–206

Nayling, N 1998 The Magor Pill Wreck, CBA Research Report 108: York

Lawler, M 2001 ‘Investigation of the town wall and burgage plots at South Quay and Castle Terrace, Pembroke’, Archaeol Cambrensis, 147 (1998), 159–80

Roberts, OTP 1979 ‘Pwll Fanog wreck, Menai Straits, North Wales’, Nautical Archaeology 83, 249–54

Locock, M 1997 ‘Historic Settlement (Hundreds of Abergavenny and Skenfrith)’, Archaeol in Wales 37, 51 Locock, M 1998 ‘Monmouthshire Historic Settlements’, Archaeol in Wales 38, 89–90 Ludlow, N 2000 ‘Talgarth, Church Row’, Archaeol in Wales 40, 129–30 Mein, AG 1998 ‘Trostrey, Trostrey Castle’, Archaeol in Wales, 38, 138–9 Miles, D (ed) 1999 A History of the Town and County of Haverfordwest, Llandysul Murphy, K 1994 ‘Excavations in three burgage plots in the medieval new town of Newport, Dyfed, 1991’, Medieval Archaeology 38, 55–82 Murphy, K 1997 ‘Small boroughs in south-west Wales: their planning, early development and defences’, in N Edwards (ed) 1997, 139–156 Papazian, C and Campbell, E (eds) 1992 ‘Medieval and Later Pottery in Wales’, Bulletin of the Welsh Medieval Pottery Research Group, 13

Fortifications Avent, JR 1983 Castles of the princes of Gwynedd, Cardiff Avent, JR 1992 ‘The medieval development of Laugharne Castle, Dyfed, Wales’, Chateau Gaillard 15, 7–18 Avent, JR 1991 ‘The early development of three coastal castles’, in H James (ed) Sir Gâr: Studies in Carmarthenshire History, Carmarthenshire Antiquarian Society monograph ser 4, 167–88 Avent, JR 1994 ‘Castles of the Welsh princes, Chateau Gaillard 16, 11–20 Avent, JR and Jones, M 1993 ‘Laugharne Castle’, Archaeol in Wales 33, 70–72 Butler, LAS 1997 ‘Dolforwyn Castle, Montgomery, Powys Second report: the excavations 1987–1994’, Archaeol Cambrensis 144 (1995), 133–203 Butler, LAS 2000 ‘Dolforwyn Castle’, Archaeol in Wales 40, 127–8 Caple, C and Jessop, O 1996 ‘Dryslwyn Castle’, Archaeol in Wales 36, 85–6

Parkhouse, J and Evans, EM 1996 Excavations in Cowbridge, South Glamorgan 1977–88, BAR British Series 245: Oxford

Higham, RA and Barker, PA 2000 Hen Domen, Montgomery, Exeter

Robbins, T 1997 ‘Kenfig, Castle environs’, Archaeol in Wales 37, 81–4

Jones, N 1999 ‘Erddig motte and bailey’, Archaeol in Wales 39, 131–2

141

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Kenyon, JR 1990 Medieval Fortifications, Leicester University Press: London

Britnell, WJ 1990 ‘Capel Maelog, Llandrindod Wells, Powys: Excavations 1984–87’, Medieval Archaeology 27–96

Kenyon, JR and Avent, JR (eds) 1987 Castles in Wales and the Marches: Essays in honour of DJ Cathcart King, University of Wales Press: Cardiff

Britnell, WJ 1994 ‘Excavation and Recording at Pennant Melangell Church’, Montgomeryshire Collections 82, 41–102

Lewandovicz, M 1998 ‘A survey of Castell Prysor, Meirionnydd’, Archaeol in Wales 38, 36–42

Butler, LAS 1996 ‘A landscape white with churches: Wales AD 1200–1600, in J Blair and C Pyrah (eds) 104–111

Lightfoot, KWB 1992 ‘Rumney Castle, a ringwork and manorial centre in South Glamorgan’, Medieval Archaeology 36, 96–163 Longley, D 1991 ‘The excavations at Castell, Porth Trefadog, a coastal promontory fort in North Wales’, Medieval Archaeology 31, 64–85

Cocke, T and Kidson, P 1993 Salisbury Cathedral: Perspectives on the architectural history, RCHME: London Davidson, A 2001 ‘Parish Churches’, in JB Smith and LB Smith (eds) 326–385

Manley, J 1994 ‘Excavations at Caergwrle Castle, Clwyd, North Wales: 1988–90’, Medieval Archaeology 38, 83–133

Evans, EM 2000 ‘Medieval churches in Wales: the Welsh Historic Churches Project and its results’, Church Archaeology 4, 5–26

Mein, G 1997 ‘Tregrug old castle, Llangybi Fawr’, Archaeol in Wales 37, 102–104

Holland, E and Ludlow, N 1997 ‘Welsh churches project’, Church Archaeology 1, 48–50

Murphy, K 1997 ‘The castle and borough of Wiston, Pembrokeshire’ Archaeol Cambrensis 144 (1995), 71–102

Gray, M 2000 Images of Piety: The Iconography of Traditional Religion in Late Medieval Wales, BAR British Series 316: Oxford

Nenk, BS, Margeson, S and Hurley, M 1995’Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1994: Aberedw Castle, Powys’, Medieval Archaeology 39, 289–92 Phillips, N 2000 ‘Castell Arnallt Survey, Llanover Fawr’, Archaeol in Wales 40, 107–9 RCAHMW 1991 An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan: Vol 3, Part 1A: The Early Castles (to 1217), HMSO: Cardiff

Griffith, M 2000 ‘Beddgelert, St Mary’s Church’, Archaeol in Wales 40, 104 James, H 1993 ‘The cult of St David in the Middle Ages’, in M Carver (ed) In Search of Cult, Boydell Press: Woodbridge Lynch, FM 1998 ‘A group of multi-headed stone capitals from Anglesey’, Antiquaries Journal 78, 439–52

RCAHMW 2000 An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan: Vol 3, Part 1B: The Later Castles, HMSO: Aberystwyth

RCAHMW 1994 The Cathedral Church of St John the Evangelist, Brecon, Brecon

Silvester, RJ 1991 ‘Tomen Llansantffraid: a motte near Rhaeadr, Powys’, Medieval Archaeology 35, 109–14

Redknap, M 2000 ‘The medieval wooden crucifix figure from Kemeys Inferior, and its church’, Monmouthshire Antiquary 16, 11–43

Spurgeon, CJ 1987 ‘Mottes and castle-ringworks in Wales’, in J Kenyon and JR Avent (eds) 23–49 Spurgeon, CJ 2001 ‘The medieval town defences of Glamorgan’, Studia Celtica 35, 161–212

Redknap, M and Brassil, K 1999 ‘Llandeilo Tal-y-bont, Pontarddulais’, Archaeol in Wales 39, 129–30 Ridgeway, MH 2000 ‘The Church Plate of the Diocese of St Asaph’, Archaeol Cambrensis 145 (1996), 1–14

Taylor, AJ 1995 ‘The town and castle of Conwy: preservation and interpretation’, Antiquaries Journal 75, 338–63

Shoesmith, R1980 ‘Llangar Cambrensis 129, 64–132

Webster, PV 1987 ‘Dryslwyn castle’, in Kenyon and Avent 1987, 89–104

Silvester, RJ 2000 ‘Llandrillo-yn-Rhos church’, Archaeol in Wales 40, 103

Religion Church Badham, S 1999 ‘Medieval minor effigial monuments in west and south Wales’, Church Monuments 14, 5–34 Blair, J and Pyrah C (eds) 1996 Church Archaeology: research directions for the future, CBA Research Report 104: York

Church’,

Archaeol

Smith, J Beverley and Smith, L Beverley (eds) 2001 History of Merioneth: Volume II The Middle Ages, University of Wales Press: Cardiff Thompson, MW 1998 Medieval Bishops’ Houses in England and Wales, Ashgate: Aldershot Thomas, HJ 2000 ‘Barry, St Nicholas Churchyard’, Archaeol in Wales 40, 132–4 142

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Yates, N 2000 Buildings, Faith and Worship, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press: Oxford Monastic Briggs, CS 1998 ‘A New Field of Welsh Cultural History: Inference and evidence in gardens and landscapes since c 1450’, in P Pattison (ed) There by Design: Fieldwork in Parks and Gardens (Garden History Society and RCHME: Oxford, 65–74 Cole, J R and Pratt, D 1993 ‘Capel Spon, Buckley, Clwyd’, Archaeol in Wales 33, 25–30 Courtney, P 1989 ‘Excavations in the outer precinct of Tintern Abbey, Medieval Archaeology 33, 99–143

Williams, DH 1998 Catalogue of Seals in the National Museum of Wales Vol 2: Ecclesiastical, Monastic and Collegiate Seals with a Supplement concerning Wales, NMGW: Cardiff Williams, DH 2001 The Welsh Cistercians, Gracewing: Leominster Unpublished Davidson, A and Kenney, J 2001 Monastic Landscapes of Gwynedd, GAT Report Rees, SE, Jones, N and Silvester, RJ forthcoming Conservation and investigation at Cwmhir Abbey, Powys

Gray, M 1998 ‘The politics of Cistercian grange foundation and endowment in south-east Wales’, Medieval Settlement Research Group Annual Report 13, 20–24

Regional/Thematic Studies Caseldine, A 1990 Environmental Archaeology in Wales, University College of St David’s: Lampeter

Harrison, SA, Morriss, RK and Robinson, DM 1998 ‘A fourteenth-century pulpitum screen at Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire’, Antiquaries Journal 78, 177–268

Haslam, R 1979 The buildings of Wales: Powys, Penguin:London

James, TA 1985 ‘Excavations at the Augustinian Priory of St John and St Teulyddog, Carmarthen, 1979’, Archaeol Cambrensis 134, 124–61 James, TA 1997 ‘Excavations at Carmarthen Greyfriars, 1983-1990’, Medieval Archaeology 41, 100–194 Jones, N and Thomas, D 1997 ‘Abbeycwmhir’, Archaeol in Wales 37, 106 Longley, D and Ward, M 1994 ‘Llanfaes Sewage Treatment Works’, Archaeol in Wales 34, 60 Ludlow, N 2000 ‘Whitland Abbey’, Archaeol in Wales 40, 102–3

Hubbard, E 1986 The buildings of Wales: Clwyd, Penguin:London Manley, J, Grenter, S and Gale, F (eds) 1991 The Archaeology of Clwyd, Mold Newman, JA 1995 The buildings of Wales: Glamorgan, Penguin: London Newman, JA 2000 The buildings Gwent/Monmouthsire, Penguin: London

of

Wales:

Smith, J Beverley and Smith, L Beverley (eds) 2001 History of Merioneth: Volume II, The Middle Ages, University of Wales Press: Cardiff

Ludlow, N, Ramsey, R, and Schlee, D 1999 ‘Milford Haven, Pill Priory’, Archaeol in Wales 39, 125–6 Percival, DJ 1993 ‘The boundary of the medieval grange at Dolhelfa’, Trans Radnorshire Society, 63 Phillips, N and Hamilton, M 2000 ‘Geophysical survey at Grace Dieu Abbey’, Monmouthshire Antiquary 16, 51–54 Pratt, D 1997 The Dissolution of Valle Crucis Abbey, Bridge Books: Wrexham Rees, SE 1987 ‘Havorfordwest Priory: an Interim Report’, Journal of the Pembrokeshire Historical Society 2 (1986–7), 19–23 Roberts, DJ and Suggett, RF 1999 ‘A late-medieval monastic hall-house rediscovered: the King’s Court, Talyllychau’, Carmarthenshire Antiquary 35, 5–11 Silvester, RJ 1997 ‘The Llanwyddyn hospitium’, Montgomeryshire Collections 85, 63–76 Weeks, R 1998 ‘Cillonydd, Newbridge’, Archaeol in Wales 38, 126–128

143

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

20 Researching the familiar past: priorities and opportunities in Post-Medieval archaeology Martin Locock Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust Ltd, and the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology Heathfield House, Heathfield, Swansea SA1 6EL [email protected] www.ggat.org.uk

Abstract Post-medieval archaeology is unusual in that its priorities are driven primarily by practitioners, and although this has benefits, it can also lead to fragmentation. The last decade has seen substantial progress in conventional industrial archaeology (Bersham ironworks), the related investigation of early industrial activity (Port Eynon salthouse), and the increased interest in building survey, military architecture, wrecks and garden archaeology. Attempts to develop a detailed understanding of the development of landscape as a whole and to provide consistent heritage management policies have come across areas where great uncertainty still exists: the social implications of industrialisation, the economic and technological changes in the rural economy, and even basic questions about the chronology of enclosure and changes in pastoral practice. The development of the present settlement pattern, through nucleation, fission, ribbon settlement and squatter encroachment, remains largely undocumented. Fortunately, recent management initiatives have a significant post-medieval component: Tir Gofal has recorded numerous farm buildings and field boundaries, and has attempted to identify past land use; historic landscapes, of whatever their date of origin, survive mainly in post-medieval form; LANDMAP has started to address the significant components of the present landscape which transcend the physical, and include both ‘sensory’ and ‘cultural’ elements. Thus there is a great opportunity to develop narratives on a regional, local or thematic basis which combine data from other disciplines but retain an archaeological focus on social change and human agency. In doing so, there may be a shift from current uncritical empiricist views about what types of explanation should be sought and what constitutes significance, towards a more flexible and theoretically informed approach.

Introduction Although the academic discipline of post-medieval archaeology as such hardly exists, and most ‘research’ is in fact fieldwork-driven, there is a useful framework for reviewing the scope for future work, namely the Research Priorities drawn up by the Society for Post Medieval Archaeology (1988). Though this is slightly outdated, it remains a good basis for any future document, with the important warnings that it was prepared to be applied to England, and it covers the period up to 1800 only. Rather than update the national period frameworks, English Heritage is sponsoring the development of regional research agenda, of which the East Midlands and Yorkshire documents are nearing publication, with postmedieval sections by Paul Courtney and David Cranstone respectively. It remains true, however, that when archaeologists are required to assign importance to an individual site, the absence of any clear strategic statement makes the process more subjective than for earlier periods. The crossover between the criteria used for listing and scheduling in the post-medieval period means that these yardsticks are also difficult to apply, as acknowledged by Musson and Martin’s review of the representation of types of site in the Schedule compared to the SMRs (1998), which omitted post-medieval sites for this reason. An unfortunate effect of this exclusion has been that, as Cadw has used under representation as a way of identified priorities for grantaid projects, sites of the post-medieval period have been included only peripherally (as for the Deserted Rural Settlements survey).

A review of progress In order to gain some overview of the types of site investigated in the last ten years, I have undertaken a literature search (based mainly on John Kenyon’s annual abstract of relevant publications in Post-Medieval Archaeology; monographs are thus likely to be under 145

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Fig 20.1 Aberdulais river crossings: the archaeology of transport (road, canal and railway bridges over the River Neath)

Fig 20.2 Port Eynon salthouse: the upper floor window is a gun-loop, from the buildings seventeenth century use as a fortified warehouse

represented). This forms the basis of the following whistle-stop tour of fieldwork (mainly excavation, but also including survey and related research). Communications Coverage of transport has been patchy. Tramroads have been well-studied (Brecon Forest: Hughes 1990; Bersham: Grenter 1993; Aberdare: Mear 1999), and are well represented by scheduled monuments. Canals and railways have seen little work since the 1970s (Fig.20.1; Morriss 1999); there have been a few studies of roads (Telford’s Holyhead road; turnpike at Gelli-goch: Barfoot 1988; 1989; 1990) and rather more on bridges (Monnow: Rowlands 1993; 1994; Holyhead: Latham and Barfoot 1995). Industry Ironmaking has been examined at numerous sites (Bersham: Grenter 1993; Abercarn: Burland et al 1997; Cefn Cribbwr: Marvell et al 1996; Pentyrch: Lawler 1994; Clydach: Wilson 1990; Dyfi: Dinn 1988; general: Riden 1992; Raby’s Furnace; Hirwaun); in contrast, the only examination of copperworks has been the RCAHMW’s work on Swansea (Hughes 2000). Archaeological studies of coalmining and quarrying are rare (Gruffydd 1996; Wakelin 1996); saltmaking is represented by the intensively studied site at Port Eynon (Figs 20.2–3; Wilkinson et al 1998), which also provided a rare example of warehousing, and manganese extraction on the Llyn (Griffith 1989). Pottery is one of the most important early manufacturing industries, developing from local craft-based centres with high status long distance imports to a regionally organised mass production industry. The nineteenth-century pottery at Nantgarw has been excavated (Murphy et al 1997), but the main body of evidence available is the Board of Celtic Studies-funded survey of the early 1990s (Campbell and Papazian 1992; Campbell 1993), which examined

Fig 20.3 Wooden lift pump with repair patch, from Port Eynon, Swansea (Copyright, Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust)

excavated assemblages. The survey identified the strong influence along the coast of the North Devon pottery industry (Figs 20.4–5). It also emphasised the need to identify kiln sites. A clay pipe kiln at Caerleon has been published (Cessford 1998). 146

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Fig 20.4 North Devon sgraffito wares, widely traded along the Severn coast in the post-medieval period (Copyright Gwent-Glamorgan Archaeological Trust)

Urban centres The seriousness of the late medieval crisis in Welsh towns has now been recognised; Leland and Speed’s evidence reveals urban centres with empty areas and small populations. There is some question whether these settlements functioned as more than markets, at the lowest level of an urban hierarchy. The archaeological correlate of this historical process can only be unpicked by large scale excavation of urban areas. This has only really reached the point where sound conclusions can be reached at

Monmouth, where thirty years of observations on Monnow Street provide a fairly full account of the nature and phasing of settlement change and function (Marvell 2000). Urban crafts remain largely elusive, apart from hints at glove making at Monmouth and tanning in Brecon (Locock 1996), to which can be added the palaeoenvironmental data from Tenby (Murphy 1989). The standing buildings of towns have been examined by Powell and Fisk (1991), but the potential for the integration of excavated and architectural evidence has yet to be explored. 147

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Religion The Cadw-funded survey of historic churches in Wales was focused on those with a medieval foundation, although the fabric of many examined was largely postmedieval. A comprehensive study of Pennant Melangell church, Powys, has been published (Britnell 1994; Heaton and Britnell 1994; Ridgway 1994; Parkinson 1994), as have surveys of churchyards and Nonconformist chapels in Pembrokeshire (Mytum 1994; Orbach 1994). Military Investigations of military fortifications have been largely restricted to the Civil War (Caerphilly: Spurgeon and Thomas 2001; Pembroke: Lawler 2001; west Wales: Williams 1988; Carmarthen: James 1991); the CBA Defence of Britain project was restricted to twentiethcentury features. Maritime There have been a series of reports on individual wrecks and boats (Tredunnock boat: McGrail and Parry 1991; Carmarthen Bay: James 1993; Aberavon: Blundell 1995; Severn trows: Green 1995), but much less work on harbours and docks (Fig 20.6 (St Pierre Haven); Kidwelly: Morris 1990; Cresswell Quay, Pembs: Connop Price 1995; Severn: Green 1996).

Fig 20.5 Staffordshire and local slipwares from South Wales (copyright Gwent-Glamorgan Archaeological Trust )

Rural settlement Rural settlement, by its nature, has been approached on more local scale, and there has been much more emphasis on the surviving buildings, including estate housing (Alfrey 2001), farmhouses and buildings (Darlington 1988; Nash 1989; Redwood and Barnes 1993; Newman and Wilkinson 1996), and cottages (Wiliam 1995). The archaeology of larger houses and their gardens has been recognised as a sub-discipline, although the resources required for intensive study have restricted the scale and scope of many investigations. Rural economy The functional elements of the rural environment have begun to be studied; woodland (Linnard 1998), limekilns (Moore-Colyer 1990; Manning 2000), pillow mounds (Silvester 1995) and malting (Gibson and Barfoot 1997) have been examined. The single largest project has been the Cadw Deserted Rural Settlements survey (Yates 2000), examining the known examples of platform houses, lluest and hafod sites, and revealing the complexity of chronology and site-type associated with upland stock grazing and transhumance (Figs 20.6–7; Mynydd y Gwair and Blaenffynnonhonnau).

Thus even a rapid survey has shown the large volume of fieldwork that is being undertaken, primarily as recording exercises in advance of destruction. But this superficially healthy position may mask a more worrying reality: can it really be the case that only two developments have affected historic road features? Either there is a good deal more work which is going unpublished, or a good deal of unrecorded destruction: probably a mixture of the two. What these individual sites have failed to do is generate a critical mass where we can begin to build up an understanding of a period, area or topic as a whole.

Fig 20.6 St Pierre haven: the coastal trade of the Severn Estuary relied as much on suitable places for beaching as on harbours and docks

148

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

New approaches Fortunately, there have been developments in archaeological practice which may provide more of a framework of understanding, based on ‘total archaeology’: the recording of everything, almost literally up to yesterday. This includes unexceptional farm buildings, often ignored in previous surveys, but now a major component of the Tir Gofal scheme, and derelict and in some cases vanished industrial landscapes, as in the RCAHMW’s work at Swansea (Hughes 2000) and Blaenavon. Characteristic forms of field boundaries and vernacular buildings identified by LANDMAP and Historic Landscape Characterisation projects, as in the Severn Levels (Rippon 1996; 1997) are also significant in this approach. Fig 20.8 Mynydd-y-Gwair: the open summit with enclosed land on the lower slopes, including Blaenffynonhonnau

encroachment, desertion, transmission, diversification and industrialisation create the complexities of narrative we observe at the local, site, level, but remain to be unpicked.

Fig 20.7 Blaenffynonhonnau: an abandoned farm on the north slope of Mynydd-y-Gwair, at the upper limit of the enclosed fields

Similarly, modern Environmental Statements will routinely include an assessment of the historic landscape and field boundaries. This has highlighted the assumption underlying the Hedgerow Regulations (1997), that there is a correlation between the ecological value and antiquity of hedges, based in turn on Max Hooper’s hedge dating method, is by no means a general law: although in Gower, it proved to be true (Kissock 1991), elsewhere, the correlation is absent or even inverse. Data is now being collected and assessed on a landscape, rather than a site level, and there is therefore more scope for addressing the broader concerns of a social archaeology of the recent past, which rely on an understanding of the locus of past action; the locus is more than just the site, and includes the physical and perceived environment, and the social, political and economic context. Dealing with activity on a landscape scale means that we can examine landscape processes in a more sophisticated way, understanding changing landforms as the outcome of negotiation between social groups and their environment against a background of technological change. The processes of nucleation, fusion, fission,

To me the dominant process in the rural landscape is that of enclosure and reclamation, which should be seen as temporary effects of local decisions, rather than some grand inevitable trend. For example, in examining the area of Mynydd-y-Gwair on the Glamorgan/Carmarthenshire border, the most obvious feature was an abandoned farm (Figs 20.7–8). It was only later, trying to establish an interpretation, that the gaps in our understanding become obvious: the desertion was simply the last, and relatively well understood, event in a sequence of enclosure. Any understanding would require consideration of the relationship of the site to the unenclosed pasture on the summit and to the previously-enclosed land in the valley. Until such data has become available, interpretation cannot hope to fulfil its potential.

Theorising post-medieval archaeology The practice of post-medieval archaeology in Britain has been characterised as under theorised and empiricist (Cranstone 1999; Locock 2000), with some justification. Certainly, excavation reports have tended to emphasise description at the expense of analysis and interpretation, resulting in a dry ‘objectivist’ account of a site’s phasing and structure. The more lively, interesting and theoretically aware aspects of site interpretation are better reflected by papers from conferences (eg Samson (ed) 1990; ParkerPearson and Richards (eds) 1994; Locock, (ed) 1994; Tarlow and West (eds) 1998), although the post-medieval element is usually small and Wales entirely absent. Post-medieval archaeology in Wales needs to establish an identity separate from its neighbour disciplines, and part of its doing so is a recognition that an emphasis on rescue and recording as an end in itself is a barren and possibly futile exercise. 149

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Acknowledgements The author is grateful to David Cranstone, Jenny Hall and his colleagues at GGAT for their help; the views expressed are those of the author alone. Bibliography Note: this list does not cover the extensive publications on mills (see the journal Melin), chapels (Jones 1996 and the journal Capel), later industrial sites, or historic gardens (see Briggs 1991, 1998). Alfrey, J 2001 ‘Rural building in nineteenth-century north Wales: the role of the great estates’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 147 (for 1998), 199–216 Barfoot, JF 1988 ‘Excavations at Gelli-goch, Powys, 1984-1986: an investigation of an early 18th century turnpike and its origins’, Archaeology in Wales 28, 30–34

Tarlow and Susie West), Post-Medieval Archaeology 33, 310–312 Darlington, G 1988 ‘ Two National Trust farms in southwest Wales: Treginnis Isaf, St David’s, and Stackpole Home Farm, nr Pembroke’, Journal of the Historic Farm Buildings Group 2, 26–40 Dinn, J 1998 ‘Dyfi furnace excavation, 1982-87’, PostMedieval Archaeology 22, 111–142 Gibson, AM and Barfoot, JF 1997 ‘The excavation of a malt-house in the grounds of Plas Machynlleth, 1994’, Montgomeryshire Collections 85, 77–86 Green, C 1995 ‘Trows and the Severn coastal trade’, Archaeology in the Severn Estuary 6, 97–113 Green, C 1996 ‘The Forest ports of the Severn Estuary’, Archaeology in the Severn Estuary 7, 107–113

Barfoot, JF 1989 ‘An investigation of an 18th century Montgomeryshire turnpike and its origins’, Montgomeryshire Collections 77, 73–80

Grenter, S 1992 ‘A wooden waggonway complex at Bersham ironworks, Wrexham, Industrial Archaeology Review 152, 195–207

Barfoot, JF 1990 ‘Machynlleth turnpike, pictorial evidence’, Montgomeryshire Collections 78, 163–164

Griffith, M 1989 ‘Manganese mining at Rhiw in Llyn between 1827 and 1945’, Transactions Caernarvonshire Historical Society 50, 41–69

Blundell, J 1995 ‘A Tudor wreck near Aberavon in Glamorgan’, Cymru a’r Mor/Maritime Wales 17, 7–22 Briggs, CS 1991 ‘Garden archaeology in Wales’, in AE Brown, (ed) Garden Archaeology, CBA Research Report 78: London, 138–159 Briggs, CS 1998 ‘A new field of Welsh cultural history: inference and evidence in gardens and landscapes since c 1450’, in P Pattison (ed) There by design: fieldwork in parks and gardens, Garden History Society/RCHME: London, 65–74 Britnell, WJ 1994 ‘Excavation and recording at Pennant Melangell church’, Montgomeryshire Collections 82, 41–102 Burland, L, Frowen, F and Milsom, L 1997 ‘Abercarn blast furnace’, Gwent Local History 82, 16–43 Campbell, E 1993 ‘Post-medieval pottery in Wales: an archaeological survey’, Post-Medieval Archaeology 27, 1–13 Campbell, E and Papazian, C 1992 ‘Medieval pottery and roof-tile in Wales AD 1100–1600’, Medieval and later pottery in Wales 13, 1–107 Cessford, A 1998 ‘An 18th century clay pipe production site at Caerleon’, Monmouthshire Antiquary 14, 41–55 Connop Price, M 1995 ‘Coal, culm and Cresswell Quay: some aspects of the Pembrokeshire coal industry in the 18th century’, Pembrokeshire History Society Journal 6, 25–34 Cranstone, D 1999 Book review: The Familiar Past? Archaeologies of Later Historical Britain (edited by Sarah

Gruffydd, KLl 1996 ‘The export of Flintshire coal before the Industrial Revolution’, Flintshire Historical Society Journal 34, 53–88 Heaton, RB and Britnell, WJ 1994 ‘A structural history of Pennant Melangell church’, Montgomeryshire Collections 82, 103–126 Hughes, SR 1990 Brecon Forest tramroad: the archaeology of an early railway system, HMSO: Cardiff Hughes, SR 2000 Copperopolis: landscapes of the early industrial period in Swansea, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth James, TA 1991 ‘Carmarthen’s Civil War defences: discoveries at Carmarthen’s Greyfriars excavations 1983–1990’, Carmarthenshire Antiquary 27, 21–30 James, TA 1993 ‘A Carmarthen Bay shipwreck’, Carmarthenshire Antiquary 29, 93–102 Jones, A 1996 Welsh chapels, Alan Sutton: Gloucester Kissock, JA 1991 ‘Farms, fields and hedges: aspects of the rural economy of northeast Gower, c 1300 to c 1650’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 140, 130–147 Latham, JE and Barfoot, JF 1995 ‘Excavations at Thomas Telford’s suspension bridge, Conwy, North Wales’, Archaeology in Wales 35, 25–27 Lawler, M 1994 ‘Pentyrch ironworks, Mid Glamorgan (ST 121 830)’, Archaeology in Wales 34, 30–32 Lawler, M 2001 ‘Investigation of the town wall and burgage plots at South Quay and Castle Terrace, Pembroke’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 147 (for 1998), 159–180 150

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Linnard, W 1998 Welsh woods and forests Locock, M (ed) 1994 Meaningful architecture: social interpretations of buildings, Avebury Press: Aldershot Locock, M 1996 ‘Bethel Square, Brecon: excavations in the medieval town’, Brycheiniog 28, 35–80 Locock, M 2000 ‘Book review: Archaeological theory: an introduction (Matthew Johnson)’, Post-Medieval Archaeology 34, 414–415 Manning, A 2000 ‘The excavation of three ‘flare’ lime kilns at Garn-ffrwd Farm, Llanddarog, southeast Carmarthenshire’, Tarmac Papers 4, 49–64

Architecture and Order: approaches to social space, Routledge: London Parkinson, AJ 1994 ‘Paintings and inscriptions in Pennant Melangell church’, Montgomeryshire Collections 82, 139–146 Powell, C and Fisk, MJ 1991 ‘Early industrial housing in Rhondda, 1800 to 1850’, Morgannwg 35, 50–78 Redwood, P and Barnes, J 1993 ‘The history of a Breconshire farm: Tyn-y-llwyn’, Brycheiniog 26, 53–104 Riden, P 1992 ‘Early ironworks in the Lower Taff valley’, Morgannwg 36, 69–93

Marvell, AG (ed) 2001 Investigations along Monnow Street, Monmouth, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 320: Oxford

Ridgeway, MH 1994 ‘Furnishings and fittings in Pennant Melangell church’, Montgomeryshire Collections 82, 127–138

Marvell, AG, Wilkinson, PF and Williams, D 1996 ‘Excavations at the Bedford Ironworks, Cefn Cribbwr’, Archaeology in Wales 36, 36–42

Rippon, S 1996 Gwent Levels: the evolution of a wetland landscape, CBA Research Report 105: York

McGrail, S and Parry, S 1991 ‘A flat-bottomed boat from the R Usk at Tredunnoc, Gwent, Wales’, in R Reinders and K Paul (eds), Carvel Construction Techniques, Oxbow Monograph 12: Oxford, 161–169 Mear, JF 1999 Aberdare: the railways and tramroads (privately printed: Aberdare) Moore-Colyer, RJ 1990 ‘Coastal limekilns in southwest Wales’, Folk Life 28, 19–30 Morris, WH 1990 ‘The port Carmarthenshire Antiquary 26, 13–18

of

Kidwelly’,

Morriss, R 1999 The archaeology of railways, Tempus: Gloucester Murphy, K 1989 ‘Analyses of a cesspit fill from the Tudor Merchant’s House, Tenby, Dyfed’, Bulletin Board Celtic Studies 36, 246–262 Murphy, K, Ramsey, R and Higgins, DA 1997 ‘The dismantling of Kiln II, Nantgarw China and Pottery Works, Mid Glamorgan, 1995’, Post-Medieval Archaeology 31, 231–248

Rippon, S 1997 The Severn Estuary: Landscape evolution and wetland reclamation, Leicester University Press: London Rowlands, MLJ 1993 ‘Monnow Bridge and gate, Monmouth’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 142, 243–287 Rowlands, MLJ 1994 Monnow Bridge and Gate, Alan Sutton: Gloucester Samson, R (ed) 1990 The social archaeology of houses, Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh Silvester, RJ 1995 ‘Pillow mounds at Y Foel, Llanllugan’, Montgomeryshire Collections 83, 75–90 SPMA 1988 Research priorities for post-medieval archaeology Spurgeon, CJ and Thomas, HJ 2001 ‘Caerphilly Castle: the Civil War redoubt’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 147 (for 1998), 181–193 Tarlow, S and West, S (eds) 1998 The Familiar Past? Archaeologies of Later Historical Britain, Routledge: London

Mytum, HC 1994 ‘Language as symbol in churchyard monuments: the use of Welsh in 19th and 20th-century Pembrokeshire’, World Archaeology 262, 252–267

Wakelin, P 1996 ‘‘Scouring the land’: early iron ore extraction at Blaenavon’, Monmouthshire Antiquary 12, 62–67

Nash, GD 1989 ‘The historical farm buildings of Pembrokeshire’, Journal of the Historic Farm Buildings Group 3, 18–44

Wiliam, E 1995 ‘‘Home-made homes’: dwellings of the rural poor in Cardiganshire’, Ceredigion 123, 23–40

Newman, R and Wilkinson, PF 1996 ‘Excavations at Llanmaes, near Llantwit Major, South Glamorgan’, PostMedieval Archaeology 30, 180–226 Orbach, J 1994 ‘Some examples of Dyfed chapel architecture’, Carmarthenshire Antiquary 30, 51–56 Parker-Pearson, M and Richards, C (eds) 1994

Wilkinson, PF, Locock, M and Sell, SH 1998 ‘A 16thcentury saltworks at Port Eynon, Gower’, Post-Medieval Archaeology 32, 3–32 Williams, JG 1988 ‘The castles of Wales during the Civil War, 1642–1647’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 137, 1–26 Wilson, A 1990 ‘The excavation of Clydach Ironworks’, Gwent Local History 68, 4–34 151

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Yates, MJ 2000 ‘Medieval or Later Rural Settlement in Wales: an introduction to the present work programme funded by Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments’, in JA Atkinson, I Banks, and G MacGregor (eds) Townships to Farmsteads: rural settlement studies in Scotland, England and Wales, BAR British Series 293: Oxford, 31–33 Unpublished Musson, CR and Martin, C 1998 Medieval and earlier sites in Wales: scheduling and the national database, a statistical study, unpublished report to Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments

152

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

21 Dendrochronology: progress and prospects Richard F Suggett

RCAHMW Crown Building, Plas Crug, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 1NJ [email protected] www.rcahmw.org.uk

Abstract The results of tree-ring dating in Wales during the last thirty years or so have been of outstanding interest both for archaeological (waterlogged) sites and for buildings. Chronologies have been obtained from most parts of Wales, and a platform now exists for future research on an all-Wales basis. A research agendum for standing structures is outlined. All available tree-ring dates from Welsh sites are listed. Introduction It is not an exaggeration to claim that tree-ring dating is transforming our understanding of the chronology of latemedieval standing structures. However, one has to be cautious about assessing the progress and prospects of dendrochronology in Wales: a fair amount of research has been undertaken, more proportionately than in Scotland and Ireland, but less than in England. Substantially more work is necessary to fully exploit for architectural and archaeological research the chronological precision offered by tree-ring dating. Tree-ring dating can be remarkably precise, accurate not only to the year but even to the season of felling, offering absolute dates that a generation ago would have seemed plucked from the realm of fantasy. The impact of a relatively small number of secure dates has been considerable, especially in the study of medieval housing, and results that were initially regarded as surprising have now been accommodated within interpretative schemes. This article describes the development of sampling in Wales, assesses the significance of the tree-ring dates already obtained, and outlines agenda for future research on standing structures. Tree-ring dates obtained from individual sites are often of wider significance but the results of dendrochronology are not always easily accessible and, as a consequence, as fully exploited as they might be. Dates from archaeological sites, in particular, can languish for years in unpublished reports. An appendix

therefore lists all the available Welsh tree-ring dates with references, and includes not only standing structures (Appendices 21.1 and 2) and archaeological (waterlogged) sites (Appendix 21.3), but also bog oak, submerged forests (Appendix 21.4), and living trees (Appendix 21.5), as well as undated sites (Appendices 21.6 and 7).

Sampling in Wales Tree-ring studies developed in the twentieth century as a technique in climatic research, but since the 1970s it has become an increasingly significant dating technique for standing structures and waterlogged timbers as long sequences of tree-rings (master curves) have been established through the painstaking cross-matching of different samples from historic structures (Fig 21.2). Pioneering work was carried out in Wales by Frau Veronika Siebenlist of the Forstbotanisches Institut, Munich, in 1972 when there were very few reference chronologies for the British Isles (Siebenlist-Kerner 1978). Tree-ring curves obtained from some English oaks growing in hillside locations matched those of southern Germany, and Siebenlist tried to establish an EnglishWelsh reference curve by sampling historic buildings with long tree-ring sequences in upland areas. Sampling in Yorkshire and other parts of upland England proved disappointing (an indication of the influence of localised climatic conditions on tree-ring patterns), but results in Wales were encouraging. Four sites in Powys were successfully sampled. In particular, cores spanning 1439–1615 were obtained from the Old Vicarage, Berriew. The felling date of spring 1615 was reassuringly consistent with a 1616 date inscription on the building’s porch, and was an early indication not only that precise felling dates could be obtained but also that building timber might be used when ‘green’ rather than stockpiled. Siebenlist showed that long tree-ring sequences obtained in Wales could be cross-matched with the southern German master curve and identified several distinctive ‘signatures’ in the Welsh tree-ring sequence. Siebenlist’s scheme for further 153

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

work in Wales was not carried out, but her reference chronology was for many years the only published chronology that incorporated Welsh material (SiebenlistKerner 1978, incorporated in Fletcher 1980). Systematic tree-ring sampling resumed in Wales only in the 1990s when Cadw and the Museum of Welsh Life began dating buildings in their care, and RCAHMW initiated a rolling programme of dendrochronology. RCAHMW has so far dated (or grant-aided the dating of) about thirty phases at twenty-five sites, and published a review of the initial findings (Suggett 1996) as well as the results of three subsequent programmes (Miles and Worthington 1998; 1999; 2000). The aim of RCAHMW’s work (discussed in the next section) has been to establish a framework for dating and comparing medieval hallhouses and early storeyed houses. Work of increasing sophistication and complexity has been carried out in Wales, including the dating of waterlogged samples from medieval and earlier boats in the Gwent levels (Nayling 1998), and use of a micro-borer and specialised photography at Chepstow Castle to date the castle gates (Miles and Worthington 1998, 27). As confidence has grown, sampling has been attempted at sites regarded for various reasons as difficult or complex. Dendrochronology may be the only means of resolving difficult or controversial interpretative issues. Sampling at Aberglasney was employed not only to establish a building chronology, but to consider house and garden in relation, as well as using growing timber (a yew atop the wall-walk) to provide a terminus ante quem for a built structure (Miles and Bridge in Briggs 1999). All the treering dating laboratories (Sheffield, Oxford, Nottingham, London (M Bridge)) have worked successfully in Wales, and a dendrochronology laboratory has now been established at the University of Wales Lampeter which has issued its first list of dates (Nayling 2000). The archaeological application of tree-ring dating is relatively restricted to certain very wet or very dry sites. Waterlogged areas in Britain can present the ideal conditions for the preservation of timbers suitable for treering dating, and results have been obtained from ash and beech samples as well as oak. Results in Wales, from the Severn Estuary, have been spectacular (Appendix 21.3). Two of four astonishingly precise British Bronze Age treering dates have been obtained from the Gwent levels, with a bridge and causeway at Caldicot shown to have been constructed from timber felled in 990/989BC and, at the time of writing, the second oldest precisely-dated structure in Britain. Several dates of great interest have been obtained from Iron Age structures at Goldcliff, and Caerleon, on the edge of the Gwent levels, has yielded Roman dates. The oak keel of a medieval wreck recovered from Magor Pill gave a precise felling date of winter AD1239/40 which was gratifyingly consistent with the

date of 1240 or shortly after obtained from the beech planking with which the boat was finished. The beech, as the dendrochronologist noted, was remarkably slow grown with a long sequence of rings beginning in AD909 that has helped consolidate a long sequence for the beech chronology in Britain (Tyers 1998). Research of considerable interest has been undertaken at waterlogged sites elsewhere in Wales. Although it has proved difficult to date various submerged trees and finds of bog oak (Appendix 21.4), timbers found at Abercynafon, a Neolithic wetland site at Talybont-on-Usk, have been successfully dated, and a published assessment is eagerly awaited. Also in Brecknock, timbers from the palisade of the remarkable crannog at Llangorse Lake have been precisely dated, allowing the context of the high-status lakeside settlement to be placed in the ninth and tenth centuries, ‘a period when virtually no other sites have been recognised or securely dated’ (Campbell and Lane 1989). Timbers from several medieval boats have now been dated, although the results have not been fully published. The range and precision of the archaeological application of tree-ring dating is therefore impressive. However, not all opportunities of sampling waterlogged timbers are taken, presumably because of the perceived expense. It is interesting to note in relation to the very successful Gwent levels project that retrospectively it was considered that an expanded dendrochronological programme would have ‘dramatically enhanced our chronological precision’ (Bell 2000, 348). Tree-ring dating reports tend to be rather cut-and-dried documents that do not record the struggles of the professional in the field and in the laboratory. An interesting paper by John Esling (1996), however, candidly reveals some of the problems he encountered when trying to construct a local master chronology for north Wales. Some buildings failed to date despite a good series of rings; at other sites timbers were fast grown or contained too few rings for dating purposes; elsewhere one or two cores inconveniently crumbled before analysis. It is salutary for those commissioning dates to learn that sometimes samples with numerous closely-spaced rings can obstinately fail to date. It is also important for those using tree-ring dates to appreciate that dendrochronology is a statistical exercise (expressed by t-values) rather than an absolute dating technique. It can therefore happen that there will be more than one matching position between a sample and a reference chronology. Hendre’r-ywydd Uchaf, an important cruck-framed house re-erected at the Museum of Welsh Life, has been tentatively dated to either the early sixteenth century or (less probably architecturally) the early seventeenth century; as Esling acknowledges, one of the dates has to be spurious. Tree-ring dating depends on successful cross-matching. Much of the work on standing structures in Wales and the 154

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Marches has been carried out by the Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory which has consolidated the results of sampling into a master oak chronology WALES97 with a date range of AD404-1981, comprising over fifty different chronologies from various researchers. As one might expect, this chronology relates closely to the Shropshire chronologies. As a general rule, the further west sampling is undertaken the more difficult it is to obtain convincing matches. In some upland areas timber trees may be growing near the limit of their range. In maritime areas positive results can be difficult to obtain because warm and wet climatic conditions tend to produce fast-grown timber, generally unsuitable for dendrochronology. RCAHMW has examined several sites in Cardiganshire but all were rejected for sampling because of too wide or insufficient numbers of tree rings in the structural timbers. Painstaking work will be necessary to build up local chronologies. However, encouragingly, sampling in the neighbouring county of Carmarthenshire has been successful. Dated building phases of c 1600 and 1771 were obtained at Aberglasney, and scarfed crucks with a felling date of 1796 were sampled at Aberdeunant ‘Cottage’, although sampling failed to date the medieval core of Aberdeunant farmhouse. Elsewhere in the difficult maritime areas, chronologies have been strengthened by successful sampling in Gwynedd (Aberconwy House, Conwy), and in Glamorgan, where several great houses (Cefn Mably, Sker House, Llanmihangel Court) have been dated recently (Appendix 21.1). Given the problems of cross-matching, which can be compounded by poorly focused programmes, it may be readily appreciated that it is easy to spend considerable sums of money on tree-ring dating without obtaining many usable results. The technique costs approximately £500-£750 per phase (and a single building may contain several significant phases), and it is not unusual for sampling to be unsuccessful. In England it proved impossible to date a third of the buildings selected for sampling by the Royal Commission (RCHME) for the medieval houses of Kent project (Pearson 1994). In Wales approximately the same proportion of buildings has failed to date at the Museum of Welsh Life (Nash u d). RCAHMW’s programme has been effective because a rigorous methodology has been employed (Suggett 1996; cf Garrigou Grandchamp 1997). Severe selection criteria involved the rejection of many sites but achieved about a 90% success rate. Only sites with intelligible plans were selected; it was not sufficient for a building to have interesting architectural details but a fragmentary or unintelligible plan. Moreover, considerable efforts were made to identify timbers with full sapwood so that sampling would provide precise felling dates. Estimated felling dates are of course valuable, but felling date ranges vary from laboratory to laboratory and may be recalculated as more information comes to hand (Miles

1997; Pearson 1997). Currently a sapwood estimate of 1046 rings is generally employed, although the Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory has recommended an estimate of 11-41 rings for Wales and the Marches (Miles 1997) within 95% confidence limits. The refinement of felling date ranges is very much to be welcomed but sapwood estimates inevitably span a generation, and precise felling dates are really needed to establish a secure chronological framework for late-medieval buildings of different type.

Interpretations of late-medieval buildings Although well over one thousand standing structures have now been tree-ring dated in England and Wales, interpretation and synthesis by architectural historians have lagged behind. This is partly because tree-ring dating has been regionally and chronologically biased (as a cursory glance at the index of tree-dates reported in Vernacular Architecture immediately shows: Alcock 1998). Most dates have been obtained for late medieval and Tudor sites in central and southern England; there are fewer dates for the extreme eastern and western parts of England which are considered difficult areas by dendrochronologists. Only a handful of tree-ring dates for standing structures have been reported from Ireland and Scotland. A few regional syntheses are available, notably for Kent (Pearson 1994) and Shropshire (Moran 2000). Pearson (1997; 2001) has attempted an overview of dendrochronological work, tentatively identifying several general trends in medieval and Tudor building chronologies. It is clear that relatively few domestic and agricultural buildings survive from before the fourteenth century, and none earlier than the aisled buildings of about 1200. However, Pearson identifies two peaks of medieval and Tudor building activity. The first is concentrated in the early fourteenth century, and another and more prolonged movement spans the early Tudor period beginning in the second half of the fifteenth century, peaking around 1500, then falling away. Although the trends identified by Pearson are nuanced by regional and status differences, the results of tree-ring dating in Wales stand out for several reasons. The early fourteenth century peak has not been identified in Wales where, indeed, there appears to be a clear cut-off point for domestic structures in the early fifteenth century. The earliest dated Welsh houses belong to the first half of the fifteenth century and are all notable buildings. They include a substantial three-storey merchant’s dwelling (Aberconwy House, Conwy) as well as several high-status rural hall-houses. The absence of pre-1400 domestic buildings was initially puzzling, especially as there are fourteenth-century documentary references to substantial houses in Wales. Moreover, late medieval Welsh houses were clearly related to the timber-framing tradition of the west Midlands where substantial numbers of early houses have been found in Shropshire and Herefordshire. The 155

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

apparent absence of early hall-houses in Wales can be tentatively attributed to the devastating effects of Owain Glyndwr’s revolt in the early fifteenth century when both Glyndwr and the Crown employed scorched earth tactics that devastated town and countryside (Suggett 1996). In Wales, a correlation has emerged linking size of house, social status, and late or early dating. It is quite clear from the results of RCAHMW’s 1996 programme, and subsequent sampling, that a ‘size effect’ influences the chronology of surviving medieval houses: large houses tend to be earlier than smaller houses. The great halls of lordship or monastic status that have been dated were constructed within the first half of the fifteenth century. They include the monastic hall at Cymer (1441), the great hall in Tretower Court (1447 estimated), and the masterpiece of timber framing at Bryndraenog (1436). Houses having a hall of two-bays with an ornate central truss, the homes of the gentry class classically discussed in Houses of the Welsh Countryside (Smith 1975 and 1988), have a longer chronology extending from c 1430 to 1530. However, the majority of those dated concentrated around 1500 and conformed to Pearson’s second late medieval peak of building activity which was important in northern and western parts of England. Generally, ‘peasant’ hallhouses – defined as having a single-bayed hall – were later still and belonged to the mid sixteenth century. The discovery of peasant dwellings, essentially scaled-down versions of high-status houses, has been an important addition to the range of surviving hall-houses. There is a remarkable mid-Tudor concentration of dated examples, but Hendre’r-ywydd Uchaf may carry the building type back to the early sixteenth century. Understanding of the development of hall-houses in the sixteenth century has been refined by the careful survey and sampling of winged gentry houses. It is clear that as peasant hall-houses were under construction there was a movement to enlarge gentry hall-houses. In the first half of the sixteenth century wings were added to gentry halls that had been constructed one or two generations earlier. In its clearest form there was a drive to enlarge the upper end of a cruck-framed open hall-house by replacing the innerroom with a substantial box-framed storeyed cross-wing. In terms of craftsmanship, these box-framed wings were the high-point of the timber building tradition in Wales, and there was lavish and therefore expensive use of close studding and other decorative techniques. Elaborate storeyed wings were being added to open halls before fully storeyed houses were constructed. A characteristic development sequence for a gentry hallhouse was: (1) construction of a three-unit hall-house; (2) addition of a solar cross-wing; (3) modernisation of the hall with insertion of a fireplace and ceiling. Careful sampling of several multi-period vernacular houses, informed by detailed recording, shows that the

modification of hall-houses could be a prolonged process. The dating sequence at Burfa demonstrates that the process might take several generations, from the construction of the hall in 1487, to the addition of a solar cross-wing in 1502, and the final reconstruction and improvement of the hall in 1643/4. Construction of a fireplace and the flooring over of the hall were not necessarily simultaneous modifications. Sampling at Tymawr (Castle Caereinion) showed that inserted fireplaces could be surprisingly late. Here the hall of 1460 was improved with a rather vulnerable-looking timber-framed fireplace in 1630/31, although the inner room ceiling had been constructed in 1594. The main result of the analysis of the tree-ring dating buildings has been in the teasing out of a chronology for medieval building. Before RCAHMW’s successful treering dating programme, hall-houses were generally intuitively dated and broadly categorised as ‘late medieval’, a term that embraced a period extending from the early fourteenth century to the mid sixteenth century. The discovery of the early fifteenth-century cut-off point for standing domestic structures has been a revelation, although the hiatus is implicitly suggested by the documentary sources. The strong correlations between house size, status, and date have been important discoveries, although a similar ‘size effect’ does not seem to have been identified in England. It is, however, reasonable to suppose that in Wales after Glyndwr’s revolt those with greater resources built earlier and to a larger scale than those with lesser resources. Small and plain structures are not necessarily earlier than large, ornate structures, although it seems that this lesson has to be relearnt periodically by archaeologists and architectural historians.

Future Research The publication of Dendrochronology Guidelines by English Heritage (1998) as well as providing advice for those commissioning dates promises to introduce consistency into laboratory practices. In England much tree-ring dating work is commissioned by local conservation officers and by English Heritage and it is in many respects a routine, conservation-led procedure. As the Dendrochronology Guidelines uncontroversially observes, in order to manage historic buildings and archaeological sites effectively it is first necessary to understand them, and dating a building reliably is fundamental to understanding an historic structure. However conservation practice varies between different parts of the United Kingdom, and provision for tree-ring dating is rarely made in grants for the repair of historic buildings outside England. It is certainly important to broaden the base from which dates are commissioned in Wales, and to seize the opportunities for sampling presented by the repair of historic buildings. The commissioning of tree-ring dating by conservation officers 156

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

is an unusual event in Wales, and dates commissioned by developers in advance of development are almost unheard of, although Cefn Mably is a welcome exception (see Howell, this volume). This is a great pity since the occasion of repair offers access to structural timbers normally hidden or difficult to reach, and the process of restoration often involves the removal of historic timber. In Wales RCAHMW will continue to commission treering dating as part of a rolling research programme, complementing the ad hoc dating of individual sites commissioned by other public bodies and by private individuals. Clearly-focused research programmes are badly needed to clarify the building chronologies of key building types, and several programmes are under consideration by RCAHMW which may be briefly described. Firstly, archaic roofs. It has already been suggested that although there is ample documentary evidence for the existence of substantial domestic buildings in pre-1400 Wales, it seems unlikely that many early dwellings have survived as standing structures. The apparent absence of domestic buildings dating from before 1400 has been tentatively attributed to the devastating effects of Glyndwr’s rebellion. However, although no early (preGlyndwr) secular domestic houses have been identified, it should be emphasised that two pre-1400 dates have been obtained for non-domestic timberwork in Wales. The concealed collar-rafter roof at Brecon Priory, discovered during RCAHMW’s survey of the cathedral, has been dated to the mid thirteenth century. A remarkable twelfthcentury date has been obtained for the outer bailey gates at Chepstow Castle (Appendix 21.2). This is a welcome addition to the small corpus of closely-dated early doors and also refines the dating of the castle itself (Turner 1999). Surviving woodwork in medieval defensive structures merits close attention and, although there is no guide to its survival, the few remaining inhabited castles may contain suitable material for sampling. Obvious candidates for dating are the roofs of Usk Castle gatehouse and the hall at St Donat’s Castle. The few early domestic roofs likely to date from before 1400 certainly need to be examined. Promising sites include the fully-aisled house at Hafod, Llansilin, and possibly several houses with single aisletrusses. It is perhaps difficult to believe that every substantial house in Wales was destroyed during Owain Glyndwr’s revolt. It is not impossible that early houses will be found, but there is not, for example, an obviously early stratum of cruck-framed houses identifiable by distinctive lap-joints and apexes, or by the profile of the blades. However, the sampling of cruck-framed houses has been geographically uneven, and it may be that northeast and southeast Wales, which have not been extensively sampled, may contain a few chronological surprises. Secondly, platformed houses. Field survey in the Welsh uplands has identified numerous deserted rural settlements

described as platforms and long-huts. Their interpretation remains difficult, but it is quite probable that many archaeological platforms are not greatly different in date from platformed standing structures. The durable peasant hall-house was characteristically platform-sited on the fringes of commons and wastes in upland Wales, and farm consolidation in the early-modern period seems to have left a scattering of platforms along the margins of the commons. The challenge for settlement studies is to introduce a chronology into this architectural and archaeological resource and to relate one to the other. Excavated platforms have produced few closely datable finds, as the sites tend to be aceramic, and a programme designed to tree-ring date a range of platformed standing structures is badly needed. However experience in Radnorshire suggests that the task will require considerable patience. Peasant hall-houses in that county have proved difficult to date because (in contrast to gentry hall-houses) they were often built from fast- grown timber derived from different sources. Nevertheless four peasant hall-houses have been successfully dated, including the cruck-framed superstructure of an excavated platform in Montgomeryshire (Britnell and Suggett forthcoming), and careful sampling will no doubt establish a chronology for a range of platformed hall-houses.

Fig. 21.1 Distribution map of dendrochronological surveys in Wales. Based upon the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Licence No GD 272221. Crown Copyright: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales

157

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Fig 21.1. Reconstruction of the primary phase at Cefn-caer (Penal, Mer.) showing the location of the timbers sampled by the dendrochronologist, Daniel Miles. (Drawing by Geoff Ward and Charles Green. RCAHMW: Crown Copyright)

Table 21.1 Sample number

Location of timber

Date span

No. of rings

Felling date

ccp1 = mean of ccp1a and ccp1b

collar of cusped truss

1425–1525

101

Winter 1525/6

ccp2

Re-set rafter

1446–1525

80

Winter 1525/6

ccp3

Purlin

1424–1491

68

1499–1529

ccp4

Principal rafter of cusped truss

1418–1525

108

Winter 1525/6

ccp5

Principal rafter of dais truss

1411–1524

114

Spring 1525

ccp6

Sill-beam of passage truss

1404–1525

122

Spring 1526

ccp11

Principal rafter of passage truss

1491–1657

167

Summer 1658

ccp12

Principal rafter of passage truss

1510–1659

150

Summer 1660

Primary phase

Repair phase

Cefn-caer is a well preserved stone-walled hall-house with a hall of three bays. The dating of the primary phase was uncertain until a consistent series of precise felling dates for the structural timbers were obtained by dendrochronology. Nine timbers were sampled. Six timbers, five with complete sapwood, produced felling dates ranging between spring 1525 and spring 1526 suggesting that construction was likely to have taken place in 1526. Two timbers from a repair phase suggested that the passage end of the house had been reconstructed in 1660. The timbers of the inserted ceiling and fireplace beam were found to be fast grown. A single sample (ccp13) from a joist had insufficient rings (36) to date. Information summarised from DWH Miles, ‘The Tree-ring Dating of Cefn-caer, Pennal, Gwynedd’ (Unpublished report, 2000).

158

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Thirdly, farm buildings. Farm buildings are the most numerous but also the most vulnerable type of vernacular building in Wales (Suggett 2001, 82). They are also a poorly understood building type in terms of chronology. Dated farm buildings are rare before the eighteenth century, and there is no chronology for early examples, especially for the cruck-framed and box-framed barns which survive in sufficient numbers for regional comparisons to be meaningful. Dendrochronology is the only method of securely dating a range of early farm buildings and identifying phases of investment in farm ranges. Many farm ranges represent as great an investment in building as their associated farmhouses. Dating of churches also needs to be considered. They are a major class of monument with some 300 sites where medieval roofs, screens, and other forms of historic carpentry survive. However, little tree-ring dating work has been attempted apart from the small miscellany of sites listed in Appendix 21.2, which includes the choir stalls at Abergavenny Priory, the bell-chamber at Brecon Priory, and the roof of a Caernarfonshire parish church. The present position is akin to that which obtained for medieval houses before RCAHMW’s 1996 dating programme. The term ‘late medieval’ is commonly used when describing church roofs but it assigns a bogus precision to the dating of most ecclesiastical timberwork. There is no real sense of a meaningful chronology despite evident differences in scale between large and small churches, the existence of distinctive regional roof types, and survival of screens and other woodwork attributed to different ‘schools’. It is also important to date the embellishment of churches with towers and porches, which may or may not be contemporary with surviving ornate roofs. A sustained programme of dendrochronology is desirable to establish chronological markers, but the difficulty of the task should not be underestimated. The inspection and sampling of church roofs is generally more expensive than that of domestic roofs since tower scaffolds may be required. In addition, the timbers of church roofs are often finely dressed and moulded and have been effectively ‘defrassed’ (the process of removing wood liable to beetle attack) during construction with the loss of most sapwood. Nevertheless the few results already obtained (Appendix 21. 2) provide some encouragement that useful felling date ranges can be obtained from roofs and other structural timbers as well as screens and stalls. It remains to be emphasised that the effective publication of the results of sampling is fundamental if tree-ring dates are to be widely useful. The journal Vernacular Architecture offers a forum for the publication of dates obtained from successful sampling. However not all treering dates find their way into the journal, particularly when results have a low t-value, and sites where reasonable tree-ring sequences fail to cross-match are

rarely if ever noted. Appendix 21.5 lists sites where samples have not dated, but which may yet date as chronologies are extended and refined. The list however is undoubtedly incomplete. It is, of course, vital that samples are accurately provenanced in the dendrochronologist’s report. Survey drawings should inform the sampling of a historic building, and the results of tree-ring dating may be incorporated in a more elaborate visual record. Figure 21.1 shows the result of a partnership exercise in which the Snowdonia National Park Authority commissioned the tree-ring dating of Cefn-caer (Pennal, Merioneth) in association with an ‘exemplar’ survey by RCAHMW. Cefn-caer is a substantially complete stone-walled hallhouse with fine timber detail, and remarkably sited within a Roman fort. It was selected for sampling because it has been traditionally associated with Owain Glyndwr. However, tree-ring dating showed conclusively that the house was post-Glyndwr, built from timber felled between spring 1525 and spring 1526 (Table 21.1). Dendrochronology established the phasing of the building, and the first phase of the hall-house has been reconstructed in a cut-away drawing which also shows the location of the samples. The drawing (Fig 21.2) is intended to make the point that it is best practice to incorporate the results of dendrochronological surveys in interpretative drawings. Finally, it is worth pointing out that the research interests of dendrochronologists and those who commission dates do not always fully coincide. Those who commission a date may be understandably interested primarily in the felling date as a guide to a construction date. Dendrochronologists are equally interested in the calculations behind the result and the length of tree-ring sequences. English Heritage (1998) recommends that a dendrochronological report should contain enough information for another dendrochronologist to replicate the results. In an ideal world this would be so. However, we should appreciate that dendrochronology laboratories exist in a system of friendly competition, and that by and large dendrochronologists are professional archaeological contractors who are dependent on their chronologies as a form of capital and may want to retain them. As it is, encouragingly, laboratories tend to exchange chronologies. It is a moot point who ‘owns’ what data in a tree-ring dating report, and what proprieties should be observed in communicating and publishing results, although English Heritage (1998) sets out some useful guidelines. These are unresolved problems that affect both dendrochronologists and those commissioning results. However, the quirks of actual practice apart, we are fortunate that within the archaeological community there are dendrochronologists for whose expertise and professionalism one has only the highest regard. The specialists are there, the tree-ring chronologies are constantly developing, and agenda exist for future research: let us take advantage of this situation.

159

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Acknowledgments I should like to thank Stephen Briggs for inviting me to contribute this paper, and Peter White, RCAHMW’s Secretary, for enabling me to do so. This ‘rough guide’ to dendrochronology has been written from a personal perspective, however, and does not necessarily reflect an official viewpoint. I am particularly grateful to the following specialists who kindly supplied me with information and checked the dates cited in the tables: Martin Bridge (London), Cathy Groves (Sheffield), Robert Howard (Nottingham), Dan Miles (Oxford), Nigel Nayling (Lampeter), Ian Tyres (Sheffield), Michael Worthington (Oxford). Bibliography Alcock, NW 1998 ‘Index of tree-ring dates for British buildings reported in Vernacular Architecture: 1993–1997’, Vernacular Architecture 29, 136–45 Bell, MG 2000 ‘Discussion and conclusions,’ in MG Bell, AE Caseldine and H Neumann, Prehistoric Intertidal Archaeology in the Welsh Severn Estuary, CBA Research Report 120: York, 159–68 Briggs, C S 1999 ‘Aberglasney: the theory, history and archaeology of a post-medieval landscape’, Post-medieval Archaeology 55, 242–84 Britnell, WJ (ed) 2000 Ty-mawr, Castle Caereinion, [a special volume of] Montgomeryshire Collections 89 (2001) Campbell, E and Lane, AM 1989 ‘Llangorse: a 10thcentury royal crannog in Wales’, Antiquity 63, 675–81 English Heritage 1998 Dendrochronology: Guidelines on Producing and Interpreting Dendrochronological Dates, London Esling, J 1996 ‘Tree-Ring Dating of Medieval and Early Post-Medieval Buildings in North Wales’, Studia Celtica 30, 223–253 Fletcher, JM 1980 ‘A list of tree ring dates for building timbers in southern England and Wales’, Vernacular Architecture 11, 32–8 Garrigou Grandchamp, P 1997 ‘L’apport de la dendrochronologie pour l’étude de l’architecture civile médiévale en Grande-Bretagne’, Bulletin Monumental 55:4, 320–1 Hillam, J 1997 ‘Dendrochronology’ in N Nayling and AE Caseldine (eds) Excavations at Caldicot, Gwent: Bronze Age Palaeochannels in the Lower Nedern Valley, CBA Research Report 108: York, 189–94 Hillam, J 2000 ‘Dendrochronological Dating’ in MG Bell, AE Caseldine and H Neumann, Prehistoric Intertidal Archaeology in the Welsh Severn Estuary, CBA Research Report 120: York, 159–68

Miles, DH 1997 ‘The Interpretation, Presentation and Use of Tree-ring Dates’, Vernacular Architecture 28, 40–56 Miles, DH and Bridge, MC 1999 ‘Dendrochronology: tree-ring dating of building timbers, the yew tunnel, and other trees at Aberglasney’ in Briggs 1999, 270–6 Miles, DH and Haddon-Reece, D 1996 ‘Welsh Dendrochronology Project’, Vernacular Architecture 27, 106–10 Miles, DH and Worthington, MJ 1998 ‘Welsh Dendrochronology – Phase Two’, Vernacular Architecture 29, 126–29 Miles, DH and Worthington, MJ 1999 ‘Welsh Dendrochronology Project – Phase Three’, Vernacular Architecture 30, 111–13 Miles, DH and Worthington, MJ 2000 ‘Welsh Dendrochronology Project – Phase Four’, Vernacular Architecture 31, 112–13 Miles, DH and Worthington, MJ 2001 ‘Welsh Dendrochronology Project – Phase Five’, Vernacular Architecture 32, 86–7 Nayling, N 1998 ‘Oak dendrochronology’, in N Nayling (ed) The Magor Pill Medieval Wreck, CBA Research Report 115:York, 116–22 Nayling, N 2000 ‘Tree-ring dates from the University of Wales Lampeter Dendrochronological Laboratory’, Vernacular Architecture 31, 114–18 Pearson, S 1994 The Medieval Houses of Kent: An Historical Analysis, HMSO, London Pearson, S 1997 ‘Tree-ring dating: a review’, Vernacular Architecture 28, 25–39 Pearson, S 2001 ‘The chronological distribution of treering dates, 1980–2001: an update’, Vernacular Architecture 32, 68–9 Redknap, M 1998 ‘The historical and archaeological significance of the Magor Pill boat’, in N Nayling (ed) The Magor Pill Medieval Wreck, CBA Research Report 115: York, 143–54 Siebenlist-Kerner, V 1978 ‘The Chronology, 1341–1636, for certain hillside oaks from western England and Wales,’ in JM Fletcher (ed) Dendrochronology in Europe, BAR International Series 51: Oxford, 157–61 Smith, P 1975 and 1988 Houses of the Welsh Countryside, HMSO: London Suggett, RF 1996 ‘The Chronology of Late-medieval Timber Houses in Wales’, Vernacular Architecture 27, 29–38 Suggett, RF 2001 ‘Recent Emergency Buildings Recording in Wales’, Trans Ancient Monuments Society 45, 81–108

160

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Turner, RC 1999 ‘The oldest castle doors in Europe?’ Heritage in Wales 13 (summer 1999), 6–9 Tyers, I 1998 ‘Beech dendrochronology,’ in N Nayling (ed) 1998, 123–28

Websites SRC prehistoric coastal development site: http://wwwselrcdialpipexcom/selrcnf/nerchtm

Wiliam, E 1992 Welsh Long-houses: Four Centuries of Farming at Cilewent, National Museum of Wales, Cardiff

Unpublished Britnell, WJ and Suggett, RF [forthcoming] ‘A Sixteenthcentury Peasant Hall-house in Powys: Tyddyn Llwydion, Pennant Melangell, Montgomeryshire’, Archaeological Journal 159 Moran, M 2000 ‘The Shropshire Dendrochronology Project’, project report Nash, GD u d ‘The Dendrochronological Dating of Buildings at the Museum of Welsh Life’, report at Museum of Welsh Life, St Fagans

161

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Appendix 21.2: summary of tree-ring dated domestic buildings in Wales No Date

Name

Grid ref.

Description

Reference

Laboratory

1.

Brecon Priory (Deanery, Brecon Cathedral)

SO 044289

Monastic hall; smoke-blackened collar-rafter roof

VA 25,38

Nottingham

2. 1420

Aberconwy House (Conwy, Caerns)

SH 781776

Town-house with jettied upper storey

VA 32,86

Oxford

3.

1432/3

Llanshay (Knighton, Rads)

SO 296718

Gentry hall-house; cruck-framed with cusping

VA 27,108

Oxford

4.

1435

Plas-ucha (Llangar, Mer.)

SJ 052427

Gentry hall-house with spere-truss; stone-walled

VA 27,107

Oxford

5.

1436

Bryndraenog (Beguildy, Rads)

SO 204785

Great hall; box-framed with jointed crucks

VA 27,107–8 Oxford

6.

1436

Tan House (Presteigne, Rads)

SO 316645

Town-house; box-framed with solar cross-wing

VA 30,113

Oxford

7.

1441

Abbey Farmhouse (Cymer Abbey, Mer.)

SH 720195

Monastic hall; stone-walled

VA 27,107

Oxford

8.

1447 est. Tretower Court (1432–67) (Tretower, Brecs)

SO 185211

Great hall; stone-walled

VA 26,49–50 Nottingham

9.

1450

Great House (Newchurch, Rads)

SO 216506

Gentry hall-house; cruck-framed with cusping

VA 27,108

Oxford

10. 1460

^ Ty-mawr (Castle Caereinion, Monts)

SJ 172043

Gentry hall-house with aisle-trusses and base cruck

VA 27,107

Oxford

11. 1462–3

White Hall (Presteigne, Rads)

SO 314643

Town house with solar cross-wing

VA 30,113

Oxford

[8] 1469 est. Tretower Court (1454–89)

Galleried N. (guest) range

VA 26,49–50 Nottingham

12. 1471/2

Old Impton (Norton, Rads) SO 292670

Gentry hall-house; stone-walled

VA 29,129

Oxford

13. After 1476

Penarth-fawr (Llanystumdwy, Caerns)

SH 419376

Gentry hall-house with aisle-truss; stone-walled

VA 23,45; SC 30,249

Sheffield

14. 1478–88

Wenallt-isaf (Llanigon, Brecs)

SO 219388

Gentry hall-house; cruck-framed with archbraced truss

VA 9,32 VA 11,22

Sheffield

15. 1487/8

Burfa (Evenjobb, Rads)

SO 279613

Gentry hall-house, cruck-framed

VA 29,128

Oxford

16. 1491/2

Lower Hengoed (Gladestry, Rads)

SO 266533

Gentry hall-house; cruck-framed with cusping

VA 30,113

Oxford

17. After 1496

Egryn ‘Abbey’ (Llanaber, Mer.)

SH 595203

Gentry hall with aisle truss

SC 30,249

Esling

[15]1502

Burfa (Evenjobb, Rads)

Added solar cross-wing to 1487/8 hall

VA 29,128

Oxford

c. 1250 (1235–70

18. 1475–1505 Cefn-ceido (Nantmel, Rads)

SN 982682

Gentry hall with lower cross-wing

VA 29,128

Oxford

19. 1507

Neuadd Cynhinfa (Llangynyw, Monts)

SJ 086124

Gentry hall-house; box-framed and close studded

VA 27,107

Oxford

[7] 1507

Abbey Farmhouse

Repair phase (rafter) to 1441 house

VA 27,107

Oxford

162

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

No Date

Name

Grid ref.

Description

Reference

Laboratory

20. After 1510

^ Ty-mawr (Trefeglwys, Monts)

SN 957898

Gentry hall-house; cruck-framed with cusping

VA 11,34

Siebenlist

21 1518 est. Hafoty (1509–53) (Llansadwrn, Anglesey)

SH 562782

Solar cross-wing to hall of uncertain date

VA 23,44; SC 30,249

Sheffield

22. 1522

Bwlch (Llananno, Rads)

SO 085747

Gentry hall; stone-walled with crucks

VA 27,108

Oxford

23. 1525 est. 1516–46

Rhyd-y-carw (Trefeglwys, Monts)

SN956907

Gentry hall-house; cruck-framed with archbraced truss

VA 11,34

Siebenlist

24. Information withdrawn by laboratory 25. 1525–6

Cefn-caer (Pennal, Mer)

SH 704001

Gentry hall (three bays); stone walls and cusped trusses

VA 30,112–3 Oxford

26. 1536

Upper House (Discoed, Rads)

SO 276647

Solar cross-wing added to cruckframed hall

VA 29,128

Oxford

[12] 1542/3

Old Impton (Norton, Rads)

SO 292670

Storeyed wing and porch added to 1471/2 hall-house

VA 29,129

Oxford

SH 536582

Storeyed ‘Snowdonian’ house; stone-built

SC 30,249 Nash

Esling

Carved mantelbeam (re-set)

VA 27,108

Oxford

27. 1544 est. Y Garreg-fawr (1540–54) (Waun-fawr, Caerns) [22]1509–44

Bwlch

28. 1550/51

Peniarth-uchaf (Meifod, Monts)

SJ 145154

Peasant hall-house; box-framed

VA 27,107

Oxford

29. 1552

Gwernfyda (Llanllugan, Monts)

SJ 045017

Peasant hall-house with smoke-bay; box-framed

VA 27,107

Oxford

30. 1554

Tyddyn-llwydion SJ 107259 (Pennant Melangell, Monts)

Peasant hall-house; cruck-framed

VA 27,107

Oxford

31. 1555

Nannerth-ganol (Cwmdeuddwr, Rads)

SN 942713

Peasant hall-house; stone-walled with crucks

VA 27,108

Oxford

32. 1555/6

Middle Nant-serth (St. Harmon, Rads)

SN 969699

Gentry hall-house with crucks

VA 30,113

Oxford

33. 1521–57

Llanmihangel Place (Llanmihangel, Glam.)

SS 981719

Storeyed great house with first-floor plaster ceiling

VA 31,118

Lampeter

34. 1572

Rose & Crown [formerly Ty-Mawr] (Gwyddelwern, Mer) ^

SJ 075467

Storeyed hearth-passage house with framed upper storey

VA 31,112–13 Oxford

35. 1573–8

Plas-mawr (Conwy, Caerns)

SH 780776

Storeyed H-plan great house with plaster ceiling over great chamber dated 1580

VA 27,106–7

Oxford

36. 1578/9

Dolbelydir (Trefnant, Denbs)

SJ 030709

Storeyed gentry house; stone-built with archbraced truss over great chamber

HARP 2001/09

Lampeter

37. 1581

24 Bridge St., Denbigh (Denbs)

SJ 050660

Town-house; stone-built with arch-braced HARP chamber trusses 2001/03

Lampeter

Gatehouse (formerly) dated 1585

VA 27,107

Oxford

[35] c. 1585 Plas-mawr (1559–1604) 38. 1587

Llwyn-y-cynfal (Llanfachreth, Mer.)

SH 800224

Storeyed Snowdonian house; stone-built

Unpublished 1993

Nottingham

39. 1588/9

Llannerch-y-cawr (Elan Valley, Brecs)

SN 902614

Inserted chimney in peasant hall-house

VA 30,111–2

Oxford

163

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

No Date

Name

[10] 1593–4

Ty-mawr

Grid ref.

Description

Reference

Laboratory

Inserted floor

VA 29,128

Oxford

40. 1568–1600 Cefn Mably House ST 223840 ^ (Michaelston-y-fedw, Glam.)

Gallery of great house

HARP 2001/03

Lampeter

41. c. 1600

Aberglasney House (Llangathen, Carms)

Storeyed great house; trusses with threaded purlins (reused)

VA 30,112

Oxford

[30] 1602

Tyddyn-llwydion

Displaced timber. Probably post of new-built storeyed house

VA 27,107

Oxford

[3] 1606

Llanshay

Repair phase (purlin)

VA 27,108

Oxford

[14]1613 est. Wenallt-isaf (1599–1629)

Inserted ceiling in hall-house

VA 9,32

Sheffield

42. 1611/12

Tu-hwnt-i’r-gain SJ 222193 (Llansanffraid-ym-Mechain, Monts)

Storeyed lobby-entry house with framed fireplace

Unpublished [VA 33]

Oxford

[5] 1615

Bryndraenog

Repair phase (principal post) of 1436 house

VA 11,34 VA 27,107–8

Siebenlist Oxford

43. 1615

Old Vicarage (Berriew, Monts)

SJ 186009

Storeyed house dated 1616

VA 11,34

Siebenlist

44. 1623/4

Sker House (Pyle, Glam)

SS 795798

Storeyed great house with first-floor plaster ceiling

VA 31,113

Oxford

[10] 1630/31

Ty-mawr

Smoke-hood in hall

VA 29,128

Oxford

[31] 1632

Nannerth-ganol

Inserted ceiling in hall-house

VA 27,108

Oxford

[15] 1643/4

^ Burfa

Inserted ceiling and stair (ovolo moulding) VA 29,128

Oxford

[19] 1630–34

Neuadd Cynhinfa

Inserted ceiling and probably mantelbeam in hall-house

VA 27,107

Oxford

[42] 1647/8

Tu-hwnt-i’r-gain

Added close-studded parlour

Unpublished [VA 33]

Oxford

Repair phase (passage partition truss)

VA 30,112

Oxford

Lobby-entrance house; timber-framed

SC 30,229–32 Esling Nash

Displaced timbers

Unpublished

Lampeter

Repair phase

VA 23,44

Sheffield

Spine beams

SC 30,229–32 Esling

Country house: floor-boards of German origin

VA 31,118

Lampeter

SN 581221

[25] 1658 &1660 Cefn-caer 45. 1678

Abernodwydd (Llangadfan, Monts)

SJ 009094

[20] 1666–1702 Hafoty 1670–1706 1708/9 Hafoty [45] 1708 est. Abernodwydd (1693–1728) 46. After 1726

Newton House (Llandeilo, Carms)

SN 614225

[41] 1712–42

Aberglasney House

Country house: hall ceiling

VA 30,112

Oxford

[41] 1770–71

Aberglasney House

Country house: main roof reconstruction with king posts

VA 30,112

Oxford

47. 1793/4 – 1796

Aberdeunant ‘Cottage’ (Llansadwrn, Carms)

Scarfed cruck-truss

VA 29,127

Oxford

[10] 1808/9

^ Ty-mawr

Timber-framed addition

VA 32,87

Oxford

[44] 1839/40

Sker House

Repair to roof over hall

VA 31,113

Oxford

SN 671307

164

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Appendix 21.2: Summary of non-domestic tree-ring dated buildings Date

Name

Grid ref.

Description

Reference

Laboratory

1159–89

Chepstow Castle (Chepstow, Mon.)

ST 534941

Outer bailey main gates

VA 29,127

Oxford

1250 est.

Brecon Priory (Brecon Cathedral, Brecs)

Roof of monastic hall

VA 25,38

Nottingham

After 1500

Chepstow Castle

Gates between barbican and outer bailey

VA 29,127

Oxford

1476–1506

Abergavenny Priory (Abergavenny, Mon.)

SO 301141

Choir stalls (1)

VA 31,113

Oxford

1510

Brecon Priory (Brecon Cathedral)

SO 044289

Bell-chamber floor of central tower

VA 27,106

Oxford

1487–1517

Abergavenny Priory

Choir stalls (2)

VA 31,113

Oxford

1530–65

St Beuno’s Church (Pistyll, Caerns)

Archbraced collar-beam trusses

SC 30,236–8

Esling

SH 329423

Appendix 21.3: archaeological (waterlogged) sites Date

Name

Grid ref.

Description

Reference

Laboratory

After 2916BC – Abercynafon after 2695BC (Talybont-on-Usk, Brecs) 2829–2784BC

SO 076173

Timbers from spoil heaps

Hillam and Hall 1998

Sheffield

2867–2838BC

Abercynafon

SO 076173

Trench 3

Hillam and Hall 1998

Sheffield

2867–2838BC

Abercynafon

SO 076173

Trench 8

Hillam and Hall 1998

Sheffield

After 2917BC

Abercynafon

SO 076173

West side

Hillam and Hall 1998

Sheffield

Felled after 1017BC

Goldcliff Pill (East), (Goldcliff, Mon.)

ST 365820

Bronze Age boat planks

Hillam 1997

Sheffield

998/997BC

Caldicot (Mon.)

ST 490875

Lower Nedern Valley excavation phase VI: ?weir stakes

Hillam 1997

Sheffield

990/989BC

Caldicot (Mon.)

ST 490875

Lower Nedern Valley excavation phase VII: bridge and trackway

Hillam 1997

Sheffield

After 454BC

Goldcliff Pill (East)

ST 362820

Building 2

Hillam 2000

Sheffield

After 382BC

Goldcliff Pill (East)

ST 362820

Building 1

Hillam 2000

Sheffield

336–318BC

Goldcliff Pill (East)

ST 361820

Trackway 1108

Hillam 2000

Sheffield

273BC 271BC

Goldcliff Pill (West)

ST 358821

Building 6 Building 6 – ?repair

Hillam 2000

Sheffield

Neolithic

Bronze Age

Iron Age

165

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Date

Name

Grid ref.

Description

Reference

Laboratory

AD71–74

Caerleon (Mon.)

ST 33–90–

Piles

Hillam 1987

Sheffield

AD62–97

Caerleon (Mon.)

ST 33–90–

Building uprights

Hillam 1987

Sheffield

ST400836

Boat and bridge excavated on Gwent Levels

Nayling et al 1994

Lampeter

Roman

Romano-British AD279–283 Barland’s Farm AD283–326

(Magor, Mon.)

Medieval AD889, 890, 893

Llangorse Lake (Llan-gors, Brecs)

SO128269

Crannog

Campbell & Sheffield Lane 1989 Groves unpubl 1988 and 1992

After 1059

Hen Domen (Monts)

SO2297

Base and staves of tub

AD1120/21

Bishop’s Palace (Bangor, Caerns)

SH58–72–

Timber piles from beneath a stone abutment

Morgan unpubl 1984 Higham and Barker 2000 Boswijk 1996

AD 1115/1122, Magor Pill (Magor, Mon.) ST 44–84– AD 1118–51, AD 1119/46, AD1120/1149, AD 1127, AD 1190, After AD 1123, After AD 1172, After 1189, AD 1242–73

Range of fishing structures in intertidal zone, Gwent Levels, ENE of Magor Pill boat and seaward of MHWM

Nayling 2000 Lampeter Redknap 1998, 153

AD1124–63

Monmouth Bridge (Mon.)

SO51–13–

Base plates and piers

Morgan unpubl 1989

Sheffield

AD1203/4

Second Severn Crossing – site 5

ST50–87–

Fish traps?

Hillam 1992

Sheffield

SH581597

Logboat

HARP 99/05

Lampeter

AD 1192–1228? River Ithon boat SO0562 (Llanfihangel Helygen, Rads)

‘Llandrindod Wells’ Logboat, Radnorshire Museum

Nayling unpubl

Lampeter

AD1239/40

Magor Pill (Mon.)

ST438849

Boat (oak chronology)

Nayling 1998 Lampeter

AD1240

Magor Pill (Mon.)

ST 438849

Boat planking (beech chronology)

Tyers 1998

Sheffield

After AD1175

River Severn at Buttington (Monts)

SJ 246088

Stake/timberwork from weir

Worthington pers. comm

Oxford

AD 1547–9

Llyn Peris boat (2)

SH581597

Clinker-built vessel

HARP 99/04

Lampeter

AD 1556–8

Penrhyn Weir (Bangor, Caerns)

SH605738

Multiple phase intertidal fish weir

HARP 2000/1

Lampeter

AD 1187–1205 Llyn Peris boat (1) (Caerns)

166

Sheffield

Sheffield

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Appendix 21.4: bog oaks and submerged forests Date

Name

Description

Grid ref.

Reference

Laboratory

Submerged forests After 3971BC

Borth/Ynyslas (Ceredigion)

Neolithic

SN6085

Heyworth 1982, nerc

Lampeter

Undated

Tywyn (Mer.)

Neolithic?

SN5899

nerc

Lampeter

Undated

Goldcliff (Mon.)

Neolithic/ Mesolithic

ST3781

nerc

Lampeter

Undated

Redwick (Mon.)

Mesolithic

ST4183

nerc

Lampeter

Undated

Sudbrook (Mon.)

Neolithic/ Mesolithic?

ST4986

nerc

Lampeter

Undated

Freshwater West (Pembs)

Mesolithic

SM0088

nerc

Lampeter

Undated

Marros (Carms)

Neolithic/ Mesolithic

SN2007

nerc

Lampeter

Undated

Conwy Bay (Caerns)

Neolithic?

SH7679

nerc

Lampeter

Undated

Goldcliff (Mon.)

Bog oak. Bronze age?

ST366823

Hillam 2000

Sheffield

Undated

Newton Moor, (Cowbridge, Glam.)

Bog oak

ST0076

Hillam pers comm. Sheffield 1991 (ex inf. Groves)

Undated

Whitland Bypass (Carms) Bog oak

SN1916

Hillam pers comm. Sheffield 1995 (ex inf. Groves)

Bog Oak

Appendix 21.5: living trees Date

Name

Grid ref.

Reference

Laboratory

1681–1991

Fallen oak, Dinefwr Park (Carms)

SN 61–22–

HARP 2000/03

Lampeter

1710–1974

Oak, Maentwrog (Mer.)

SH66764105

Leggett et al (1978)

1778–2001

Oak, Lanlas (Llannerchaeron, Ceredigion)

SN 48–60–

Bale 2002

c.1800–2000

Yew Tunnel, Aberglasney House (Carms)

SN 581221

Miles & Bridge in Briggs (1999)

1814–1999

Oak, Upland Snowdonia, Llyn Peris (Dinorwig, Caerns)

SH 581615

Nayling pers. comm

Lampeter

1816–1977

Oak, Tywi Valley (Carms)

SN 4014

Morgan pers. comm (ex inf. Groves)

Sheffield

c.1900–2000 Yew on wall-walk, Aberglasney House (Carms)

SN 581221

Miles & Bridge in Briggs (1999)

c.1900–2000

Ash in Aberglasney grounds (Carms)

SN 58–22–

Miles & Bridge in Briggs (1999)

[Date range]

Oak chronology, southern-facing slope, Capel Curig (Caerns)

SH 746575

Catrin Eluned Williams (2002)

[Date range]

Oak chronology, northern-facing slope Capel Curig (Caerns)

SH 725875

Catrin Eluned Williams (2002)

167

Lampeter

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Appendix 21.6: Undated archaeological (waterlogged) sites Name

Grid ref.

Description

Reference

Laboratory

Copa Hill (Cwmystwyth, Ceredigion)

SN 8074

Early mining site

HARP 2001/2

Lampeter

Greenmoor Arch (Redwick, Mon.)

ST400836

Iron Age buildings, Gwent Levels

Unpublished

Lampeter

Dolaucothi (Pumsaint, Carms)

SN 6641

Post and planks from a burnt structure

Hillam 1990 unpubl.

Sheffield

Prestatyn (Flints)

SJ 0648

?1984 excavation

Morgan pers. comm Sheffield 1986 (ex inf. Groves)

Tyn-y-bryn (Llanfair Caereinion, Monts)

SJ105065

Undated Prehistoric?

Undated Roman

Brown pers comm Belfast 1995 (ex inf. Groves)

Undated Medieval Tredunnock (Mon.)

ST 3895

Boat

Morgan pers comm (ex inf. Groves)

Sheffield

Appendix 21.7: uncertain dates and undated buildings Name

Grid ref.

Description

Reference

Laboratory

Hafoty (Llansadwrn, Anglesey)

SH562781

Hall to cross-wing dated c. 1518 Undated: less than 50 rings

VA 23.44

Sheffield

Bailey-mawr (Penybont, Rads)

SO124632

Cruck-framed peasant hall-house Unpublished Uncertain: 86 rings + h/s - low t-value

Oxford

Gilfach (St. Harmon, Rads)

SN965717

Cruck-framed peasant hall-house; stone-walled. Undated: insufficient rings

Unpublished

Oxford

Llannerch-y-cawr (Elan Valley, Brecs)

SN902614

Cruck-framed peasant hall-house; stone-walled (inserted chimney dated 1588/9) Undated

Unpublished

Oxford

Aberdeunant (1) (Llansadwrn, Carms)

SH671307

Archbraced cruck-truss of gentry hall-house. Undated: fast grown

Unpublished

Oxford

Hendre-wen (Llanrwst, Caerns)

SH 807858

Cruck-framed barn re-erected at the Museum of Welsh Life. Undated: 90 rings sequence with HST

SC 30.251

Esling 1996

‘Old House’, Egryn Abbey (Mer.)

SH 59–20–

Subsidary (?dower) house. Undated: 199 rings with HST.

SC 30.251

Esling 1966

^ Ty-mawr (Wybrnant, Caerns)

SH 770254

Snowdonian house with crucks cut back to walls. Undated: insufficient rings

Unpublished

Oxford

Stryd Lydan barn (Penley, Flints)

SJ 434396

Cruck-framed barn re-erected at Museum of Welsh Life. Undated

Nash

Esling 1996

168

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Name

Grid ref.

Description

Reference

Cilewent (Cwmdeudddwr, Rads)

SN 882629

Hall-house, plan uncertain; cruck-framed. Uncertain: 1459/60 or 1476/7

Nash Esling 1996 Wiliam 1992, 29–30

Hendre’r-ywydd Uchaf (Llangynhafal, Denbs)

SJ 126636

Peasant hall, cruck-framed Nash Uncertain: 1497–1528 or 1593–1624

SC 30.250

Kennixton (Llangennith, Glam.)

SS 450916

Storeyed house; stone-built. Uncertain: ‘possibly 1610’

Esling 1996

Sources (other than those listed in the Bibliography): Bale, R 2002 A 223 modern oak chronology from Allt Lanlas, Ceredigion, Undergraduate dissertation, University of Wales: Lampeter. Boswijk, G 1996 ‘Dendrochronological analysis of timbers from Bishop’s Palace, Bangor Gwynedd’, ARCUS Rep. 273. HARP: Dendrochronology report, Heritage and Archaeology Research Practice, The University of Wales, Lampeter.

Nash

Laboratory

Nayling, N, Maynard, D, and McGrail, S 1994. ‘Barland’s Farm, Magor, Gwent: a Romano-Celtic boat’, Antiquity 68, 596–603. Nayling, N 2000 ‘Medieval and later fish weirs at Magor Pill, Gwent Levels: coastal change and technological development’, Archaeology in the Severn Estuary 1999: Annual Report of the Severn Estuary Levels Research Committee, 10, 93–113.

Hillam, J 1987 ‘Tree-ring analysis of Roman timbers from Caerleon, Museum site, 1983–85’, Anc Mons Lab Rep. 43/87.

Nerc: ‘Mesolithic to Neolithic Coastal Environmental Change c. 6500–3500 cal BC’ is a multi-disciplinary project which seeks to evaluate the evidence for Mesolithic to initial Neolithic environmental manipulation in a lowland coastal study area in the Severn Estuary. Brief details of the project are available at http://www.selrc.dial.pipex.com/selrcnf/nerc.htm Pers comm: indicates a tree-ring sequence without an available laboratory report.

Hillam, J 1992 ‘Tree-Ring analysis of timbers from the second Severn crossing, intertidal zone – a report prepared for Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments’, USAS Rep. 92:8

SC: Esling, J 1996 ‘Tree-ring Dating of Medieval and Early Post-Medieval Buildings in North Wales’, Studia Celtica 30, 223–53.

Hillam, J and Hall, C 1998 ‘Tree-ring analysis of Neolithic oaks from Abercynafon, Talybont-on-Usk, Brecon’, Anc Mons Lab Rep. 9/98.

Unpublished: indicates a laboratory report but not otherwise published.

Higham, Rand Barker, PA 2000 Hen Domen, Montgomery: A Timber Castle on the English-Welsh Border: A Final Report, Exeter.

Leggett, P, Hughes, MK and Hibbert, FA 1978 ‘A modern oak chronology from North Wales and its interpretation’, in JM Fletcher (ed) Dendrochronology in Europe, BAR International Series 51: Oxford, 187–94. Nash: Nash, GD ‘The Dendrochronological Dating of Buildings at the Museum of Welsh Life’ (St Fagans, unpublished).

VA followed by volume and page numbers: tree-ring dates reported in Vernacular Architecture. Catrin Eluned Williams 2002. Investigation into climate change effects on oak (Quercus petrea) growth rings at two sites in Capel Curig, North Wales, BSc Dissertation, Dept of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of Wales: Aberystwyth.

169

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

22 The management and recording of historic buildings J Kate Howell Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust, Heathfield House, Heathfield, Swansea SA1 6EL [email protected] www.ggat.org.uk

Abstract Buildings form an important and integral part of the historic landscape of Wales. Comprehensive archaeological and architectural survey of an important listed building, Cefn Mably house, is discussed. It is argued that an integrated programme of work, including buildings survey, dendrochronology, excavation and garden survey, has allowed a rephasing of the development of this complex structure. Future application of a similar approach is advocated for structures of comparable significance, to ensure that buildings are understood as part of the wider historic landscape. It is also suggested that a reassessment is made of the roles of various organisations and legislative procedures for management of historic buildings, including the requirements of planning conditions and listed building consent. Fig 22.1 Types of sites recorded on GGAT SMR

Introduction A large number of buildings in Wales are recognised as significant in terms of archaeological heritage, due to their chronological and architectural histories. Indeed, in southeast Wales, historic buildings comprise almost half of the sites recorded on the Glamorgan-Gwent SMR. Of the 20,708 recorded sites, 9904 are buildings, 47.8% of the total (Fig 22.1). This figure comprises 5065 sites defined simply as ‘Buildings’, 4667 ‘Other buildings’ including churches, mills, farms and hospitals; 56 known from documentary evidence and 116 ‘Works buildings’, including brickworks, gasworks and other industrial sites. Many buildings have had architectural surveys, ranging from antiquarian descriptions, such as those undertaken by Coxe (1801) and Bradney (1906; 1907; 1913; 1914; 1923a; 1923b; 1932; 1933; 1993), to the detailed surveys carried out by Fox and Raglan (1954) and RCAHMW (1981; 1982; 1988). The comprehensive nature of many of these surveys can lead to the misconception that these buildings are already fully understood. Measurement,

drawing and publication of architectural details might be seen as a definitive record of the history of the building as a whole, equivalent to excavation’s ‘preservation by record’.

The current situation Planning legislation concerning historic buildings is significantly more complex than that regarding archaeological remains, and involves a number of different organisations. A Conservation Officer employed by each Local Planning Authority (LPA) is responsible for advice and conditions on all planning applications regarding listed buildings, historic buildings and buildings within Conservation Areas. The LPA are required to inform Cadw of all applications for Listed Building Consent. Cadw compiles the List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest, and is undertaking relisting (community resurvey programme) for all Wales to be completed in 2005. Cadw can ‘call in’ applications 171

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

for listed building consent for determination by the National Assembly. Under the terms of the Town and Country Planning Acts, RCAHMW is informed of every application for listed building consent to substantially alter or demolish a listed building, and may undertake ‘emergency recording’ prior to work taking place. RCAHMW also undertakes a small number of ‘exemplar surveys’ of buildings that are not at risk. The role of the WATs relating to buildings is less well defined than for conventional archaeological sites. The curatorial divisions of the WATs provide specialist advice to some local authorities without in-house provision. Thus responsibility is held by several different bodies, with areas of overlap and other areas where little provision is made. Legislation has fallen behind current practice for the management of archaeological remains and historic landscapes. This is particularly short-sighted for a region in which the heritage and tourism industry are socially and economically important. Legislative problems It has been suggested that Cadw’s listing criteria were affected by English preconceptions, resulting in the underrepresentation of ‘characteristic Welsh buildings’ such as cottages, chapels and industrial buildings, within the legal framework (Burdett-Jones 1998, 81). It is anticipated that the community resurvey programme will redress any imbalances, and ensure that a representative selection of buildings reflecting the ‘social, economic and industrial history of Wales’ are afforded statutory protection (McLees 1997, 20). LPAs do not routinely consult WATs for advice regarding historic buildings. This can result in historic buildings effectively becoming divorced from their surroundings, and considered only as individual structures, rather than as part of the wider historic landscape. Some Conservation Officers consider that the guidance given in Welsh Office Circular 61/96 is not strong enough and is not always enforced sufficiently. As a result, the advice that they offer is not always carried through as conditions placed on planning consents. The routine inclusion of a condition on listed building consent requiring notification of RCAHMW almost acts as a ‘get-out clause’, and therefore conditions requiring supplementary recording prior to alteration work are rarely placed on planning consents. Issues of Practice RCAHMW’s Emergency Buildings Recording programme dealt with over 500 notifications in 1999-2000 and this number is likely to rise as more buildings are listed as a result of Cadw’s community resurvey programme (Suggett 2001, 81). Due to the number of buildings involved, the Emergency Buildings Recording team cannot record all listed buildings prior to alteration or demolition. As Suggett states (2001, 81) ‘Recording has to

be selective, and the decision to record depends on an assessment of the degree of threat, the nature of the existing record of particular building types in the NMRW, the resources available, and perceptions of the importance of a building’. Clearly, additional funding would allow more recording of threatened buildings. WATs and other heritage organisations do not necessarily employ buildings specialists, but rather archaeologists who have acquired the necessary skills through the course of their careers. Indeed, most heritage professionals receive little training specifically relating to historic buildings. Over the years, a basic record has been made of several classes of building by RCAHMW and other organisations and individuals. These surveys are not necessarily comprehensive enough to constitute ‘preservation by record’ if major alterations or demolition is proposed, especially where they were undertaken when the building was not at risk and therefore never intended to be a definitive record. Some surveys, perhaps exemplified by Smith’s Houses of the Welsh Countryside (1975; 1986) would pay attention to various diagnostic architectural features, but record little or no information about other, apparently non-diagnostic, elements. Earlier surveys may have been undertaken when the building was in use, and therefore many individual features and stratigraphic relationships would be hidden by internal fittings and fixtures, which could be exposed during subsequent alteration or demolition work. In addition, little consideration was paid to the immediate context of a building, and information regarding other associated structures rarely recorded. To provide suitable ‘preservation by record’, a detailed survey of the entire building and any associated structures, including garden features, would be deemed necessary. This may be summarised with reference to Recording Historic Buildings: a descriptive specification (RCHME 1991). It defines four main levels of building recording: Level 1: essentially a visual record, supplemented by the minimum of information needed to identify the building’s location, age and type. Level 2: a descriptive record, made when rather more information is needed. Also be made of a building whose importance does not call for fuller record. Level 3: fully analytical, comprising an introductory written description followed by a systematic account of the building’s origins, development and use. The record will include the evidence on which the analysis has been based, allowing its validity to be re-examined. Level 4: only be employed in respect of buildings of special importance. The range of drawings may also be greater than at other levels. It would be necessary to undertake recording at least to Level 3 prior to substantial alterations to, or the demolition of, a historic building. Many of the existing surveys, however, have been undertaken to Level 2 only. 172

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Fig 22.2 Cefn Mably, prior to redevelopment

Fig 22.3 Cefn Mably during redevelopment

There are problems concerning who should pay for building recording. It is often the case that planning applications relate to individuals wishing to renovate a historic building that they own, for little monetary gain. This is in contrast to the large scale developers who can afford to pay for excavation and recording of belowground archaeological remains in advance of commercial redevelopment. Whilst it is widely accepted that the owners of historic buildings should be encouraged to maintain their own buildings, it is difficult to reconcile this with the requirement for more onerous planning conditions demanding detailed, and therefore expensive, survey work.

new information, with reference to work undertaken on behalf of Meadgate Homes Ltd at Cefn Mably, in the parish of Llanedeyrn, Caerphilly (ST 2230 8400). This country house, which previously accommodated a tuberculosis hospital, is being redeveloped for residential purposes, following a fire which had left the structure in an unsafe and semi-ruinous condition (Fig 22.2). The house, a Grade II* listed building, is surrounded by woodland grounds and gardens, and is included in the Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales as Grade II (Cadw/ICOMOS UK 2000, 24-28). Cefn Mably was originally surveyed by RCAHMW while still occupied (1981, 159-167), providing a comprehensive description of the architecture and development of the building. Archaeological work was carried out by GGAT in the house and grounds prior to and during its redevelopment (Fig 22.3), comprising

Case Study: Cefn Mably I shall now illustrate how an integrated archaeological approach to recording a historic building can reveal much

Fig 22.4 Phased plan of Cefn Mably

173

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Recording team also took the opportunity to record these features (Suggett 2001, 92-3). It was the opportunity to investigate Cefn Mably in a near derelict state that permitted identification of these details. The origins of the building are earlier than was previously believed, and stratigraphic and dendrochronological evidence has allowed a rephasing of its development (Fig. 22. 4) (Roberts 1998; Howell 2000; Howell in press; Locock and Howell forthcoming).

Fig 22.5 Partly obscured relieving arch on east wall of parlour

desk-based assessment, buildings survey, watching brief, field evaluation and garden survey, to fulfil a planning condition. Investigation included analysis of artefacts and mortar samples and dendrochronological dating of roof timbers. Whilst many of the recorded architectural features had been lost in the fire, a range of additional, previously unrecorded features and stratigraphic relationships were exposed during the renovation work and recorded. RCAHMW’s Emergency Buildings

The earliest surviving fabric dates from the mid sixteenth century, if not earlier; this first phase comprised the parlour wing, gateway and a truncated western range. A relieving arch of the east wall of the parlour was partly obscured by the west wall of the hall, clearly indicating that the parlour predated the main hall (Fig 22.5). The hall was constructed during the late sixteenth century, probably replacing a medieval hall on the same site. A number of previously unrecorded sixteenth-century features were exposed in the hall during consolidation work, including

Fig 22.7 Remains of building in evaluation trench

Fig 22.6 Relieving arch of oriel window on north wall of hall

the moulded jambs of a fireplace, which had subsequently been reduced in size on two occasions. The relieving arch of an oriel window on the north wall of the hall was also revealed (Fig 22.6). Dendrochronological dating of roof timbers has indicated that the long gallery was also built during the latter part of the sixteenth century, linking the parlour and the truncated range to the west. A service court was constructed to the east of the hall in the early eighteenth century and modifications during the nineteenth century included construction of a chapel. Work on the standing structure of the house was complemented by a watching brief in and around the building, during which several previously unrecorded features were identified, including walls, floor surfaces and stone-capped drains associated with the house. The well preserved remains of a building, which was probably constructed during the sixteenth or seventeenth century, were discovered during the field evaluation to the north of the house (Fig 22.7). A range of standing late nineteenth174

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

assured. A number of specific recommendations are suggested here, in order to initiate further debate.

Fig 22.8 View of ruinous mortuary chapel

or twentieth-century outbuildings, including a mortuary chapel (Fig 22.8), boiler house, and laundry block were surveyed prior to demolition. The walled kitchen garden (Fig 22.9), situated in woodland to the west of the house, was also surveyed and found to have been initially built during the latter part of the nineteenth century, and modified over the subsequent century. This programme of work illustrates the wealth of new information to be derived from detailed archaeological analysis of a previously surveyed historic building. In this way, a more comprehensive history of both the architectural and social development of Cefn Mably can begin to be told. It is hoped that this example will encourage curators to recommend similar programmes of work in the future.

The future? It is clear that there is a need for better cooperation between the different organisations involved in the management and recording of our historic buildings. Only through improved communication and an informed dialogue can the future of the built heritage of Wales be

Fig 22.9 Walled kitchen garden

Firstly, it is important that relevant guidance documents are consulted and followed, for example those published by Clark (2001), IFA (1999), RCHME (1991) and ALGAO (1997). It has been suggested by a Conservation Officer working in southeast Wales that it would be preferable if planning conditions were placed on building consents which are more like the archaeological conditions recommended by WAT Development Control Officers. Individual developers would then have to pay for an appropriate programme of recording, carried out in accordance to an agreed specification, possibly in association with archaeological work. On occasions when such conditions have been set, as, for example, at Cefn Mably, important new information has been recorded, and it is therefore recommended that such conditions be placed on building consents more frequently in the future. Since 1998, the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust have recommended that a condition be placed on planning consents requiring a basic photographic survey to be undertaken prior to alteration or demolition of a historic building. In this time 906 surveys have been requested, and, so far, approximately 2000 photographs have been received from 288 (31.8%) of the applicants (Chris Martin pers comm). Whilst specific details of such photographic conditions may need to be debated and refined, this recommendation could be adopted by the three other WATs as a national standard, resulting in the development of an unparalleled photographic dataset of historic buildings in Wales. In his discussion of recent work in the house and grounds of Aberglasney, near Llandeilo, Carmarthenshire (SN 5815 2213), Briggs (1999, 266) states ‘The limited results…seem to signal the need for a national excavation sampling strategy of house environs, particularly around those structures listed on grounds which include great antiquity or historical importance’. An assessment of the results of the work undertaken at Cefn Mably would further corroborate this assertion. It may, therefore, be necessary to revise the requirements of procedures to take account of such discoveries as those made at Aberglasney and Cefn Mably, and to ensure archaeological excavations are routinely carried out alongside building recording. Finally, it is crucial to stress the importance of an integrated archaeological approach to the recording of historic buildings and their surroundings, rather than the more exclusive traditional record of individual architectural details. This approach should include fabric analysis (bricks, mortar, timber etc) along with complementary work programmes including documentary and cartographic studies, watching briefs, field evaluation, 175

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

excavation and gardens survey. This will help ensure that, in the future, buildings are considered as integral parts of their regional historic landscapes.

Acknowledgements The author is grateful to a number of individuals including Edith Evans, Martin Locock, Jo Mackintosh, Neil Maylan and Adam Yates of the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust, Mary Burdett-Jones, Gwyneth Guy of Monmouthshire County Council, Chris Martin of ClwydPowys Archaeological Trust and Neil Sumner of Bridgend County Borough Council for their helpful discussions and comments on the issues discussed in this paper. Paul Jones of GGAT prepared the illustrations. Work at Cefn Mably was undertaken with the assistance of John Burton, Richard Roberts, Steve Sell and Natalie Swords of GGAT, Mike Davies of Davies Sutton Architects, Chris Edge of Meadgate Homes Ltd, Nigel Nayling of the University of Wales, Lampeter, Alan Randell of WD Turner and Sons and Richard Suggett of RCAHMW. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Bibliography Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers 1997 Analysis and recording for the conservation and control of works to historic buildings, ALGAO: Chelmsford Bradney, JA 1906 A History of Monmouthshire from the coming of the Normans into Wales down to the present time, volume 1, part 2: the Hundred of Abergavenny, 2 vols, reprinted 1991 by Academy Books Ltd: London Bradney, JA 1907 A History of Monmouthshire from the coming of the Normans into Wales down to the present time, volume 1, part 1: the Hundred of Skenfrith, reprinted 1991 by Academy Books Ltd, London Bradney, JA 1913 A History of Monmouthshire from the coming of the Normans into Wales down to the present time, volume 2, part 2: the Hundred of Trelech, reprinted 1992 by Academy Books Ltd: London Bradney, JA 1914 A History of Monmouthshire from the coming of the Normans into Wales down to the present time, volume 2, part 1: the Hundred of Raglan, reprinted 1992 by Academy Books Ltd: London Bradney, JA 1923a A History of Monmouthshire from the coming of the Normans into Wales down to the present time, volume 3, part 1: the Hundred of Usk (part 1), reprinted 1993 by Academy Books Ltd: London Bradney, JA 1923b A History of Monmouthshire from the coming of the Normans into Wales down to the present time, volume 3, part 2: the Hundred of Usk (part 2), reprinted 1993 by Merton Priory Press: Cardiff Bradney, JA 1932 A History of Monmouthshire from the coming of the Normans into Wales down to the present time, volume 4, part 2: the Hundred of Caldicot (part 2), reprinted 1994 by Merton Priory Press: Cardiff Bradney, JA 1933 A History of Monmouthshire from the coming of the Normans into Wales down to the present time, volume 4, part 1: the Hundred of Caldicot (part 1), reprinted 1994 by Merton Priory Press: Cardiff Bradney, JA, 1993, A History of Monmouthshire from the coming of the Normans into Wales down to the present time, volume 5: the Hundred of Newport, M Grey (ed), South Wales Rec Soc: Cardiff, and Nat Lib Wales: Aberystwyth Briggs, CS 1999 ‘Aberglasney: the theory, history and archaeology of a post-medieval landscape’, Post-Medieval Archaeology 33, 242-284 Burdett-Jones, M 1998 ‘Safeguarding our Built Heritage’, Planet 132, 81-88 Cadw/ICOMOS UK, 2000 Glamorgan: Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales, Cadw: Cardiff

176

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Clark, K 2001 Informed conservation, understanding historic buildings and their landscapes for conservation, English Heritage: London Coxe, W 1801 An historical tour in Monmouthshire, 1995 reprint, Merton Priory Press Ltd: Cardiff Fox, C and Raglan, FJS 1954 Monmouthshire Houses, 3 vols, 2nd edition 1994, reprint by Merton Priory Press Ltd: Cardiff Howell, JK 2000 ‘Cefn Mably, Llanedeyrn (ST 223 840)’ Archaeology in Wales 40, 136 Institute of Field Archaeologists 1999 Standards and guidance: building investigation and recording, (revised edition), IFA: Reading McLees, D 1997 ‘Of chapels and working men’s halls’, Heritage in Wales 8, 20-21 RCAHMW, 1981 Inventory of Ancient and Historic Monuments in Glamorgan: Volume 4, part 1; the Greater Houses, HMSO: Cardiff RCAHMW, 1982 Inventory of Ancient and Historic Monuments in Glamorgan: Volume 3, part 2; medieval non-defensive secular monuments, HMSO: Cardiff RCAHMW, 1988 Inventory of Ancient and Historic Monuments in Glamorgan: Volume 4, part 2; farmhouses and cottages, HMSO: London RCHME, 1991 Recording Historic Buildings: a descriptive specification, (2nd ed), RCHME: London Roberts, R 1998 ‘Cefn Mably (ST 223 840)’, Archaeology in Wales 38, 90 Smith, P 1975 Houses of the Welsh Countryside: A study in historical geography, HMSO: London (2nd edition 1986) Suggett, RF 2001 ‘Recent Emergency Buildings Recording in Wales’, Ancient Monuments Society Transactions 45, 81-108 Unpublished Howell, JK in press ‘Cefn Mably: an architectural and archaeological survey of a grand country house, 19982000’, Archaeologia Cambrensis Locock, M and Howell, JK, forthcoming, ‘Garden archaeology in southeast Wales: recent work’, in CS Briggs (ed), Garden Archaeology in Wales

177

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

23 Partnerships and priorities for the Industrial and Modern periods David Gwyn Govannon Consultancy Nant y Felin, Llanllyfni Road, Pen y Groes, Caernarfon, Gwynedd LL54 6LY [email protected] www.govannon.co.uk

Abstract The archaeology of the industrial and modern period in Wales forms a rich and vitally important resource, even though public attitudes remain ambivalent. It is here argued that whilst much has been accomplished, many areas remain unstudied, and there is an urgent need to present the results of study at academic and popular levels. Introduction Monuments and landscapes of the industrial and modern period have come to hold an ambiguous place in Welsh memory. Saunders Lewis powerfully voiced the trauma that blighted once-busy valleys in Y Dilyw (The Deluge) in 1939: From Merthyr to Dowlais the tramway climbs, A slug’s slime-trail over the slag-heaps. What’s nowadays a desert of cinemas, Rain over disused tips, this once was Wales. (trans. Conran 1967) For Saunders Lewis, as for many others, industry was somehow alien to the Welsh experience, a savage interlude of exploitation and misery. It was only with the work of the Welsh Development Agency in the valleys in the late twentieth century that people began to regret the passing of once-familiar sites, engine-houses which had once lowered their fathers or grandfathers underground, tips which had spread out from the heapsteads. For good or ill, Welsh experiences for two hundred years and more have included industrialisation. In places this has manifested itself as an intense and all-changing force, elsewhere as a patchy development within a rural economy – which nevertheless forced the margins of cultivation and changed the face of the land. Modern Wales is a product of this process.

Partnerships Voluntary organisations and individuals It is a relief to remember that informed study of industrial sites and development, and of technical change in Wales,

does go back long before the locust years of the 1930s. In England, industrialisation very quickly came to be seen, thanks largely to Samuel Smiles, as the story of the dogged and ingenious men who had made it all possible – men such as the Stephensons, or William Fairbairn. In Wales, in the quarrying communities of Gwynedd and the iron and coal and iron towns of the south, industrialisation was understood as a collective experience. A population which by the mid nineteenth century believed itself to be creating a new world soon took opportunity to reflect on the very early days – perhaps their grandparents’ generation – when quarries had been opened, or furnaces first gone into blast. In 1858 Rees Jones, an old man of 82, was persuaded by researchers to write down what he remembered of Trevithick’s locomotive of 1804 (Lewis 1975, 13). The eisteddfod and parish histories of the mid and late nineteenth centuries, for all their disdain of such unhealthy and (to them) redundant activities as drinking or Chartism, assiduously recorded the technical changes of previous years. This was not industrial archaeology (IA) as we recognise it now, but nevertheless constitutes a detailed record which augments official paperwork and adds what would otherwise be missing, a human dimension to the workplace. This tradition never entirely disappeared, and certainly came to life in the 1950s and 60s, perhaps strengthened by the arrival of people connected with the railway preservation movement, who quickly developed an interest in the industrial sites which had brought the railways into existence. Volunteer input into industrial archaeology rose markedly in this period, and North Wales in particular has produced some benchmark publications – John Denton and Michael Lewis’s Rhosydd, which reflects recording work at a quarry near Blaenau Ffestiniog from 1970 to 1972, and Griff Jones’s superb Hafodlas, a survey carried out by Griff and his friends in Fforwm Plas Tan y Bwlch (Lewis and Denton 1974; Jones 1998). Other organisations, such as the South Wales Industrial 179

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Archaeology Society, carried out sterling work, whilst amongst individuals one could name David Bick’s work on metalliferous mining and Brian Hope’s research on Amlwch. Statutory organisations Establishment of the Welsh Folk Museum in 1947 focused attention on industries of the rural economy. With the appointment of D Morgan Rees as Assistant Keeper-incharge of the newly-formed Department of Industry in 1959 the systematic study of industrial Wales through its surviving material culture really began. Rees’s emphasis was on the traditional archaeological skills of excavation and recording, and he paid comparatively little attention to documentary sources. His enthusiastic proselytising did much to put industrial archaeology on the map, and made possible the work and advocacy of Douglas Hague at RCAHMW. In terms of conservation, battles were both lost and won in this period. Much of Dowlais and Merthyr was being demolished even into the 1980s by Labour councillors understandably anxious to remove what were seen as legacies of exploitation (Lowe 1985, 64). However, Dinorwic slate quarry’s Gilfach Ddu workshops were saved from the scrap merchants in 1969, becoming an outpost of the National Museum. The National Museum has been central to the interpretation of industrial heritage in Wales, and it has ambitious plans for the future - a new Industrial and Maritime section and its gateway site went out for public consultation. We must now await developments at Blaenavon and the reopening of the Industrial and Maritime Museum at Swansea to see how it is decided to set about the next stage of interpreting Wales’s industrial heritage, and whether a gateway site is to become a reality. RCAHMW may be said to have made a start as early as 1937, when windmills, roads, harbours and ferries were included in the Anglesey Inventory, and from the early 1960s began the recording of the more important or endangered sites (Hughes 1992). Stephen Hughes, since 1973, has been instrumental in focusing the Commission’s work on industrial sites, and has carried out detailed studies particularly of canal and early railway archaeology. Not least of the Commission’s tasks has been to respond to the almost complete collapse of deep mining in South Wales. It undertook emergency recording of the coal industry in the 1980s, when Brian Malaws carried out process recording at Taff Merthyr (Malaws 1997). Publication of Collieries of Wales in 1994 (Hughes et al 1994) provides an excellent example of a thoroughly researched, moderately inexpensive and accessible work of industrial archaeology. Establishment of the Wales Industrial Archaeology Panel under the Commission’s auspices provided a much-needed discussion forum which brings together statutory and voluntary bodies.

Within two years of its formation, Cadw jointly sponsored a conference with CBA on the industrial heritage of Wales (Briggs 1992). It was then that Marilyn Palmer emphasised the need for thematic studies on the lines of those already carried out in Scotland, to include documentary research and with a view to publication to create and sustain public awareness (Palmer 1992). Cadw has since grant aided many industrial projects, which have not only enhanced the scheduling programme but have also built up a comprehensive picture of some at least of the major industries and their associated infrastructure. These include lead, copper, gold and zinc mining across Wales, which have been comprehensively covered by the regional trusts, as well as region-specific studies, such as of the slate quarries of Gwynedd. The appointment of a specialist inspector has greatly assisted the cause of industrial archaeology and recent years have seen grant aid for projects such as the Dorothea beam-engine and the Cyfarthfa blast-furnace. Work of the relisting survey has also focused on the significance of smaller dwellings within the rural, industrial or dual economy (Alfrey 1999; McLees 2001) It need hardly be said that involvement of Cadw and RCAHMW was crucial to Torfaen’s successful bid for World Heritage Status for Blaenavon, and that this development has probably done more than anything to change public perceptions of the post-industrial landscape in Wales. For those of us who ‘second proposals In committee after committee, to bring the old land to life’ (Saunders Lewis, Y Dilyw, trans Conran 1967) there suddenly seemed to be life after Saunders Lewis after all. It triumphantly demonstrated that archaeology of the industrial and modern period, making use of all the tools at its disposal – excavation, documentary research, landscape analysis – could be the means of economic regeneration. Furthermore, it emphasised that a management plan needed to be based on a sound academic understanding of the evolution and significance of sites such as these. University The one public organisation within Wales which has remained largely aloof from developments in IA is the University. AH Dodd, who had been appointed to a lectureship at Bangor in 1919, working almost entirely from documentary sources, particularly newspapers, first published The Industrial Revolution in North Wales in 1933. It has never been superseded or improved upon, though it is hard to imagine such a book being written in any form now – we know too much about specific sites and industries. Any such study would have to take on board archaeological investigation and be hedged by qualifications and details. Dodd’s research student Dylan Pritchard laid the foundations of work on the slate industry, again working from documentary sources, but was prevented from achieving much by his untimely 180

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

the Research Assessment Exercises. Many university lecturers complain that the emphasis on ‘international’ standards of research and, more dubious still, international topics, has encouraged vapid comparative analyses at the expense of much-needed regional studies. University of Wales academics are no longer prepared to publish in county journals. This has daunting implications for the struggle which archaeology might face to renew itself in the future, and underlines the way we have to look elsewhere for intellectual initiative.

Fig 23.1 Glasdir copper mine, where the flotation process, now used in mining world-wide, was evolved. Courtesy of Gwynedd Archives Service

death. Elsewhere, WEA classes kept the flame alive, and ultimately yielded the generation of Marxist and postMarxist historians such as Gwyn Williams, Merfyn Jones and Chris Evans which has until recently dominated studies of industrialisation within Wales. Their emphasis has very much been on labour and class conflict rather than on the workplace itself. Studies such as these are clearly vital to an understanding of the traumas Welsh people underwent, yet even Evans’s work on Merthyr, which has breathed some new life into the genre, fails to take into account the all-important questions of technical change and landscape evidence (Trinder 1993; Gwyn 1998-9). The University of Wales’s archaeology departments have an enviable reputation in the Prehistoric, Roman and early Medieval periods, but have no expertise in later archaeology. This reflects the almost entire failure of IA practitioners throughout Britain to convince the academic establishment of its significance – and, equally, the failure of academe to identify and nurture this vitally important area. This is an extraordinary state of affairs when one considers how the material evidence of the industrial world is all around one, every day, to say nothing of its value for understanding work patterns, labour conflict, economic change, gender issues – and, of course, its growing importance within contract archaeology. Throughout Britain, such courses as exist are largely concerned with heritage management, and do not in themselves teach the skills of interpretation and analysis. Only a handful of university professionals specialise in Industrial Archaeology, and they tend to teach outside the formal university system on evening, weekend or holiday courses. Final year IA options are available at Newcastle on Tyne and at Leicester, and Master’s degrees are offered at Ironbridge and (in mining archaeology and interpretation only) at the University of Exeter (Palmer 2000). Academics’ difficulties are compounded by the effects of

Contract archaeology To some extent contracting archaeological units have helped supply academic deficiency. A number of regional trusts employ individuals with an interest and an expertise in industrial archaeology. Others have made it their business to learn, and to publish. Contract archaeology, for all its need to work to narrow deadlines and scanty resources, encourages breadth of knowledge and intellectual flexibility.

Priorities Primary sites To state that a particular type of site has been adequately covered is to offer a hostage to fortune. The daunting scale of the primary industries of Wales – of collieries, of copper or lead mining, or of slate quarrying - means that there is always much more to be found. Furthermore, though this would be a difficult task even to initiate, these industries deserve to be placed within their appropriate international context. The International Collieries List has done this for the coal industry, and those who have studied copper and lead mining have long been aware of the tendency of miners to emigrate and take their technology with them (Fig 23.1). The iron industries of the USA, at Richmond in Virginia and Hokenauqua amongst other places, were set up by Welsh enterprise and expertise. The slate industry worldwide has depended on Caernarvonshire and Merionethshire men (Fig 23.2) and blondin ropeways still

Fig 23.2 The main haulage incline at Maenofferen slate quarry, shown here in the 1970s, has only recently gone out of use.

181

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

function in some American quarries. By their nature, such cross-cultural studies are expensive and time-consuming, and were the University to develop expertise in industrial archaeology this would be an obvious area for research. Themes suggested below also form part of a worldwide diffusion of technical knowledge and should be approached accordingly. But within certain limits, it is true to say that the overall resource has at least been quantified. Even so, great gaps remain. The archaeology of the textile industry is little known; yet Wales, like Lancashire, saw the shift from small units of production and outworking to large-scale factories. Madocks’s factory at Tremadoc, which wove uniforms for both Wellington and Napoleon’s army, is as substantial as anything put up on the Tame or the Goyt in the same period, yet its future is in doubt. No survey has been carried out of the important Merionethshire woollen industry, other than Tony Parkinson’s article on its pandai (Parkinson 1984). Much more work needs to be done on the mills of the Severn valley which gave Newtown the nickname ‘the Leeds of Wales’ and prompted Robin Ddu Eryri to celebrate it in excruciating verse (Jenkins 1969, 144).

‘workers’ housing’ with little analysis of the processes and pressures that caused these communities to assume the form they did. Judith Alfrey’s work on the relisting process has focused attention on the extent to which pretwentieth century industrial settlements survive largely unaltered in much of Wales and has also set out ways in which the landscape archaeology of such settlements can be taken forward. Stephen Hughes’s work on Swansea, Copperopolis, is the first major study of an industrial area which considers both the workplaces and the town, and has identified ways in which the workers were accommodated, including blocks of flats, remarkably modern in conception but constructed in the late eighteenth century. The Historic Landscape Characterisation projects have begun to identify the sheer variety of building styles and settlement pattern but in the absence of detailed case-studies, making use of documentary research, fieldwork and architectural recording, we are unlikely to do justice to this muchneglected area (Fig 23.3).

Smaller rural industries by their nature are hard to quantify, and it is not always easy to gather information about the threats they face as archaeological sites. There has been little attempt to evaluate what survives of dairies and other food-processing plant, timber saw mills, tanneries, breweries and foundries. It would be a pity if such places were to fall through the net because of failure to develop a comprehensive strategy. Another hitherto-neglected industry is electricity supply; yet here again Wales was in the vanguard of developments worldwide. A number of early twentieth-century hydrostations are still producing electricity, in some cases still with a few original machines (Thomas 1997). Electricity pylons may have few devotees outside the industry, yet they form distinctive landscape features and examples dating back to the 1920s remain in use. Settlement It has taken IA practitioners long enough to look at the settlements associated with industry as well as the workplace itself, its transport systems and watercatchment, but there are signs that perceptions are changing. Individual buildings have been studied in their broader context by Jeremy Lowe (Lowe 1985), and there has been work by historical geographers on the morphology of industrial settlement in both an urban and a semi-rural context (Carter 1965; Barnes 1970). There has also been much excellent work on chapels, by RCAHMW, by Cymdeithas Capel, and by scholars such as Tony Jones (Jones 1996). But all too often discussion of settlement has been relegated to a brief paragraph on

Fig 23.3 Blaenau Ffestiniog in 1880, a classic industrial settlement of the nineteenth century. This photograph by John Thomas of the Cambrian Gallery brings out the rawness of the new community. Courtesy of the National Library of Wales.

Land transport Recent work by Lancaster Archaeological Unit on Telford’s road has evolved a methodology for the study of linear transport features and drawn attention to the wealth of archaeology associated with the road. It has also emphasised that this was only part of the revitalisation of Wales’s road network in the Modern period. Turnpike trusts were coming into existence all over the country from the late eighteenth century, and if the roads were still in the main poor, they were a significant improvement on the drovers’ tracks that preceded them. They also have bequeathed a variety of structures – toll houses and inns as well as their own civil engineering. Finding out from documentary sources, including parish histories and denominational magazines, who was responsible for their 182

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

construction or rebuilding would not be easy but would prove well worth the effort if it identified local and regional schools of masons’ work and of artisan engineering. Very many bridges from the eighteenth and early nineteenth century remain in use, carrying heavy lorries though they were engineered for horses and carts. Often documentation – bonds, quite frequently plans as well – survives, offering the possibility of investigating typology and regional styles. Some of the most famous bridgebuilders have long been celebrated – the Rev William Edwards adeiladydd i’r deufyd (‘the builder for two worlds’), who worked out from first principles what the French engineer Bélidor and others established by scientific method. But hundreds of others who raised bridges elsewhere cry out for investigation, and a programme of selective recording should be carried out on the bridges themselves. Railway historians have traced the development of Wales’s railway systems in many cases in remarkable detail, but have tended to say very little about what actually survives. Railway history has tended to move away in recent years from boardroom battles and political squabbles and increasingly emphasises civil and mechanical engineering. However, the tendency to concentrate on one historical period or one private

Fig 23.4 A ‘pre-Adamite’ locomotive built by Neath Abbey Ironworks for service on the Monmouthshire tramroads in 1830

company, or indeed one single branch line, has meant that the story comes to an end long before the present. The deficiency has to some extent been made good by studies specifically of railway archaeology, of which the best have been produced in Wales on Welsh subjects – Stephen Hughes’s Brecon Forest Tramroads, and more recently John van Laun’s Early Limestone Railways. Both deal with early railways, and have done much to advance our knowledge of this phase of development. But even here, a great deal of work remains to be done, a point recently emphasised by the doyen of early railway studies (Lewis 1999a, 111; 1999b, 80-1). Wales had a vast railway mileage before the Taff Vale brought the modern railway age to Wales in 1841. There were well over a thousand miles of early railways associated with canals alone, to which must be added other lines, in North Wales as well as the South, serving deep-water harbours or roads. Wales, in other words, had one of the densest networks of early railways in the world. If it was the Newcastle railway which the Stephensons took forward into the modern railway age, it was in Wales that many other significant developments took place – the first all-iron rails, the first locomotive-hauled train, the first fare-paying passenger services, to say nothing of the distinctive early locomotives constructed at Neath Abbey to serve these railways (Fig 23.4). In Wales the comparatively early development of the pre-Modern railway and the comparatively late development of successor systems has also bequeathed very many locations in which the civil engineering of the two can be compared. This point is illustrated by the aerial photographs in Stephen Hughes’s Brecon Forest Tramroad showing the sinuous course of the 1820s plateway weaving around the course of the Neath and Brecon of 1863 (Hughes 1990, 167). By comparison, the multiplicity of books on modern railways in Wales might lead one to think that there is little work left to do. But though some of the work is excellent, some is dated, and some is poor; very little is of much value to archaeologists. Recently, Railtrack has sold of the sites of steam locomotive sheds such as Llandudno Junction despite governmental insistence that they retain possession of existing railway infrastructure. Where buildings and structures have been demolished, recording, if it has taken place at all, has often been by local groups whose concerns are not specifically archaeological. They might, for instance, be primarily interested in modelbuilding, and be unlikely to deposit their findings with the regional SMR, NMR or county archives. The poor public image of railway enthusiasts does not help. Yet modelbuilders, when they do publish, often provide archaeologists with a vital record. Wooden bridges, once a staple of railway engineering in Britain, and even more in Australia and the United States (White 1976), have now largely disappeared. The thirteen bridges on the former Cambrian Railways, and the single case of Aultnaslanash near Tomatin in Scotland, built in1897, are the only British 183

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

survivors (Biddle 1994, 24-5). Aultnaslanash is described in RCAHMS (1986, 228-9), but for the Cambrian bridges we have to turn to a survey published by Roger LycettSmith in the Journal of the Historical Model Railway Society, the only easily available record we have of these important structures (Lycett-Smith 1995). Other structures such as signal boxes have steadily disappeared over the years, leaving Rhyl no.2 as one of only two large boxes left in Britain (Biddle 1994, 29). Transport features, both road and rail, are important elements in landscape archaeology. Not only did they form impressive landscape features in their own right, but they profoundly affected the areas through which they ran. It is no coincidence that the Telford road should take the traveller by statues of heroes of the war against France – Nelson, the Marquis of Anglesey and Viscount Hill – nor that it should cross a bridge which inaccurately states that it was cast in the year the battle of Waterloo was fought. This was the highway between the two imperial capitals, London and Dublin, and as such a symbol of the unity of the kingdoms in victory. But roads, even in Wales, tend to connect established settlements, whereas many new towns, villages and suburbs were either brought into being or had their shape conferred by the railway. Parts of Swansea, Newport, Butetown, Blaenau Ffestiniog and many of the smaller settlements in the eastern valleys and in the slate quarrying areas are built along the courses of early railways. Modern railways made possible the urban expansion of Welsh towns and cities as they made possible development of communities all over the world, and brought about the replacement of vernacular styles and materials by mass production. Dock and harbour structures Recent studies, grant aided by Cadw, of the archaeology of the Welsh coast confirmed the variety and extent of docks, quays and harbours from the Roman period to the late twentieth century. Nevertheless, the scale of dock facilities in Wales is remarkable and easily forgotten. After the grouping of 1923 the Great Western Railway owned a dock estate with a water area of 1267 acres and a quayage of 33 miles, mostly concentrated at Cardiff, Swansea, Newport, Barry and Port Talbot (compared to a water area of 420 acres and six miles of quayage at Liverpool – Kirkpatrick, 1925-6). The great majority of these had not existed a hundred years earlier. Collapse of the coal industry in the 1980s meant drastic changes, mostly towards increased leisure and residential use, though commercial shipping has by no means ceased. As well as recording quayside installations and structures, the wharves themselves, and the different construction methods employed, should be recorded (Fig 23.5). The heyday of smaller rural ports, and ports connected with other mineral exports, in particular slate, copper and lead, passed much earlier, generally towards the end of the

nineteenth century or the beginning of the twentieth and are a resource of great significance. It is only now in many cases that the archaeology of these locations is coming under serious pressure, from new housing, yachting facilities and regeneration grants. Outreach An encouraging sign is that a number of well researched and attractively presented Welsh industrial studies have recently been published. Copperopolis, published under RCAHMW’s banner in 2000, is one of series of important publications by Stephen Hughes. More recently the Commission have been able to make a start on publishing their study of the Swansea Canal, and John van Laun has published his PhD thesis as Early Limestone Railways. Articles on various aspects of Welsh industrial archaeology have appeared in the Journal of Historic Metallurgy, Transactions of the Newcomen Society, Landscape History, Transactions of the 2000 conference of the International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage, and in county journals. Industrial Archaeology Review has also published articles on Welsh subjects, and with the present author having assumed the editorship there is little likelihood that Welsh subjects will be neglected. It is important that the momentum of publication be kept up, and, as Marilyn Palmer has argued recently, that specialists publish outside the commonly accepted IA ‘house journals’ if it is to develop credibility. It is very much hoped that Cadw will continue its policy of grant aiding publication of surveys. Conferences and day schools will also maintain the intellectual momentum and to cross the boundary between professional and lay audiences. Popular publications have done much to raise the profile of industrial and modern archaeology. Articles in Heritage in Wales on Torfaen’s successful bid for World Heritage Status for Blaenavon alerted many councillors and local government officers, anxious to restore dignity to blighted communities, to the possibilities of industrial heritage. Arguments that nineteenth century townscapes should be conserved rather than smothered in pebbledash suddenly began to fall on more receptive ears. Amgueddfa, the National Museum’s yearbook, regularly carries articles on industrial and modern topics. The development of websites by statutory organisations also takes the message to a wider public. It seems carping to suggest that such activities are preaching to the converted, yet such is largely the case. Subscribers to journals view these issues sympathetically, and many people in Wales do not have computers. In particular, decision-makers still largely live in a manuscript culture. Much might be achieved by taking the message directly to them, in presentations and seminars on the possibilities of statutory protection, and on the role of industrial heritage initiatives in economic regeneration. 184

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Events might be sponsored by Cadw in conjunction with the regional trusts, though they might include speakers from other organisations.

Envoi The industrial and modern period in Wales presents a unique case. As the National Museum has pointed out, Wales was the first nation to employ more people in industry than in agriculture, and partly because it developed early on, its collapse was all the more terrible. Some areas have even now not recovered from the depression that followed the Wall Street Crash. Saunders Lewis’s bitterness can still resonate. But perhaps we should also remember Thomas Jones of Rhumney, the sly Fabian who gave good service to both Lloyd George and Stanley Baldwin. If he was not the first to think of Wales in terms of industrial archaeology, he at least made explicit its connection with economic collapse. In 1935 he angrily proposed that the planners might turn the South Wales coal-field into an open-air museum, a monument to the technical achievements of a by-gone age, after its population had been exported to Dagenham or Hounslow (Morgan 1982, 219). How he would have reacted to Blaenavon joining Edwardian castles and Stonehenge as a World Heritage Site no one can say. But his words have an eerie prescience, an uncomfortable reminder that the archaeology of industrialisation, and the most laudable of heritage and regeneration initiatives, are made possible and necessary by social trauma and economic change. This industrial legacy is central to the experience of the peoples of Wales; if for no other reason than this, it deserves careful study.

Bibliography Alfrey, J 1999 ‘A New Look at Conservation Values’, Heritage in Wales 12, 13–7 Barnes, FA 1970 ‘Settlement and Landscape Changes in a Caernarvonshire Slate Quarrying Parish,’ in RH Osborne, FA Barnes, and JC Doornkampf (eds) Geographical Essays in Honour of KC Edwards, University of Nottingham: Nottingham, 119–28 Biddle, G 1994 ‘Railway buildings and structures in Britain’ in R Shorland-Ball (ed) Common roots – separate branches, National Railway Museum: Science Museum, National Railway Museum: London and York, 23–31 Briggs, CS (ed) 1992 Welsh Industrial Heritage: A Review, CBA Research Report 79: London Carter, H 1965 The Towns of Wales, Cardiff Conran, A 1967 The Penguin Book of Welsh Verse, Penguin: London Denton, J and Lewis, MJT 1974 Rhosydd, Cottage Press: Shrewsbury Dodd, AH 1933 The Industrial Revolution in North Wales, University of Wales Press: Cardiff Evans, C 1993 The Labyrinth of Flames, University of Wales Press: Cardiff Gwyn, D 1998–9 ‘From Blacksmith to Engineer,’ Llafur 73–4, 51–65 Hughes, SR 1990 Brecon Forest Tramroads, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth Hughes, SR 1992 ‘Industrial archaeology and the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales’, in Briggs (ed) 1992, 49–57 Hughes, SR 2000 Copperopolis: Landscapes of the Early Industrial Period in Swansea, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth Hughes, SR, Malaws, BA, Parry, M and Wakelin, P 1994 Collieries of Wales, Engineering and Architecture RCAHMW: Aberystwyth Jenkins, G 1969 The Welsh Woollen Industry, University of Wales: Cardiff Jones, GR 1998 Hafodlas Slate Quarry, privately published: Blaenau Ffestiniog Kirkpatrick, CRS 1925–6 ‘The development of harbour and dock engineering’, The Institution of Civil Engineers, Vernon-Harcourt lecture, 3–44 Lancaster University Archaeological Unit 1999 Telford’s Holyhead Road, Lancaster University: Lancaster Laun, J van, 2001 Early Limestone Railways, Newcomen Society: London Lewis, MJT 1975 ‘Steam on the Penydarren’, Industrial Railway Record 59, 1–36 185

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Lewis, MJT 1999a ‘Industrial Railway History: Past Present and Future’, Industrial Railway Record 156, 109–20 Lewis, MJT 1999b ‘The Railway in Industry’, in The History and Practice of Britain’s Railways: A New Research Agenda, Ashgate: Aldershot, 77–95 Lowe, J 1985 Welsh Industrial Workers Housing 1775–1875, National Museum of Wales: Cardiff Lycett-Smith, R 1995 ‘Cambrian Timber Trestle Bridges and Viaducts in 1994’, Historical Model Railway Society Journal 157, 208–17 McLees, D 2001 ‘Cartrefi’r gweithwyr gynt …’ Etifeddiaeth y Cymru 19, 11–14 Malaws, BA 1997 ‘Process Recording at Industrial Sites’ Industrial Archaeology Review 19, 75–98 Morgan, KO 1982 Wales: Rebirth of a Nation, University of Wales Press: Cardiff Palmer, M1992 ‘Problems of recording’ in Briggs (ed) 1992, 45–8 Palmer, M 2000 ‘Archaeology or Heritage Management: The Conflict of Objectives in the Training of Industrial Archaeologists’, IA: The Journal of the Society for Industrial Archaeology 262, 49–54 Parkinson, A J 1984 ‘Fulling Mills in Merioneth’, Jnl of the Merioneth Historical Record Society 94, 420–56 Roberts, D 1998-9 ‘Dehongli Amgueddfa Lechi Cymru/Interpreting the Welsh Slate Museum’, Amgueddfa 2, 66–8 Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland, 1986 Monuments of Industry, RCAHMS: Edinburgh Thomas, D 1997 Hydro-Electricity in North West Wales, Gwasg Carreg Gwalch: Capel Garmon Trinder, B 1993 Review of C Evans, The Labyrinth of Flames, Industrial Archaeology Review 161, 113–4 White, JH 1976 ‘Tracks and Timber’, IA: The Journal of the Society of Industrial Archaeology 2, 35–46

186

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

24 Archaeological aerial reconnaissance – a strategy for the future Toby G Driver

RCAHMW Crown Building, Plas Crug, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 1NJ [email protected] www.rcahmw.org.uk/aerial/ Gallery of RCAHMW aerial images: http://rs6000.univie.ac.at/AARG/worldwide/wales/wales.html.

Abstract Archaeological aerial reconnaissance has been successfully employed in Wales for discovering, recording and, latterly, monitoring the archaeological heritage since the early 1960s. The ways aerial photography are currently employed for recording the historic environment are examined from the point of view of RCAHMW. The lessons already learnt are discussed with examples of recent recording programmes and outputs. The nature and range of aerial discoveries over the last decade is also examined and the future roles of aerial reconnaissance and air photo mapping are considered together with the need for effective dissemination of the resultant information. Introduction Aerial photography (AP) began at the Royal Commission in 1986, under the new appointment of Chris Musson as Investigator for Aerial Photography. This work established and amassed a considerable archive of new photography, and prompted the organisation of existing collections of Cambridge University Committee for Aerial Photography (CUCAP), and verticals taken by the RAF and Ordnance Survey held in NMR Wales. In 1995, with the appointment of an Assistant Air Survey Officer, air photo mapping began in earnest and achieved some notable results in mapping upland and lowland landscapes. When Chris Musson retired in 1997, the author took over and has continued the flying programme. Looking back on fifteen years of a coherent, consistent regional and national flying programme, questions are: what has the flying programme achieved, and what strategies are there in place for the next fifteen years? Progress to date Figure 24.1 shows all RCAHMW flights made since 1996, as tracked with a Global Positioning System (GPS). The plot excludes a number of flights made without a GPS, and the work of regional fliers. The major cropmark years of

Fig 24.1 Wales: Archaeological flights 1996-2002. This should not be taken as a definitive index of archaeological flights for the period as it excludes a number of flights made without a GPS by regional flyers over Pembrokeshire, Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire, and some Royal Commission flights (for example over eastern Anglesey) flown on days of poor satellite coverage (Crown Copyright RCAHMW).

recent decades are now the stuff of archaeological legend. CUCAP made many discoveries in Wales during the 1960s and most famously in the drought years of 1975/6, when Llanfor Roman fort was just one of the hundreds of

187

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

significant archaeological discoveries. In 1984, ’86 and ’89, there were also notable drought years (see for example James 1984; 1986; 1989), but aerial discoveries did not abate during the 1990s. They have just been made within the context of a much more comprehensive programme of Welsh reconnaissance than was seen in any decade before, with an average of sixty hours flown each year. Since 1990 there have been many significant additions to the archaeology of Wales. In 1990 a rare monument type, a Late Neolithic pit circle, was identified as a cropmark near Haverfordwest airfield (Musson 1994, 50). The site was scheduled on the basis of aerial evidence alone. Other discoveries from the period include recognition of a second Neolithic ‘terrace’ parallel to the known terrace which extends from Bryn yr Hen Bobl chambered tomb on Anglesey (Fig 24.4), this time discovered in very low winter light (Driver et al 2000). The Roman villa at Croes Carn Einion was recorded as a cropmark in 1995, just west of Newport, Gwent, one of an all too rare class of monument in south Wales (RCAHMW 1999, 7). Desk based work in 1995 also saw eight Iron Age defended enclosures discovered around the Thaw valley, shedding new light on later prehistoric lowland settlement in Glamorgan (Driver 1995). The flying programme since 1986 has also allowed an aerial archive to grow of the country’s industry, architecture and landscapes. Some opportunities for

Fig 24.4 Bryn yr Hen Bobl, Plas Newydd, Anglesey. The wooded mound of the passage grave can be seen centre bottom, with the bank of the Neolithic terrace extending away towards the top of the frame. This photograph was taken under hard frost only half an hour after sunrise in January 1999, primarily for the purposes of scheduled monument monitoring. However the excellent conditions revealed a previously unrecorded second ‘terrace’, seen here on the left of and running parallel to the first. It has yet to be dated (Neg: 993501-08; Crown Copyright RCAHMW)

Fig 24.5 Aerial recording of a threatened building: The Dunlop Semtex Factory Complex or Brynmawr Rubber Factory, Blaenau Gwent, 21 June 2001, taken only ten days before final demolition work began on the world famous concrete domes (Neg: 2001/5031-68; Crown Copyright RCAHMW)

recording have been fleeting. Without a national flying programme to respond to academic and heritage demands there would be no aerial record of the south Wales collieries before demolition, achieved by Musson in the later 1980s and early 1990s (Musson 1994, 38–41). Similarly, we would not have views of the National Botanic Garden’s dome under construction in 1998 (RCAHMW Annual Report 1998–1999, 19), or the last aerial views of the Brynmawr Rubber factory’s pioneering domed concrete roof, taken days before its demolition in June 2001 (Fig 24.5). Brynmawr was recorded from the air with stereoscopic oblique photographs. These allow the structure to be viewed and studied in three dimensions using a stereoscope, and to be reconstructed in a digital environment should the need arise in the future. The flying programme is an extremely valuable resource for Wales. It has a role for the wider professional community, studying buildings and natural landscapes, and to the public studying their own towns, villages and local areas. Since 1999, RCAHMW has provided specialised aerial cover for the Headwaters of Wales Project, the Blaenavon World Heritage Site bid, and the Severn Levels Submerged Forests Project, among others. Against our relative landmass, the programme compares favourably with the rest of the UK; in Scotland they fly twice as many hours, in England four times as many hours. In Northern Ireland, no more than 3–7 hours have been flown in recent years (British Academy 2001). The programme should continue to hold a strong position in Welsh archaeology, providing aerial cover and feeding results rapidly back into the NMR and SMRs. 188

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Strategic aims and objectives The overall strategic aim of the flying programme is to ‘identify and record, using aerial photography, archaeological, historical, architectural and geographical subjects illustrative of the people, landscape and history of Wales.’ Within this aim there are eight key objectives: 1. To coordinate and promote archaeological aerial photography. 2. To photograph 650 scheduled ancient monuments a year for Cadw, for the purposes of heritage management. 3. To coordinate and fund the programme of regional archaeological reconnaissance. 4. To carry out exploratory reconnaissance for previously unrecorded cropmarks and earthworks at appropriate times of year, across the whole of Wales. 5. To provide a flexible platform for archaeological aerial reconnaissance which can gather new photography of sites of architectural, archaeological or historical interest that are the subject of thematic recording programmes, or are threatened with adverse change or demolition. 6. To respond to professional requests for aerial cover for archaeological or historical projects. 7. To identify gaps in national aerial cover through liaison with the NMR Wales enquiry team, and the regional SMRs. 8. To rapidly catalogue air photographs, and to feed new data back into national and regional records, to enable effective management of the heritage.

Some priorities for the future 1. Aerial monitoring The programme of aerial monitoring of scheduled monuments, first begun by Cadw and the Trusts in the mid 1980s, must continue, as it represents a first class resource for heritage management (James 1986; Musson 1994, 17; Bewley 1997, 201; Driver 2002). The majority of scheduled field monuments in Wales will have aerial photographic cover dating back to the mid 1980s and thence at three-four yearly intervals recording their condition and land use. Thus, the country’s most noteworthy heritage sites have been well photographed. The programme incorporates an informal ‘rapid response’ ability to provide cover of scheduled sites which have been damaged, or are otherwise in question. These ‘aerial eyes’, of national and regional flyers, should continue to prove useful tools for Cadw and their Field Monument wardens well. 2. Regional Flying Flying by locally-based flyers provides important aerial cover on busy days, whilst allowing regional specialists to over-fly and investigate areas they know well. The

programme is chiefly geared towards scheduled monument monitoring and cropmark reconnaissance, but on good days flyers are encouraged to photograph more widely, to make best use of time in the air. It has to be said that funding for the regional flying programme has not always been consistent, and local airfields have often shut down at crucial times. Proposed changes in aviation law from Spring 2002 will also reduce the flexibility of regional flying across the whole of the UK. At a time when regional work should go from strength to strength, this would be a great blow, but the matter is under discussion between the RCAHMW, English Heritage and the Civil Aviation Authority. 3. Cropmark reconnaissance away from established ‘cropmark zones’ Cropmark reconnaissance has shown that the most productive areas are the lower-lying parts of Wales where free-draining gravel subsoils and arable crops predominate. These are chiefly found along the south and central Welsh borders, and in the lowlands of Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire (see Musson 1994, 22). However, more scattered cropmark returns have been seen around the peripheries of Wales, in Glamorgan and Gwent (Musson 1994, 27–29), Ceredigion and the west coast (see Crew and Musson 1996, 12–13), and the Lleyn Peninsular and Anglesey. Many of the buried sites in the west and north have become visible in parched grassland, at the end of July and during August as markings in arable crops disappear. While the drought conditions needed to reveal cropmarks in these peripheral areas may only occur one year in five, or ten, these are where the most interesting cropmark discoveries will be made in future years. 3 (i) Cropmark discoveries in South Wales Lowland South Wales is beginning to reveal some very interesting aerial archaeology where, twenty years ago, there was little to speak of. The aerial discoveries at Norton, Ogmore by Sea, and Corntown are particularly important. The causewayed enclosure at Norton was first discovered on vertical aerial photographs in 1995, and seen from the air in 1996 (Driver 1997; Burrow et al 1999; Oswald et al 2001, 52; Burrow et al 2001). The morphology of the site, with its irregular, narrow, segmented ditch sections suggests a Neolithic date, but until it is excavated we cannot say for sure. In 1996 however, an equally curious site was photographed some five miles east of Ogmore at Corntown, near Bridgend (See Burrow et al 1999; 2001). For a while it was thought these double concentric, interrupted ditches were geological features, but as the prevailing geology leaves linear marks across the site, with washes of alluvium, it appeared that this was an archaeological feature. The crucial development came in 1999, when colleagues from the National Museum revealed that fieldwalking since 1976 had amassed one of the largest assemblages of early 189

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Neolithic flint work in Wales. Again, an exact date from the enclosure will only come from excavation, but these are tantalising discoveries for an area whose Neolithic archaeology previously comprised only chambered tombs and stray finds. 3 (ii) Cropmark discoveries in north Ceredigion (Fig 24.2) A similarly dramatic rate of cropmark discovery has occurred in north Ceredigion, between Tregaron and the Dyfi estuary. This area in the hinterland of Aberystwyth is typical of the hilly, low-lying country found in many parts of Wales. There are about forty upstanding Iron Age forts, preserving a sequence from the largest in the county, at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, down to more modest hillslope enclosures (Driver and Browne 2001, 7–15). CUCAP photographers made a number of discoveries here during the 1960s, and in the drought of 1975/6. No one year, however good, will show all potential buried archaeology to the aerial photographer. Ploughed fields, fields left for hay, those cut prematurely or planted with root crops, and those with deeper washes of topsoil masking cropmarks, all prevent potential buried sites from showing. Far from aerial discoveries in this landscape being exhausted, flying in good years continues to bring results and new sites. Between 1990 and 1995, twelve new defended enclosures were discovered. These sites from

1995 include a circular and unusual square enclosure close to the Ystwyth River, and the other a large promontory fort in a lowland area near Trawsgoed. A brief spell of hot weather in 1999 bought further discoveries, another eight defended enclosures including a bivallate hillfort near Llangwyryfon (RCAHMW Annual Report 1999–2000, 16–17). These discoveries are all of regional importance. However, when one looks at the distribution pattern (Fig 24.2), nearly 50% of all known Iron Age defended enclosures in north Ceredigion are aerial discoveries, 25 of those discovered since 1990. In proportionate terms, this parallels the rates of discovery from the Welsh borderlands since flying began in the 1960s (Musson 1994, 19), and from well publicised ‘small enclosure’ zones in inland southwest Dyfed (Williams and Mytum 1998). Aerial archaeologists must pursue the fleeting and often scattered cropmark returns in these quiet corners of Wales, as the weight of these discoveries on a national scale does gradually accumulate over the years. Work on the Lleyn cropmarks by the Gwynedd Archaeological Trust (Ward and Smith 2001) has also showed the tremendous potentials for field investigation of cropmarks in these peripheral zones. The way forward with these landscapes is to put the photographs to work, mapping to achieve an understanding of morphology and distribution, and following up desk-based work with ground investigation and evaluation. 4. Recording remit Looking to the future, the main aim of the flying programme must be to continue to photograph as full a range of targets as befits a remit to record views ‘illustrative of the people, landscape and history of Wales’.

Fig 24.2 North Ceredigion: The pattern of Iron Age hill-forts and enclosed settlements between Tregaron and the Dyfi Estuary. The map marks Pen Dinas hillfort on the west coast, sited at the confluence of the rivers Rheidol and Ystwyth. To the east, the high ground over 300m surrounding Plynlimon is shown in darker tone. Distribution of cropmarks (triangles), earthworks (circles) and place name sites (crosses) shows the fundamental contribution that aerial reconnaissance has made to our understanding of this Iron Age landscape, particularly in the lowlands. Cropmarks comprise nearly 50% of all known defended enclosures. Distance from top to bottom of map approx. 30kms (Crown Copyright RCAHMW)

The range of targets we currently photograph has never been greater. Archaeology and scheduled monuments still form the core of the flying programme, and will always do so. Within this recording work however, work includes photographing deserted rural settlements and other aspects of rural settlement such as squatter villages. Intertidal and coastal sites at optimum low tides (RCAHMW Annual Report 1999–2000, 16–17) are steadily being photographed, as well as industrial sites and landscapes in the face of continuing change and important architectural sites and townscapes. In this way, maximum use can be made of time in the air, even if the archaeology we wanted to photograph is not looking particularly good when we reach a survey area. 5. The aerial archive: Access and future developments The aerial archive in NMR Wales is the premier source for aerial photography in Wales, particularly for up to date oblique views of Welsh archaeology and history. Figure 24.3 shows the nearly 30,000 oblique aerial photographs currently catalogued for RCAHMW. The blank areas 190

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

usually correspond to the highest mountain peaks or forested areas. Aerial photographs form but one part of the whole NMR archive, which comprises maps, written records and other documents, catalogued, conserved and made available to the public in accordance with Public Record Office guidelines. Active aerial reconnaissance sits alongside RCAHMW’s air photo mapping and GIS work. Air photo mapping is already being integrated with the Uplands Initiative programme of field survey, while lowland areas are also being mapped. A strategy is currently being developed to make air photo mapping part of an integrated digital mapping strategy. This will mean that air photo maps do not stand alone, but integrate with other GIS datasets and in turn feed into the National Archaeological Resource Map being developed by the Ordnance Survey. This eventual map publication will allow archaeology to reach the public, always an important end-goal for survey work. Many members of the public now request local history information, yet so often an aerial view of a village or parish church is lacking. Our aerial coverage of villagescapes across Wales should be improved over the next decade. If recorded in passing, in between survey targets, the task makes no significant impact on the main programme and a record of the villages in Wales at the turn of the century, would make our archive relevant to many

people. An online gallery of aerial images is due for launch in 2002. At the same time, the air photo catalogue will be prepared for the web. In the longer term, the air photo catalogue will form just one part of an integrated website featuring the whole of the archive catalogue for the NMR Wales. This has already been achieved in part with the CARN, the Core Archaeological Record index for Wales, on the RCAHMW website. Other possibilities for technological development in coming years include greater use of digital imaging, although all colour photography is now scanned onto CD at the point of processing resulting in a flexible colour archive of high quality slide originals and digital files. Commissioning new vertical photography can be expensive, but our partners in the natural environment agencies already buy in a lot of specially flown vertical imagery. Verticals flown of Welsh archaeological landscapes, on good winter days, would be invaluable for the record. LIDAR imaging too, the ‘Light Direction and Range’ system in which a scanning laser builds up a digital 3D image of the landscape, developed by the Environment Agency (see website: www.environmentagency.gov.uk/science/219121/monitoring/131047/?versi on=1), is technology that could benefit archaeology in the longer term, with refinement. In the end, these developments, along with maintenance of a nation wide flying programme, rely on funding.

Fig 24.3 RCAHMW archaeological aerial photographs 1986–2000. Nearly 30,000 oblique aerial photographs are currently catalogued and can be viewed on-screen in the RCAHMW GIS against a map of Wales. The blank areas usually correspond to the highest Welsh peaks or forested areas. (Crown Copyright RCAHMW)

191

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Bibliography Bewley, RH 1997 ‘Aerial Photography for Archaeology’, in JR Hunter and IBM Ralston (eds) Archaeological Resource Management in the UK – An Introduction, IFA: Sutton Publishing, 197–204 British Academy 2001 Aerial Survey for Archaeology, Report of a British Academy Working Party 1999, British Academy: London Browne, DM and Driver, TG 2001 Bryngaer Pen Dinas Hill-for: a Prehistoric Fortress at Aberystwyth, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth

RCAHMW, 1999 Cofnod, Number 2 – Spring 1999, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth Ward, M and Smith, G 2001 ‘The Llyn Crop Marks Project’, Studia Celtica 35, 1–87 Williams, GH and Mytum, HC 1998 Llawhaden, Dyfed, Excavations on a group of small defended enclosures, 1980–4, BAR British Series 275: Oxford

Websites www.environment-agency.gov.uk/science/219121/ monitoring/131047/?version=1)

Burrow, S, Driver, TG and Thomas, D 2001 ‘Bridging the Severn Estuary: two possible earlier Neolithic enclosures in the Vale of Glamorgan’, in TC Darvill and J Thomas (eds) Neolithic Enclosures in Atlantic Northwest Europe, Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 6, Oxbow Books: Oxford Burrow, S, Driver, TG and Thomas, D 1999 ‘Corntown Neolithic Lithic Scatter’, Archaeology in Wales 39, 49–51 Crew, P and Musson, CR 1996 Snowdonia from the Air, Patterns in the Landscape, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth; Snowdonia National Park Authority: Penrhyndeudraeth Driver, TG 1995 ‘New Crop Mark Sites at Aberthaw, South Glamorgan’, Archaeology in Wales 35, 3–9 Driver, TG 1997 ‘Norton, Ogmore-by-Sea’, Archaeology in Wales 37, 66–7 Driver, TG 2002 ‘Approaches to aerial survey and heritage management in Wales’, in RH Bewley, and W Raczkowski, (eds), Aerial Archaeology, Developing Future Practice, NATO Science Series 1: Life and Behavioural Sciences,Vol 337, IOS Press 247–255 Driver, TG, Hamilton, M, Leivers, M, Roberts, J and Peterson, R 2000 ‘New Evidence from Bryn yr Hen Bobl, Llanedwen, Anglesey’, Antiquity 74, 761–2 James, TA 1984 ‘Aerial Reconnaissance in Dyfed, 1984’, Archaeology in Wales 24, 12–24 James, TA 1986 ‘Discovering and Monitoring Sites by Aerial Survey’, in D Moore and D Austin (eds) Welsh Archaeological Heritage The Proceedings of a Conference Held by The Cambrian Archaeological Association in 1985, St David’s University College: Lampeter James, TA 1989 ‘Aerial Photography by the Dyfed Archaeological Trust, 1989’, Archaeology in Wales 29, 31–34 Musson, CR 1994 Wales from the Air, Patterns of Past and Present, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth Oswald, A, Dyer, C and Barber, M 2001 The Creation of Monuments, Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures in the British Isles, English Heritage: Swindon

192

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

25 Maritime and intertidal archaeology Sian E Rees Cadw National Assembly for Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF1 [email protected]

Abstract The importance of the maritime and intertidal archaeology of Wales is emphasised and the existing methods of protection described. Management of maritime archaeology has particular problems and historically has suffered from lack of resources in terms of suitably qualified practitioners and financial support. Suggestions are made for further study and proposals made for strengthening current weaknesses in the management of the maritime heritage. Introduction The seas around the Welsh coastline contain an immeasurable wealth of archaeological and historical remains. This includes not only sunken or beached vessels, their cargo and armaments, but also features associated with management of the coastline, such as harbour installations; exploitation of the intertidal zone, such as fish weirs; and submerged landscapes, formerly dry land, usually dating from early prehistoric periods. Maritime archaeology represents the same essential stuff of the historic environment as does the terrestrial, yielding information with a different but complementary slant about our past. Given that our nation was formed by its island status, and our settlement patterns, transport and supply, technology, communications and politics, attitudes and eccentricities were fashioned by our sea borders, our maritime archaeology must have an importance equal to terrestrial archaeology. Management Management of the maritime resource presents challenges and problems of a particular nature. Every aspect of the management of the terrestrial historic environment, including survey and discovery, study and excavation, and protection of sites and features, is rendered more complex when attempted within maritime and intertidal zones. Protection of maritime archaeology is governed by separate legislation, complex, difficult to enforce and with

different legislation governing salvage operations and human rights sometimes in conflict with one another. The environment is often hostile to conservation; protection of a ship structure projecting above the level of the sea bed is well nigh impossible in the long term. Where the sea bed environment is more sympathetic to survival of artefacts, this is at the expense of ease of discovery, survey or excavation. Long term survival of a wreck is more probable if the structure is buried in mud or silts and covered with weed growth, in which case, of course, it is impossible to find by normal search methods. Maritime survey and excavation are subject to their own practical and logistical difficulties. Resources for protection and study of marine archaeology are difficult to come by, historically not being seen as part of the governmental brief. Coastal and intertidal archaeology is similarly dynamic, its environment difficult to predict and control and presenting particular problems of preservation in situ. There have never been restrictions on government’s ability to allocate resources to the intertidal zone, but survey, preservation and excavation tend to be expensive due to the nature of the environment and its archaeology. In 1992 responsibility for management of the maritime historic environment passed to the appropriate body of government in each country responsible for terrestrial archaeology. Thus the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in England, Historic Scotland, Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland and Cadw became the bodies responsible for implementation of the relevant legislation appertaining to the underwater environment as they are for the terrestrial and intertidal zone. Recently Historic Scotland produced a Policy Statement for Maritime Archaeology (HS 1999) while English Heritage has produced an initial policy statement (EH 2002) anticipating the transfer of responsibilities for maritime archaeology from DCMS in 2002. Maritime archaeology in Wales could undoubtedly benefit from research agenda, only if it is given sufficient weight within the study as a 193

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

same thing. But a far greater problem is that of undercounting, as maritime archaeological surveying is in its infancy and we have barely begun to undertake comprehensive surveys of the sea bed or the intertidal zone. English Heritage suggests that the Maritime Database in England probably only holds records of 20% of eighteenth and nineteenth century losses, while the under representation of earlier vessels is bound to be worse still. The small numbers of sites included in the embryonic Maritime Database in Wales is in no way a reflection or a representation of the extent of the resource. Our understanding of the coastal resource in Wales has been enhanced by the recent Coastal Surveys funded by Cadw undertaken by the four Archaeological Trusts in Wales. This involved fieldwalking the entire length of the coastline, entering sites on SMRs, and recommending some for statutory protection. While by the very nature of some of the Welsh intertidal zone, this survey can never be regarded as complete, we may regard it as having identified much of the important resource. Survey in all areas, especially on eroding landscapes such as the Severn Levels, needs to be continuous if we are to avoid losses

Fig 25.1 Wreck Chart for 1876–77 published by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution

separate subject area with very separate problems. This preliminary paper attempts to define some of these differences.

Quantification of the resource There can be no doubt as to the wealth of historical and archaeological material sitting on the sea bed or within the intertidal zone awaiting discovery, let alone evaluation. Figure 25.1, the wreck chart for 1876–77 (Dean et al 1992, Fig 7) illustrates the extraordinary extent of marine casualty within a single year. When this is compared with the distribution map of the 53 designated wrecks off the British coast (Fig 25.2) potential evidence sitting unprotected on our shores can be appreciated. Many of the huge number of obstacles mapped as hazards to shipping by the Hydrographic Office are likely to be wrecks, either known as such or as unidentified mounds. The difficulty of identifying a feature on the sea bed as a named, historically documented wreck is well known, and is, indeed, half the fun when you start to work on one. But this uncertainty does not help when we are trying to quantify the extent of the resource. The Maritime Database in NMR (English Heritage) numbers 20,718 historic losses, 6277 known wreck sites and 7359 sea bed obstructions and isolated historic artefacts; while that in the RCAHMW numbers only about 200. Some of these will be repeated records – a lump on the sea bed and a documented wreck which may ulimately prove to be the

Fig 25.2 Locations of Protected Wreck sites in Britain

194

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

from natural erosion, flood defences, water treatment or the infrastructure required by marine development.

Records for Maritime Archaeology The SMRs of the four Archaeological Trusts have long gathered material from the intertidal zone and include buried landscapes and forests, harbour installations and coastal industries, individual artefacts and hulks. These are often fairly well known though their importance is frequently undervalued, such as the Louisa (Fig 25.3) the hulk on the Taff Estuary, which only attracted serious study when she was threatened by the Cardiff Bay barrage. Other areas of the intertidal zone are impossibly difficult to record. Elusive, dynamic but often spectacular sites on the Severn Levels, such as the thirteenth century Magor Pill boat (Nayling 1998), the Romano-Celtic Barland’s Farm boat (Nayling et al 1994) and prehistoric settlement sites at Goldcliff (Bell et al 2001) testify to this. The Trusts’ SMRs hold records of designated wrecks and other important ship sites, but are not geared up to hold a maritime database nor to gather material of that nature.

Fig 25.3 The hulk of the Louisa, Cardiff Bay

The Maritime Database in Wales was set up as part of the NMR in RCAHMW in 1992, following the recommendations of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Committee’s report ‘Heritage at Sea’ (JNAC 1989) and the subsequent Government White Paper ‘This Common Inheritance’ (1990). This database now forms the central national database recording the historic maritime environment. During initial work, data from the National Hydrographic Office, the Trusts’ SMRs and from public and private record collections were gathered. The curator does not do active field work to supplement this but will enhance the record by taking information compiled by others. Work undertaken by amateur divers and information from the Receiver of Wreck is important in this respect. Especially useful is data from the sidescan sonar and visual survey searches undertaken as part of environmental statements for licence applicants such as the oil, gas, water companies for dredging, pipe laying or other developments such as off-shore wind farms. Maritime surveys are undertaken by other bodies such as

CCW for ecological research and in support of designation or the establishment of marine nature reserves, the Hydrographic Office to map shipping obstacles, by sport divers and diving schools and, of course, by salvage companies. An effective Maritime and Intertidal database is an essential tool in study and protection and it is vital that the Welsh record, still somewhat embryonic, is given further resources specifically to fulfil its role within the management of the historic environment. We should, at the very least, ensure that the results of survey work undertaken by others, including institutions, developers and amateurs, are fed into our maritime database. Consideration could be given to funds for further survey work or historical research to enhance the database in a more proactive way.

Development Control The Maritime Database and the SMRs assist in protection of the marine heritage by informing those involved with the planning of marine developments and the license granting bodies so that the damage to important sites may be avoided. Environmental Statements are now required from potential developers before licences are awarded. The results of remote sensing equipment and sidescan sonar surveys of sea bed features can help inform us of hitherto undiscovered sites. Thus far the situation is similar to land archaeology. But the difficulties of survey in marine environments are pronounced and there must be a fair failure rate of detection. When approval has been granted, marine development is often on a vast scale with concomitant health and safety issues; the equivalent of the land ‘watching brief’ is virtually non-existent. A colleague who was given permission to watch dredging operations soon realised that any remains would have been mashed into matchstick sized pieces by the time he was able to see them, though the use of smaller, carefully operated equipment can achieve useful results (Adams et al 1990). Equally worrying is the scale of error in positioning pipelines or other sub marine objects, where being out by tens of metres is not uncommon. Development Control in the intertidal and coastal zones follows similar procedures as on land and depends upon the Trusts’ SMRs, survey and evaluations required by environmental statements for planning permission or government regulations. The recent coastal studies undertaken by the four regional Trusts for Cadw are of considerable assistance in the protection of the coastal and intertidal resource.

Statutory Protection The Welsh coast certainly has its share of maritime archaeology, be it in the form of wreck or sites connected with coastal management and former settlement. The importance and the condition of sites is as variable as on 195

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

projects, at least in England, is now permitted under the National Heritage Act 2002, while the 1979 Act (see below) may allow funding of similar projects in all territorial waters. Less draconian, though less specific, is protection by scheduling under the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act which prevents interference but allows visiting and non intrusive surface survey. Historic Scotland has recently used this legislation to protect the Scapa Flow fleet vessels, long used by sports divers for recreation, survey and training. It has also been used in Wales to protect the wreck of the Louisa, on the Taff near Cardiff, which, since impoundment for Cardiff Bay, is now classified as an inland waterway, outside the territorial waters within which the Protection of Wrecks Act may be used.

Fig 25.4 Contemporary illustration of the yacht Mary

land and, accordingly, we have to be selective in choosing those which merit statutory protection. Such protection may be granted in two ways. The specific legislation for subtidal archaeology is the Protection of Wrecks Act of 1973. This empowers the National Assembly for Wales to designate historic wreck sites which prevents any unlicensed interference from human activity, including non intrusive diving, incidental fishing and potting, as well as intrusive excavation, dredging, sea bed disturbance from developments and pipe laying. A license may be granted for some activities, and historically, the Secretary of State and successor bodies have sought guidance from the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites before designation or granting licenses. There are currently four types of licence - excavation, surface recovery, survey, and visitor/monitoring. Excavation and survey licences have, in the past, been granted for work on the designated wrecks of the Royal Yacht Mary (Fig 25.4) and the Bronze Bell wreck off Barmouth (Fig 25.5). However the act is undoubtedly seen as fairly drastic legislation, controlling, as it does, non-intrusive survey or even diver access. Consequently selection criteria for designation are severe and the numbers of designated sites few. It allows for no government expenditure on proactive site management and is almost entirely restrictive; it is also notoriously difficult to police. Financial support for underwater

Fig 25.5 Survey work on the Bronze Bell wreck, Barmouth

Scheduling is also the most appropriate mechanism for protection of sites within the intertidal zone, and a number of hulks, fish weirs, and prehistoric landscapes are protected in this way. The Severn Levels are also afforded some wider protection by inclusion in the non statutory Register of Historic Landscapes of Special Interest in Wales. We can also share in the protective legislation given by other bodies, such as CCW for Wales whose SSSIs, SACs and Marine Nature Reserves effectively serve to give protect the wider historic environment. Cardigan Bay, the Dee Estuary and various other parts of the Welsh coastline are included within these. There are only six designations of historic wrecks in Welsh waters, while one other has been recommended for designation and there are three scheduled hulks on the shore or within inland waterways. Clearly this is a minuscule proportion 196

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

of known wrecks, but there are now non-statutory criteria for the selection of wrecks for designation and the numbers are gradually increasing. There is no doubt that we need to increase this number to achieve a defensible sample representative of our maritime past. The tables given in Fenwick and Gale (1999) show this is far from the situation at the moment. There are, however, enormous difficulties in achieving such a representative sample: 1.There is little archaeological survey being actively pursued 2.The archaeological community is dependent upon divers discovering wreck sites informing the appropriate body of their discoveries 3.There is great difficulty in identifying and dating wreck sites 4.Older wrecks, which inevitably are of particular interest, will not survive above sea bed level and are difficult to discover; if they have cargo or armaments, these may often be visible on the sea bed but may merely reflect disposal or accidental loss at sea

Outreach, awareness, training and the role of the amateur Marine archaeology in Britain has traditionally been the preserve of the amateur. Any study of history of wreck discovery leading to designation, historic research on wrecks, and maritime survey and excavation will show that it is overwhelmingly the amateur diver with an archaeological or historical interest who has undertaken the work. Some is undertaken with considerable expertise and as the numbers of sports divers continue to increase there will continue to be a willing source of manpower, equipment and expertise which should be seen as an asset. It must be accepted, however, that some of the work by amateurs has not always been of the highest quality and there remains, perhaps, a suspicion of the professional taking over project work and restricting their involvement. It is vital to retain the goodwill and interest of the amateur diver and to work with them in raising standards in marine archaeological projects. Cadw funds the Nautical Archaeology Society to run training courses, and the Society also tries to engage sports divers by the promotion of schemes such as ‘Diving with a Purpose’ that include ‘Adopt a Wreck’ and the reporting and survey of newly discovered wrecks. The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act by which anyone who raises an artefact from the sea bed must inform the Receiver of Wreck appear to be working well, especially since the reorganisation of the Receiver’s work into one single post. The energetic administration of the recent Wreck Amnesty, by which previous defaulters were able to report past recovery within a specific period in 2001 without danger of prosecution, has been a triumph and has done much to raise awareness and a sense of responsibility within the diving world.

Site Management Cadw, with DCMS, Historic Scotland and Northern Ireland Department of Environment ensures that each designated wreck is subject to periodic inspection by professional underwater archaeologists to assess condition and stability. The government’s contractor for inspection of designated wrecks is currently the Archaeological Diving Unit based at St Andrew’s, which inspect each designated wreck every three years, inspect wrecks proposed for designation, and gives advice on management issues. In addition, Cadw remains indebted to amateur diving archaeologists who hold monitoring licences for most of the designated wrecks and who write supplementary reports on condition of wrecks, suggest wrecks for designation and undertake survey on wrecks where a survey licence is held. Management of designated wreck sites is in its infancy. We attempt to control human interference, but even this is difficult. Managing the wrecks from the hostile environment in which they lie, subject to storm and current damage, marine life burrowing and infestation, disintegration of wood and corrosion of metal is scarcely attempted. Studies have been undertaken on site stabilisation but little has been actively pursued, apart from cathodic protection to slow down the rate of corrosion, which is one method of management adopted for the 1886 submarine Resurgam (Fig 25.6). Lifting and conserving artefacts and ship structures has generally been the preferred method of protection. This is probably the correct way for the extraordinarily important wrecks, such as the Mary Rose or the Magor Pill boat, but costs of retrieval, immediate and long term conservation are phenomenal, and this is no answer for the less spectacular vessel. Stabilisation of sites on, rather than under, the sea bed should be attempted on important wrecks which do not merit recovery, if only to help us understand the mechanisms by which this can take place. But in other cases, survey and excavation to remove artefacts may be the only answer to retrieve information before the wreck

Fig 25.6 Contemporary photograph of the submarine Resurgam at Birkenhead

197

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

inevitably collapses to achieve its own stability under the sea bed.

Research agenda The technical difficulties of post-designation management are probably beyond the remit of research agenda, which should, perhaps, more usefully look at the: 1.Inadequacy of the database for protection of sites from development; and, in some cases, as a source for selection for designation 2.Lack of professional archaeological survey of subtidal archaeology and also, probably, of the intertidal zone 3.Lack of curation of and response to results of the survey by developers, sports’ divers, CCW, etc 4.Lack of curation and conservation of artefacts from excavation of wrecks and material declared to Receiver of Wreck 5.Inadequacy of some reporting on excavations on wrecks 6.Lack of professional archaeologists to undertake work in the subtidal waters of Wales Research agenda should consider methods of combating such weaknesses by examining methods of: 1.Identifying areas of the coastline and types of deposits of high potential in the marine historic environment 2.Identifying threats to the conservation of intertidal and maritime sites such as erosion, development, dredging and mineral exploitation and identify appropriate response mechanisms 3.Encouraging primary fieldwork, both amateur and professional, especially in potentially rewarding areas, and as a fast response after storm damage 4.Continuing and extending training for such fieldwork among amateurs and among staff in appropriate organisations with responsibilities for coastline and marine management 5.Raising awareness of the National Maritime Database 6.Encouraging partnership within appropriate large scale projects, either research based or development projects 7.Selecting for scheduling or designation sites of national importance within the intertidal and maritime zones; encouraging appropriate local authorities and conservation bodies to designate other non-statutory zones of importance b. Identification of candidates for future study I Early sites Given the highly unrepresentative nature of our known surviving subtidal archaeology, it is unnecessary to point out the importance of study and protection of any wreck datable before 1800. The numbers of datable wrecks of pre 1800 are extremely small and it is clearly important that, where past excavations have been undertaken on such wrecks, the results are fully published and artefacts properly curated and conserved. The find spots of

sixteenth- and seventeenth- century cannon deserve to be better documented and surveyed and, if they signify an adjacent in situ wreck, should be considered for designation. Similarly, the find spots of any artefacts of historic importance declared to the RoW deserve to be visited and surveyed and a mechanism for enabling this to happen should be initiated. II Technological advancement in later sites The numbers of wrecks known from the earlier nineteenth century are much higher once the adoption of iron hulls became commoner and the technological innovation of the cladding of hulls and incorporation of iron knees and other structural members has recently received study (Stammers 2000). Indeed two of the most recently protected wrecks, that of the Diamond in Cardigan Bay and the Louisa on the Taff at Cardiff (now scheduled) fall into that category. A case could be made for promoting survey and study of such vessels which would include examination of hulks within the intertidal zone. Survey in this dynamic environment needs to be repeated as storm damage and tidal erosion push back the borders of the shore. III Maritime Archaeology: the Welsh Dimension The maritime history of Wales has to be seen as part and parcel of that of Britain as a whole; there is little point in our working on vessels where better preserved examples survive off English or Scottish shores. Wrecks in Welsh waters may be important and demand our care but may only accidentally lie within Welsh waters; the Resurgam, for instance, was built at Birkenhead but just happened to sink off Rhyl. However the most important contribution we can make to maritime history could arguably be to concentrate on the study of vessels which were peculiar to our shores or shipping lines. The sixteenth-century slate carrying vessel, Pwll Fanog, the medieval Bristol Channel cargo vessel at Magwr Pill, or the cross- Atlantic cargo and passenger vessels like the Diamond are characteristic of functions relevant to Wales. Our resources might be best concentrated on those vessels where a Welsh dimension is especially distinct and certainly these humbler vessels must be viewed as having an importance of their own. IV Surveys on vulnerable areas of high potential Because of the inevitably disparate nature of our resource, it might be sensible to concentrate on area rather than period based studies. The Severn Levels is an obvious candidate for ongoing survey and excavation. Similarly, where there are known coastal early prehistoric landscape such as areas on the southwest shoreline of Pembrokeshire, survey should extend below the low tide mark, when opportunities arise. Less obvious candidates are, perhaps, off shore sand banks known as a danger to shipping where large numbers of vessels have foundered. The potential richness of the maritime archaeology on these shallows, both in terms of wreck and for early dry land sites, makes survey work especially valuable. Some 198

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

of these sand banks, especially those in the sheltered Bristol Channel, are attractive as sand deposits for dredging and thus are vulnerable to modern exploitation. Natural shipping hazards with rock gullies, such as at the Smalls, off Pembrokeshire would also reward intensive survey. The north coast of Wales seems likely to attract the development of off-shore wind farms, and therefore survey work in this area as part of environmental statements will doubtless enrich our understanding of the maritime resource in that area. We should be willing to analyse information revealed in such surveys to prioritise sites for further study and appropriate protection.

Bibliography Adams, J, van Holk, AFL, and Maarleveld, Th J 1990 Dredgers and Archaeology; Shipfinds from the Slufter, Archeologie onder water, 2e onderzoeksrapport, Ministerie van Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Cultuur Bell, MG, Caseldine, AE and Neumann, H 2000 Prehistoric Intertidal Archaeology in the Welsh Severn Estuary, CBA Research Report 120: York Dean, M, Ferrari, B, Oxley, I, Redknap, M and Watson, K 1992 Archaeology Underwater: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice, Nautical Archaeology Society and Archetype Publications English Heritage 2002 Taking to the Water, English Heritage’s Initial Policy for the Management of Maritime Archaeology in England. (held at English Heritage) Fenwick, V and Gale, A 1999 Historic Shipwrecks Discovered, Protected and Investigated, Tempus: Stroud JNAC 1989 Heritage at Sea: Proposals for the better protection of archaeological sites underwater, Joint National Archaeology Committee, National Maritime Museum: Greenwich, London [ISBN 0-948065-07-9] Nayling, N, Maynard, D and McGrail, S 1994 ‘Barland’s Farm, Magor, Gwent: A Romano-Celtic boat’, Antiquity 68, 596-603 Nayling, N 1998 The Magor Pill Medieval Wreck, CBA Research Reports 108: York Government White Paper 1990 This Common Inheritance, English Heritage: London Stammers, MK 2001 ‘Iron Knees in Wooden Vessels – an attempt at a typology’, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 301, 115-21

Unpublished CPAT 1997 Coastal Erosion Survey, Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust Report 194 (held at Trust, RCAHMW and Cadw) DAT 1996, 1997, 1998, 1998 Coastal Erosion Surveys, Dyfed Archaeological Reports (held at Trust, RCAHMW and Cadw) GAT 1994, 1996, 1997 Coastal Erosion Surveys, Gwynedd Archaeological Trust Reports 79, 198, 251, 253, (held at Trust, RCAHMW and Cadw) GGAT 1996, 1997, 1998 Coastal Erosion Surveys, GGAT Reports 96/015, 97/011, 98/010 (held at the Trust, RCAHMW and Cadw) Historic Scotland 1999 Policy Statement for Maritime Archaeology, (held at Historic Scotland, Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1SH)

199

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

26 A strategy for raw materials C Stephen Briggs RCAHMW Crown Building, Plas Crug, Aberystwyth SY23 5DT [email protected] www.rcahmw.org.uk

Abstract A limited range of the raw materials available for building, making artefacts and ornaments in historic and prehistoric Wales are discussed. Questions are posed about the quality of provenancing methodologies related to the availability, procurement and quality of: flint, axe-making stones, amber and jet-like materials, metal ores and some building stone. Particular attention is drawn to the value of sampling geologically recycled deposits to help understand their use as a resource in antiquity. The practices of using bog timber and peat on habitation sites, and in historical mining and metallurgy are noted and their potential to provide anachronous dates from excavations is explained. The combination of context-documented culturally diagnostic artefacts from excavated sites with at least one form of laboratory dating is felt to offer more secure chronologies for some early site types than do exclusive forms like radiocarbon dating. Long term, archaeologists and the public should be encouraged to collect materials from all geological milieux to help create comprehensive reference collections and gazetteers for visual comparison with artefacts and for laboratory provenancing studies. Introduction For those who in spite of the New Archaeology still think empirically, it is important to know what raw materials were available to early people in their environment. To ascertain this is important, before complex theories of resource procurement are proposed. When early artefacts were found near or on occurrences of similar raw materials, early antiquarians felt it reasonable to suggest their makers had been attracted by convenience and availability, or that perhaps adventitious discovery had led to local exploitation. This logical theory of coincidence is known as Environmental Determinism. In essence it may suggest that people tend to live by the law of least effort. Artefact provenancing, however, helped imbue a different attitude. It was promoted on the premise that Western

society’s forebears shared the aspirations and achievements of those who created it, particularly its great manufacturers, entrepreneurs and explorers. So the notion of trading raw materials or finished implements over long distances came easily. Indeed, it was and it remains an attractive if not a simple explanation of how our antecedents actually enjoyed quite decent economic values as noble savages. Then eventually along came more refined ideas. It was propounded that some British human forebears had probably been affected neither by knowledge of the raw materials’ whereabouts nor by the motive to trade or exchange. Instead, the movement of artefacts from the areas which supposedly produced them was explained by the motivation to collect raw material from locations pregnant with spirituality, a spirituality and memory then vested in any implement made from it. There is nothing wrong with speculative theory. Indeed, the essence of good science is an ability to create and to test it. Unfortunately, however, this is just one of many archaeological theories now taught without any reference to its place in the history of theorising and without indication of the complementary need for theory testing. Furthermore, archaeology (and other subjects) is taught by some who believe empiricism no longer has any place in training young minds. Theory now seems to enjoy such an exalted place in tertiary learning that few are being encouraged to observe and deduce in a way that might help understand the present environment (see Lynch, this volume), let alone to appreciate the circumstances which obtained during earlier periods of history or prehistory. It is the object of this brief note to draw attention to some of the fundamental questions about raw materials which must be addressed if archaeologists are serious about making artefact provenancing studies relevant to earlier societies in Wales. Its perspective is historiographic. For 201

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

sampling, it advocates a keen understanding of earth processes generally and of superficial geology in particular. Current approaches to laboratory technique are also considered, so as to offer a critical approach for research strategies which may lead to a more thorough comprehension of the early procurement and uses of raw materials.

1. Flint OGS Crawford’s 1917 Research Agenda Few regions of Britain can boast thematic research agenda of any age, though no doubt some interesting antiquarian critiques will emerge when more detailed histories of research come to be written. One such critique is the paper on Welsh flint written by OGS Crawford in 1917. Recognising the need to ‘study .. the distribution of flint and of flint implements in Wales..[a material which did]..not occur in situ in any of the rocks of Wales, but [was] found locally among the pebbles on the shore..[and]..on certain raised beaches’, he urged: ‘Any student who feels inclined to undertake this most useful enquiry should survey the coast and cliffs, yard by yard; he should estimate the percentage of flint pebbles to the whole, and he should enter his observations on the 6-in map. Ultimately, he will be able to compile a most valuable map showing the natural distribution of flint. Such a map will form part of the economic atlas of prehistory; for flint was one of the most important factors in the environment of primitive man’ (1917, 280). He compared the notional dependence of prehistoric people on flint to reliance on coal in his day and believed: ‘If we knew all the places where even a small supply of flint occurs, we should know where to look for prehistoric remains.’ But whilst confessing to a personal ignorance as to whether or not flint occurred in ‘drifts or gravels inland’, he was convinced of the need to investigate. Crawford advocated a programme of cortex examination, recommending systematic collection and even specifying how they should be carried in calico banker’s bags. ‘Specimens of the natural flint should similarly be taken in every case, with ... full details, written at once on the spot... [then]... deposited in a museum. The results should be published on the same lines as those suggested for dolmens, with maps, schedules and descriptive text, with, in addition, some illustrations of flakes (or, when found, of implements), natural pebbles, and photographs or drawings of any sections where they are observed in stratification in the sides of cliffs or quarries’. He went on to explain the importance of recording ‘the size, especially the maximum size, of both flakes and pebbles. Obviously, if pebbles only were used, the maximum size of the pebble will determine the size of the flake and the implement. Many – if not all – so-called pigmy flakes, scrapers and knives are, in reality, only the result of chipping from small pebbles; and the distribution of pigmy implements will probably be found to confirm this. So far as I know

they never occur in a region where large blocks of flint are found in the chalk. Usually, they are found outside chalk areas, in regions where the only available source was flint pebbles occurring in drift formations. There was a simple corollary to this argument. Where it could be proved that big enough pebbles occur locally, it might be reasonable to suppose that the larger implements were not imports. This still seems a valuable basis on which to build research agenda for understanding flint in Wales. Welsh flint study after Crawford Since Crawford, flint resources in prehistoric Wales continue to be the subject of speculation. On the one hand there exists a long standing belief that flint must have been traded from afar, even from East Anglia (Green et al 1982). And on the other hand it is felt that early (Mesolithic) nomadic and settled societies occupying inland areas, probably systematically collected raw materials, principally from beach deposits (Barton et al 1995, 89–92). A more cautious viewpoint argues the opportunistic exploitation of sparsely distributed inland surface occurrences throughout later prehistory (Briggs 1993,165; RCAHMW 1997, 5,18). Although there are useful geological references to the occurrence of flint in superficial deposits, and these are occasionally acknowledged by prehistorians, at present recorded sightings are geographically sporadic and often go unrecorded (Briggs 1984). Believing this material was either too small or would have been too badly flawed, or both, some prehistorians view drift flint as a medium unsuitable for striking artefacts (Shotton 1968). This tends to support the view that wherever flint tools are found (particularly the more finely flaked ones), they must have been imported. In some ways our knowledge of flint occurrences has advanced little since Crawford’s day, and significant questions still need addressing before supposition or theory can become accepted fact. In eastern and southern England (and indeed in France and Denmark), the physical examination of mined flint has certainly demonstrated that artefacts of precisely similar geochemical identity can occur tens, if not hundreds of kilometres from their sourced bedrock (Sieveking et al 1972). This could indeed mean that tools were being transported. But here, it must be stressed, ice is not the only long distance transporter of hard stones, and our understanding of sedimentary recycling processes subsequent to the formation of Cretaceous chalk flint is still imperfect. For Welsh flint occurrences, only long term research strategies involving laboratory work on both the recycled flint around the Irish Sea (Briggs 1986 1), on primary outcrops generally, and more particularly on mined flint, will bring us closer to an appreciation of whether prehistoric people used local forms of flint. 202

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

2. Metamorphic and igneous rocks for artefacts and monuments It has long been known that prehistoric people made tools from unusual stones. In the nineteenth century it was generally assumed that they had been scavenged from superficial deposits, the more exotic ones being ice-carried erratics. During the 1930s the Germans applied petrography to Neolithic axes from Köln Lindenthal and in 1935 this spurred on WF Grimes to initiate a programme of implement petrology which today continues through the work of the CBA’s dedicated Committee. Grimes’s team was responsible for ascribing specific rock types to British-Irish groups, numbered I–XXIII with alphabetic definition of sub-types when even closer petrographic matches could be distinguished. This work demonstrated how implements could be found long distances from where they would be expected in primary outcrops. What it did not tell was how they got there. There can be a psychological danger in dealing with new laboratory techniques: the existence and appeal of the method may be felt to guarantee its inquirer’s expectations. It is also tempting to assume that all laboratory specialists possess an expert understanding of every aspect of the occurrences or origins of the materials they examine. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case (Briggs 1976), and the quality of data available about recycled rocks generally and glacial erratics in particular hardly compares to the detailed petrographic information available about stone implements. Yet there exists a general belief that the detailed distribution and paths of all ice-carried erratics are known or can be reliably predicted.

Fig 26.2 Localities from which erratics in Nene Valley have derived (TEXT FIG A, from Sabine 1949).

However, although erratics have undergone so little petrography, what little work has been recently undertaken demonstrates that a wide repertory of far-travelled stones was available to the prehistoric implement makers, even outside those areas conventionally believed to have been glaciated (eg Williams Thorpe et al 1999). It is of interest from the standpoint of research on prehistoric Wales that Cumbrian erratics entered Wales from the north and northeast (Fig 26.1; Mellarde Reade 1893, FIG II; cf Macintosh 1879) whilst some Welsh erratics travelled east, well into England, where they have been identified in the Nene (Fig 26.2; Sabine 1949, Fig 1) and Thames valley areas.

Fig 26.1 Dispersion of Eskdale Granite mainly in North Wales and the Cheshire plain (from T Mellard Reade FIG II)

Although broad coincidences between some Cumbrian and Irish implement distributions and erratic scatters have been demonstrated (Briggs 1989; 1990), prehistorians still generally consider them irrelevant to the study of prehistoric behaviour patterns, preferring the notion that prehistoric tool makers ignored erratics (Bradley and Edmunds 1994). Indeed, rather than examine the fundamental geological and behavioural problems presented by the implement distribution patterns and the diverse resources from which they could derive, the title of Bradley and Edmund’s book (Re-thinking the Axe Trade) presumes commerce as its starting point for a discussion about more complex, social mechanisms of implement distribution. 203

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Fig 26.3 Flaked Graig Lwyd Axes: Axe 1, Henfaes Farm: Axe 2 Madryn Farm (from J Ll. Williams in Archaeol in Wales, 2001, Fig 1).

204

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Nowadays there is, however, an acknowledgment among scholars of Welsh prehistory that at least some stone implements may reflect the local availability of recycled stone (Lynch et al 2000; 55). And this should not be surprising, since when reviewing prehistoric implement production in southwest Wales, David and Williams concluded that many lithic production sites must exist ‘in any area where suitable erratic material can be picked up off the ground surface’ (1995; 454). Sadly, however, first hand observations like this, relating superficial geology to prehistoric lithic procurement, tend to be unusual. More disturbingly, references to geological literature are often absent from or enjoy only cursory mention in even major excavation and survey reports, with the result that many basic problems remain unacknowledged or ignored. So, for example, the interpretation of axe ‘factories’ as centres of production for long distance distribution requires petrographic and visual demonstration that all their flaked ‘factory products’ or ‘roughouts’ were really unfinished implements awaiting another production stage. In fact an examination of the best known group of supposedly ‘transported roughouts’ (from Cumbria) did suggest that some implements may have been deliberately sharpened by flaking so that they could be used for felling local softwood forests (Briggs 1989, 6–8, plates I–V). An important related problem underlies the assumption that flaked implements and polished implements in ‘Grouped Rock’ share precisely similar mineralogy. Yet wide variations have long been recognised in the mineral content of some ‘grouped rocks’ (most recently discussed by Berridge 1994), and it has been argued that mineral variation is likely to account for the differential working qualities of Group VI stone (Briggs 1989, 17–19). It has been further argued such differences in composition could explain how polished, rather than flaked axes of (for example) Group VI stone come to be found so far from their geological source. So the mineralogy of erratic pebbles probably makes them unsuitable for flaking without breaking. Conversely, the ‘factory products’ almost certainly have a mineral identity giving them a fissility which enabled fast production on the endless screes of Langdale (or other ‘factory’ sites). Although these arguments have far-reaching implications for the procurement of ‘grouped’ stone and the role of ‘factory’ sites, it is still difficult for archaeologists to check this theory by documenting any petrographic distinctions between axe forms. This is down to the poor quality and inconsistency of the implement petrographic records so far produced. Interestingly, the concept that some Welsh flaked and polished axes may have had different functions has been independently suggested for implements of Penmaenmawr ‘factory’ and Group VII rock (Fig 26.3: Williams 2000). Clearly the mineral composition of this

Group also merits closer examination. Perhaps the most disturbing conclusions so far reached about the quality of the petrographic research on axes, are those of Berridge (1994). They suggest the possibility that, depending on certain sampling variables and laboratory approach, there are cases where definitions of Groups I–V could be accommodated within one implement! For almost three-quarters of a century the CBA has employed dedicated petrologists to examine prehistoric stone artefacts. They have left a legacy of variable descriptive quality. Many of their records include only simple one or two word determinations of petrographic grouping. Sometimes they may identify a stone type as simply being ‘near’ a particular Group. Only rarely do these records include full descriptions of all the mineral variants found in the artefact matrix. Although these records now number several thousand (Clough and Cummins 1979; 1988), few include mineralogical observations sufficiently consistent or complete to make them reliable for comparative purposes. So questions relating to variations in grouped material, matches to primary outcrops, and the similarities of grouped artefacts to erratics could not be made on a scientific basis, even were more petrographic information available on recycled deposits. Future funding strategies aimed at producing provenancing data on lithic implements therefore need to urgently address data quality. Fortunately, most of the implement petrographic sections survive, and these should now form a major starting point for redressing the qualitative basis of this petrographic record.

3. Metals and Ores The belief that prehistoric people shared current industrial and commercial values has already been noted. This belief has been used to explain or justify why they supposedly dug metal mines in Wales in a parallel way to that in which flint was extracted in East Anglia (Crew and Crew 1990; Lynch et al 2000, 96–9). Concerns have been expressed about the quality of evidence available from excavated early mining sites; about the unknown longevity of primitive mining techniques, and also the absence of any clear connections between apparently prehistoric mining sites and early metal production (Briggs 1983; 1991 and 1994), but these have gone largely unheeded (eg Craddock 1995; O’Brien 1996). Archaeologists tend to believe that all metal ores have been mapped by geologists and furthermore that archaeometallurgical technique can provide indisputable matches between the analyses of finished metal artefacts and the ores which lead to artefact ‘provenancing’ (Ixer this volume). I also have misgivings about the arguments, historical documentation and excavation techniques which underpin the Bronze Age dating of Mount Gabriel, Co, Cork, Ireland, perhaps the best known of the British-Irish early mining sites (Briggs unpublished (1)). 205

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

i. Lead

ii Copper

Fig 26.4 Geochemical Maps of Wales i. Lead; ii Copper; from Briggs 1976a.

206

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

These beliefs need to be examined closely and the two main areas of study – ore occurrence and metallurgical analysis – should be separated. Archaeologists are unlikely to be able to sample and analyse metals, but they can certainly collect or encourage the recognition, discovery and sampling of ores. In doing that they may be able to gain some insight into the potentials of local resources. What constituted utilisable metallic mineral ores for prehistoric demands is still a matter of debate. Economic geologists nowadays seem likely to take a more optimistic view than the palaeometallurgists both as to where metallic ores can occur, and how best to prospect for them. So although geologists commonly use geochemistry (Anon 1986) and erratics (Grip 1953; Salonen 1986) for locating ore bodies beneath or held within superficial deposits, such means of prospection seem to be unacceptable to palaeometallurgists (eg Budd et al 1992; Craddock 1995). Yet there are probably no better ways of demonstrating how the people found dispersed mineral boulders or small occurrences of utilisable ore. If prehistorians were to accept that quantifiable amounts of ore do occur and are regularly found and mapped in superficial deposits (Fig 26.4; Briggs 1976a), then palaeometallurgists too might be persuaded that such resources are worth mapping and analysing for comparison with artefact analyses. Assessing regional patterns of trace element analysis (Fig 26.5; Northover 1981, FIG 2A) against local geology, both drift and solid, may thus offer basic indications of any relationships which may be recognised between the two datasets. At the moment belief in Bronze Age (O’Brien 1996) and Roman metal mining is widespread. The existence of Neolithic flint mines and stone quarries has been noted. The flint mine chronologies are supported by radiocarbon dating. But their dating is also based on stratigraphies containing cultural debris – pottery and stone tools. So they differ fundamentally from early metal mines, where radiocarbon dating currently lacks any diagnostically cultural stratigraphic dimension. In fact at present Bronze Age mines belong almost exclusively to a radiocarbon culture. The historiography of dating ancient metal mines cannot be rehearsed here in extenso, but it does seems worth repeating that metal mines are only acceptably ascribable to later prehistory because the strict criteria normally applied to dating other types of excavated site are not felt to apply to mines generally. Ideally, dating criteria for all site types ought to require that any dated context within a cultural horizon should draw upon a combination of at least two forms of evidence: the first, diagnostically cultural with one or more artefact of known typology. The second ought to come from a laboratory-based method calibration method, usually, though not necessarily, radiocarbon dating. Where archaeomagnetism is

Fig 26.5 The Distribution of Early Bronze Age metal Groups in Wales (FIG 2A from Northover 1980, p. 238).

employed, radiocarbon may be needed for confirmation. But only when at least two dimensions of evidence coincide – the cultural and the laboratory calibrated – should dating and context be scientifically acceptable. Unfortunately, at present the dating of virtually all supposedly later prehistoric British-Irish mining sites is currently underpinned only by radiocarbon dating (O’Brien 1996). Peat Exploitation and Radiocarbon dating It can easily be explained why radiocarbon dated charcoal can sometimes offer dates irrelevant to the site history which interests its investigators. Fossil peat fuel was common in many parts of the uplands in medieval and post-medieval Britain and Ireland (Linnard 1984; Owen 1969) and more generally in Europe (Beckmann 1846, 210–11). Peat satisfied both domestic and industrial demands in many seventeenth-century contexts, and there are references to its use for cupellation in sixteenthcentury Germany. Beckmann (1846, 211, fn 1) cites Hoy’s Anleitung zu einer bessern Benutzung des Turfs Altenburg, 1781, for a record as early as 1560 at the Freiberg smelthouses. More pertinently to the British-Irish situation, owing to wood exhaustion in southwest England, charcoal was reduced from peat, and in the seventeenth century it was carried to tin smelters as far distant from the Dartmoor peat cuttings as St Austell (Woolner and Woolner 1966). In 1649 turf was being used ‘to save wood’ in an iron furnace at Coed Ithel in Monmouthshire (Paar 1973, 37). And in 207

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Wales peat charcoal also smelted non-ferrous metals. For example in 1766 Thomas Herbert wrote to the Earl of Powys, with an estimate for building a hearth for smelting lead ore with peat at a mine in Montgomeryshire (NLW Powys MSS 3466). It would be interesting to see what sort of radiocarbon dates that produced if excavated! During widespread metallurgical experiments and usage on the continent during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Crookes and Rohrig 1869, II, 404–13), turf charcoal was eventually found to have ‘peculiar advantages for welding steel and iron, and [to excel] all other fuels in [that] respect’ (ibid, 412–13). The use of peat in metal smelting until well into the mid twentieth century, and reuse of bog timber in recent times is well documented. These historical practices pose problems to charcoal sampling strategies not only on mining sites, but also on medieval settlements (Kissock 1998; Manley 1990). It is regretted that greater attention has not been paid to these problems.

Amber and Lignite Amber and lignite artefacts are relatively rare occurrences in the Welsh archaeological record. Nonetheless, significant finds have been made over which important interpretational claims are made because there is widespread belief that both materials were traded long distances. The term amber covers many varieties of a resinous, fossil mineral, of which the principal component is succinic acid. Several amber-like related substances exist, some having little or no acid. These include copal, retinite and succinite as well as amber, all sharing similar environmental and geological origins. Although similar resins are known from Carboniferous coals, the ‘classic’ ambers are those which occur in much more recent, Tertiary lignite beds, where they usually belong to member species of the coniferales, commonly of pine. Known European Tertiary lignite occurrences with amber are usually of the Eocene-Oligocene eras. One recent study shows a close association between fibrous Tertiary brown-coals and amber occurrence in Holland, and demonstrates its widespread redistribution throughout many derivative glacial, fluvio-glacial, fluvial and marine clays and beach deposits through continuing erosional processes. Unsurprisingly, therefore, much if not most amber collected for study or for commercial purposes in historic times derived from recycled deposits, often under circumstances where ascertaining its true geological origins is now difficult, if not impossible. Unfortunately, techniques for finger-printing these resins are not as precise as the petrographic and geochemical methods employed to source inorganic minerals, and for over a century attempts have been made to devise suitable chemical or physical tests to better define amber

botanically and geologically. Beck and Shennan’s overview of analyses from Northern Europe and Britain (1991) depends upon the reliability of spectroscopy to distinguish with certainty between Baltic and non-Baltic amber. But current research tends to present analysis interpretation in terms of the degree to which it demonstrates Baltic trade. Rarely is it explained that research method is limited by constraints like that of locating and sampling all known or likely primary sources; the relative paucity of analyses from non-Baltic geological milieux; the need to assume geological origins when collected resins derive from recycled (usually beach or sea-borne) deposits, and that appropriate non-amber resins could have been successfully employed in prehistory (Conwentz 1896). With so many assumptions, and so many unknown factors, there remains the possibility that the spectral range of Baltic ambers might also include the identities of resins from non-Baltic coeval geological environments. Since some resins are more durable than others, it is also important to consider the degree to which important gaps in the prehistoric or historic distribution record may be attributable to differing uses, loss, or burial practice (Briggs 1983). Any research agenda for amber examination should demand: closer botanical correlation of resin types with tree species; the recognition and ascription of tree-types to particular lignite beds; definition of distinctions between resin ages, and sufficient a grasp of sedimentology to more effectively source recycled resins. Most importantly, an accessible gazetteer is needed listing all European geological milieux at which amber-related resins have been found, or at which they might be reasonably expected to occur (Briggs 1997). Sources of lignite and jet Although it is supposed that Whitby jet and other jet-like lignites or coals were traded in prehistoric times, similar materials are common components of glacial drifts and beaches around the Irish Sea. One of their most likely origins is the Tertiary lignites of Antrim and the Western Isles. Irish Sea material is a common component of many glacial deposits in Wales. Wales also possesses an immense variety of coals, as well as some more recent lignites, with which the Irish Sea material is intermixed. It is interesting to know that some of the jet-like artefacts are of material currently believed not to occur in Wales. However, to propose the existence of long-distance contacts having subjected the artefacts to laboratory examination without also having examined surface and beach collected lignites and shales (Sheridan and Davis 1998) seems unscientific (Briggs et al 2000). Prehistoric people would not know whether beads were made of succinite, retinite or amber; of lignite, anthracite, cannel coal or jet. Only the availability, strength and 208

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

suitability of the raw material would be important. Clearly, collecting programmes and experiments with raw materials are necessary before further conclusions are reached.

Building materials It is a commonplace among earth scientists that the first efforts at monument building are likely to reflect local geology. In Britain this applies to virtually all monuments but Stonehenge, the ‘bluestones’ from which were reputedly carried from Wales to Salisbury Plain. There is, of course, some debate about how far this carriage was necessary, and whether or not geological processes were responsible – processes possibly involving glacial movement or deposition by iceberg. A great deal of personal conviction if not prejudice has so far dominated the conduct of the debate. Unfortunately proper discussion of present day erratic distributions in southwest and southcentral Britain has been drowned out, not only by media sensationalism, but by academic publications of narrow geological dogma. As a preliminary, the superficial deposits of the Preselis and south Wales need long term mapping. It is hoped that any future research agenda will include invocations for younger inquirers to keep open minds and learn to view the evidence – or lack of it – more dispassionately. In 1938 and 1940 FJ North identified stones taken from some cairns and other sites then recently excavated by Cyril Fox. During the 1950s WE Griffiths obtained a petrographic report on the stones of the circle at Penmaenmawr. Although it interestingly suggests that several of the peristaliths were of Lake District rock, the report remains unpublished (NMR archive, Caernarvonshire Inventory). It would be useful to examine the stones from many more early sites in this way, and also to look at the petrography of Early Christian inscribed monuments, though it seems reasonable to suppose that most would have been fashioned from those materials which came readily to hand. North’s interests were not confined to prehistory, however. In 1925, he had already written an authoritative guide to the slate industry (North 1927) and in 1957 produced his study of the building stones of a single historic building, Llandaff Cathedral (North 1957). But he was not the first in the field, for Neaverson had written on the geology and building stones of the castles of North Wales a decade earlier (Neaverson 1947). A publication based on the papers given at the conference on Building Stone held in Cardiff in 2002 is anticipated with considerable interest. But until that appears, the works of North and Neaverson, and John Perkins’s useful guide to the building stones of Cardiff must suffice to indicate the great potential value of the approach (Perkins 1984). It has to be said that guides about city building

stones are one of the best ways to instruct, involve and interest a curious public in the use of stone, and in geology generally.

Conclusions: The problems of studying raw materials It has become a commonplace to subject ancient artefacts to physical or chemical examination. However, it has been hinted here how the very availability of novel scientific techniques can raise expectations of matches between primary mineral sources and artefact material demonstrating contacts or implement exchange mechanisms between or within early societies. Sometimes, the more sophisticated the laboratory method, the greater can be the expectation. This expectation would be fine if all primary stone and mineral occurrences were known to geological inquiry; if comprehensive databanks of mineral composition had been studied and if science understood the natural distributive mechanisms which scattered minerals and rocks through erosion (including recent fluvial and marine action), during geological time. Society today lives at considerable remove from the soils with which its farming forbears were so well acquainted. A greater familiarity with soils and drifts in outcrop today might influence the more systematic collection of unusual stones from the land and thus benefit an understanding of the relative availabilities of certain raw materials. Unfortunately, nowadays there is a tendency not to encourage the collection and analysis of randomlycollected raw materials, and drawing useful conclusions from laboratory investigation may be hampered by the serious limitations of the available geological research. Ideally, any future research agenda for raw materials in Wales should include: • Programmes stimulating children to obtain a better understanding of geology by learning to recognise both ordinary and the more unusual types of stone • Courses and popular texts encouraging adults to undertake more field observation including the collection of pebbles and curious stones • Resourcing museums to accept and identify more unusual, though not necessarily important or valuable stones • Resourcing more comprehensive reference collections of raw materials and publishing gazetteers indicating likely areas of occurrence or discovery • Encouraging laboratory and all other investigators about the value of long term research, persuading them that by investigating an archaeological problem they could also be adding to geological or botanical knowledge If an examination of the limited resource of prehistoric ornaments or tools is to have integrity, archaeologists must involve members of the interested public in searching for these raw materials through long term collecting strategies 209

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

(like collecting and provenancing pebbles from beaches (Ellis 1964)). These basic educational studies could usefully be promoted by some of the institutions already sponsoring analytical work for archaeology (Cadw, NMGW and the University Colleges). Interpretational claims or theories about the potential economic or status value of early artefacts will remain unproven and undemonstrable until there is better understanding of the varied contents of the soils beneath our feet.

Acknowledgments This summary essay owes much to several school and college teachers and has been inspired and informed (often unwittingly) by helpful friends and colleagues. Thanks are due to all, though the views expressed and any errors of fact must remain the responsibility of the author.

Bibliography Anon u d and 1988 Mineral Reconnaissance Programme, British Geological Survey Pamphlet, and Mineral Reconnaissance Programme Reports Barton, RNE, Berridge, PJ, Walker, MJC and Bevins, RE, 1995 ‘Persistent Places in the Mesolithic Landscape: an example from the Black Mountain uplands of South Wales’, Proc Prehist Soc 61, 81–116 Beck, C and Shennan, SJ 1991 Amber in Prehistoric Britain, Oxbow Monograph 8: Oxford Beckmann, J 1846 A History of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins, (W Johnson transl, 4th ed) Henry G Bohn: London Berridge, P 1994 ‘Cornish Axe Factories: Fact or Fiction?’ in N Ashton, and AEU David (eds) Stories in Stone, Proceedings of Anniversary Conference at St Hilda’s College, Oxford, April, 1993, Lithic Studies Society Occasional paper no 4, British Museum: London, 45–56 Bradley, RJ and Edmonds, M 1993 Interpreting the Axe Trade, CUP: Cambridge Briggs, CS 1976a ‘Notes on the distribution of some raw materials in later prehistoric Britain,’ in CB Burgess, and R Miket (eds) Settlement and Economy in the third and second millennium BC, BAR British Series 33: Oxford, 267–282 Briggs, CS 1976b ‘Stone axe ‘trade’ or Glacial Erratics?’ Current Archaeology 57, 303 Briggs, CS 1983 ‘Copper Mining at Mount Gabriel, Co Cork, Bronze Age Bonanza or post-Famine Fiasco?’, Proc Prehist Soc, 49, 317–333; also in J Briard (ed) Enclos Funeraires et Structures d’ Habitat du Nord-Ouest, CNRS: Rennes, 45–75 Briggs, CS 1984 untitled note requesting information on natural occurrences of flint in Wales, Archaeology in Wales 24, 10–11 Briggs, CS 1986 ‘Transported Flint in Ireland: a Charter of Investigation for prehistory and geology,’ in M Hart and G de G Sieveking (eds) Proc Fourth Internat Congr on Flint, Brighton 1983, CUP: Cambridge, 185–90 Briggs, CS 1989 ‘Axes of Cumbrian Stone’ , Archaeol Jnl 146 [1991], 1–43 Briggs, CS 1990 ‘Irish Stone Axes: a Review’, Ulster Jnl Archaeol 51, 5–20 Briggs, CS1991 ‘Early Mines in Wales: the date of Copa Hill’, Archaeol in Wales, 31, 5–7 Briggs, CS 1993 ‘The Bronze Age’ in JL Davies, and DJ Kirby (eds) The County History of Cardiganshire, vol 1, University of Wales Press: Cardiff, 124–218 Briggs, CS 1994 ‘Reply to Budd et al on Ancient Mines’, Archaeol in Wales, 34,13–15 210

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Briggs, CS 1997 ‘The Discovery and Origins of some Bronze Age Amber Beads from Ballycurrin Demesne, Co Mayo,’ Jnl Galway Archaeol and Hist Soc 49, 104–121 Briggs, CS, with Caseldine, AE, Darvill, TC, Tavener, PN, Wilkinson, JL and Williams, GH 2000 ‘A Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement and Burial Complex at Llanilar, Ceredigion’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 146 [1997], 13–59 Budd, P, Gale, D, Pollard, AM, Thomas, RG and Williams, PA1992 ‘Early Mines in Wales: a reconsideration’, Archaeol in Wales 32, 36–8 Clough, TH McK and Cummins, WA 1979 Stone Axe Studies, CBA Research Report 23: London Clough, TH McK and Cummins, WA 1988 Stone Axe Studies: volume 2, CBA Research Report 67: London Craddock, PT 1995 Early Metal Mining and Production, University Press: Edinburgh Crawford, OGS 1917 ‘Archaeological Surveys in Wales: some suggested subjects’, Archaeol Cambrensis 72, 274–87 Crew, P and Crew, S (eds) 1990 Early Mining in the British Isles, Plas Tan y Bwlch Occasional Paper 1: Porthmadog David, AEU and Williams, GH 1995 ‘Stone axe-head manufacture: new evidence from the Preseli Hills, west Wales’, Proc Prehist Soc 61, 433–460 Ellis, C 1964 The Pebbles on the Beach, Faber: London Green, HS, Houlder, CH and Keeley, LH 1982 ‘A Flint Dagger from Ffair Rhos, Ceredigion, Dyfed, Wales’, Proc Prehist Soc 48, 492–501 Grip, E1953 ‘Tracing of glacial boulders as an aid to ore prospecting in Sweden’, Econ Geol 48, 715–725 Kissock, J 1998 ‘Excavation of a house platform on Cefn Drum, Pontardulais’, Archaeol in Wales 38, 71–3 Linnard, W, 1984 ‘Bogwood: origin, harvesting and uses’, Nature in Wales 3 (new series), 74–8 Owen, TM 1969 ‘Historical Aspects of Peat-cutting in Wales’, in G Jenkins (ed) Studies in Folk Life: Essays in honour of Iorwerth C Peate, Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, 123–156 Mackintosh, D 1879 ‘Results of a systematic survey in 1878 of the direction and limits of dispersion, mode of occurrence, and relation to drift deposits of the Erratic Blocks or boulders of the West of England and East of Wales’, Quart Jnl Geol Soc 35, 425–455 Manley, JG 1990 ‘A Late Bronze Age landscape on the Denbigh Moors, north-east Wales’, Antiquity 64 (244), 514–526 Maw, G1864 ‘Notes on the Drift deposits of the Valley of the Severn, in the neighbourhood of Coalbrook Dale and Bridgnorth’, Proc Geol Soc 131-145

Reade, T Mellard, 1893 ‘Eskdale Drift and its bearing on Glacial Geology’, Geol Mag 9–20 Neaverson, E 1947 Medieval Castles in North Wales: A study of sties, water supply and building stones, University Press: Liverpool North, FJ 1927 The Slates of Wales, (2nd ed), National Museum of Wales: Cardiff North, FJ 1940 ‘A Geologist among the cairns’, Antiquity 14, 377–94 North, FJ 1957 The Stones of Llandaff Cathedral, University of Wales Press: Cardiff O’Brien, WB1996 Bronze Age Copper Mining in Britain and Ireland, Tring: Shire Archaeology Perkins, JW 1984 The Building Stones of Cardiff, Cardiff: University Press RCAHMW 1997 An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments of Brecknock, vol I (i), Prehistoric burial and ritual monuments and Settlement to AD1000, RCAHMW: Aberystwyth Salonen, V-P 1986 ‘Length of boulder transport in Finland’, Prospecting in Glaciated Terrain, 1986, Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:London, 211–215 Sheridan, JA and Davis, M 1998 ‘The Welsh ‘Jet Set’ in prehistory: a case of keeping up with the Joneses?’in AM Gibson and DDA Simpson (eds) Prehistoric Ritual and Religion: Essays in honour of Aubrey Burl, Sutton Publishing: Stroud, 148–62 Shotton, FW 1968 ‘Prehistoric Man’s Use of Stone’, Proc Geol Soc 79, 477–92 Sieveking,G de G, Bush, P, Ferguson, J, Craddock, PT and Hughes, MJ 1972 ‘Prehistoric flint mines and their identification as sources of raw material’, Archaeometry 14, 151–76 Thorpe, O Williams-, Aldiss, D, Rigby, IJ, and Thorpe, RS 1999 ‘Geochemical Provenancing of Igneous Glacial Erratics from Southern Britain, and Implications for Prehistoric Stone Implement Distributions’, Geoarchaeology 14, 209–246 Williams, J Ll 2000 ‘Flaked Graig Lwyd Axes (Group VII) and their Regional Distribution in North Wales’, Archaeology in Wales 40, 14–19 Woolner, DH and Woolner, AH 1966 ‘Peat Charcoal’, Jnl Industrial Archaeol 3, 270–1

Unpublished Briggs, CS (1) Flint: its natural occurrence and use in prehistoric Wales and the Welsh Marches Briggs, CS (2) A History and Archaeology of Copper Mining on Mount Gabriel, Co Cork, Ireland Copies of this may be obtained from the writer pending its publication NLW Powys MSS 3466 1766 June 14th Thomas Herbert London to the Earl of Powys at Ludlow, Salop NMR archive, unpublished MSS Caernarnvonshire Inventory 211

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

27 Foundered or founded on rock? – a future for Welsh provenance studies Robert A Ixer School of Earth Sciences University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT [email protected]

Abstract Good scientific provenancing of lithic, ceramic or metal artefacts is achieved by matching the material constituents of artefacts to their correct geographical source(s). It depends on an accurate and precise description of these, often very altered, constituents and the ability to identify their precise, natural, unaltered, raw material precursors. Most scientific provenancing is undertaken using petrographical and/or geochemical techniques and these, or better still, combinations of them, can be highly successful. However, the chances of success depend upon both geological factors inherent in the raw materials, including the extent of their outcrops and anthropogenic factors, notably the degree of preparation and physical and chemical alteration of the raw materials that take place during the artefact’s manufacture. These factors are reviewed as a background and explanation for the proposal that a central resource be established to bring together Welsh raw materials, well-contexted artefacts and all relevant literature and physical analyses. This assemblage should form the basis for creating a dedicated, geoarchaeological database, incorporating existing, acceptable, geochemical and petrographical data but mainly comprising new data. The next couple of decades are the last in which this can be done.

Introduction Whilst it is true that no provenancing data are better than incorrect data sound provenancing has much to contribute to archaeology. It is therefore discouraging that when available methods for scientific provenancing have become more sophisticated, discriminatory and less destructive there is a growing distrust of the concept and an unwillingness in both the archaeological and geological communities to commit appropriate resources to it. ‘The days of provenancing archaeological artifacts with a hand lens and a garden full of rocks are over - or should

be’ (Ixer 1994, 10). The archaeological literature has accepted and repeats many examples of precise provenancing based on poor quality or insufficient data obtained solely from hand specimen identification. Hence expectations, especially in terms of geographical exactitude and speed of reply, have become unrealistic, as are the beliefs that macroscopic identification is sufficiently diagnostic to obviate the need for further petrography and that common lithologies are simple to provenance (when the exact opposites are true). Too often the request to identify and provenance artefacts (especially lithics) has a poorly defined purpose, to be an afterthought or perhaps sought for the appearance of completeness. Little or no explanation of the context or significance of the artefacts, or what is expected from the provenance data, is given. As a consequence, data that are too detailed or inappropriate and of little apparent use to the archaeologist are produced. Little that is useful has been achieved and no one is satisfied. Too often insufficient funding is offered. For a quick hand specimen identification funding is not necessary, but it is precisely these identifications that are the root cause of many errors. The difference between ‘this is’ and ‘this looks like’ or between ‘this is a Lower Carboniferous sandstone with many petrographical similarities with sandstones cropping out at’ and ‘this is a sandstone, the nearest sandstones are at’ is the difference between science and guesswork. Traditionally universities and museums have given considered identifications and provenancing information at no charge to the enquirer. This is no longer possible for, at the very least, all preparation time and costs have to be accounted for. Indeed, a considered identification is time consuming and deserves an appropriate reward.

Scientific constraints on provenancing. Scientific provenancing as defined here is the application of field and laboratory geological techniques to help 213

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

provide as precise a geographical source as possible for an artefact or for the raw materials used in that artefact’s manufacture. The standard methods for the identification of geological raw materials (the necessary first steps towards scientific provenancing) are: a Petrographical, the visual identification of minerals and textures. The majority of lithics and ceramics can be identified visually using a hand lens or petrographically using a transmitted light microscope. Within the last decade the latter method has been supplemented by reflected light petrography to give ‘total petrography’ (Ixer 1994) where all the mineralogy can be investigated. Finegrained materials, where petrography is difficult, are identified by X-ray diffraction techniques or scanning electron microscopy, ores by reflected light petrography and metals by metallography. b Geochemical, the chemical characterisation of material. All artefacts can be chemically characterised and the most common method is to determine the concentrations of selected trace elements. In the case of metals, trace element geochemistry may be augmented by stable isotope geochemistry, especially that of lead (Faure 1986). Strangely, other than for fossiliferous rocks, geological dating of raw materials using their radiometric or palaeomagnetic properties has not been used very often as a provenancing tool in British archaeology. Exceptions, showing how effective this sort of dating can be, include Kelley et al (1994) using potassium-argon dating for lithics and Budd et al (1999) using lead isotope dating of ores to provenance very early metal. The likely success of scientific provenancing depends upon a number of factors. A Geological. The nature and natural distribution of the raw materials. The petrographically distinctive, glaucophane-bearing schists found within a very limited number of small outcrops beneath the Marquis of Anglesey’s Monument at Llanfairpwllgwyngyll close to the Menai Straits are unique in Britain. The presence of clasts of this schist within the non-plastic component of Bronze Age pottery from Anglesey is therefore clear proof of local manufacture for these pots (Williams and Jenkins 1997). In this rather extreme example provenancing was very precise and would have been rapid, simple and cheap, as it was based on a pre-existing, adequate geological database. Altered dolerites are common and widely distributed with large outcrops, but many have sufficiently distinctive petrographical and geochemical properties that they can be distinguished from each other. The best known example of Welsh lithic provenancing is of dolerites, namely the Preseli Spotted Dolerites that comprise many of the Stonehenge Bluestones. By using some petrography and

trace element geochemistry, including extending an existing geochemical database, Thorpe et al (1991) were able to match (provenance) individual bluestones to a limited number of outcrops at Preseli. Later, Ixer (1996; 1997), using very detailed petrography, in both transmitted and reflected light, moderated by the geochemical work of Thorpe et al (1991), felt able to refine further the match, so identifying individual bluestones with specific outcrops. In both cases the workers were able to establish the geological provenance of the stones, namely where the rocks were formed. Provenancing in this example was straightforward but time consuming and costly. The majority of the costs were spent in extending the geological database into a geoarchaeological one dedicated to the provenancing problem. Somewhat controversially Thorpe et al (1991) argued that the Stonehenge monoliths were exploited from glacial erratics on Salisbury Plain rather than taken directly from their Preseli outcrops, so suggesting that for the bluestones their archaeological and geological provenances are different. This distinction between the two sorts of provenance is as important as it is contentious and the current inability to recognise the difference is a serious problem in lithic studies. In the case of the exploitation of primary, in situ raw materials the geological and archaeological provenances are identical to each other and to the geographical location of the resource. However, for naturally transported materials (secondary sources), be they gold grains from a gold placer deposit, flint and chert from recent river or marine gravels, or lithics from glacially transported boulder clay the geological and archaeological sources have become separated. The archaeological provenance (the site of exploitation) has been moved from the geological provenance (original outcrop), sometimes, as in the case of gold grains, huge distances. It is probable that the significance of secondary sources has been undervalued in provenance studies, for example the role of glacial erratics as the raw materials for polished stone axes. Although Briggs (1976; 1989; 1990 and this volume) and Williams-Thorpe et al (1999a) have argued that erratics could be a viable source for some polished stone axes most workers are happier with the concept of dissemination of axes from discrete factory sites. Finally many archaeologically important raw materials are not very chemically or petrographically approachable. Common and/or fine-grained lithologies like shale, siltstone, sandstone, altered volcanics but notably flint, chert, marbles, clay and quartz sands have little to offer routine geochemistry or petrography. Provenancing of these materials requires extensive fieldwork and complete sampling married to very detailed geochemistry and is time consuming. Most of the high cost is required to establish suitably sensitive techniques and to create the geoarchaeological data base. 214

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

B Secondly the amount and degree of preparation needed to make the artefact. Since most preparation methods distance an artefact from its raw materials in terms of chemistry and physical properties there is usually an inverse relationship between the degree of preparation needed to produce an artefact and the chances of its successful provenancing. For mono-component artefacts like axe heads or building blocks that have only undergone physical fashioning and perhaps a little heat treatment, there is a high chance of successful provenancing given a suitable lithology. Multi-component, complex materials like mortars or claybased artefacts, including ceramics, refractories, brick and tiles comprise clay ± a non-plastic component. The nonplastic component is most often lithic but may be organic (dung, straw, bone) or even earlier pot and the presence of more than one non-plastic component is possible. The artefact therefore combines two or more raw material signatures that may themselves have been modified prior to mixing – for example, the clay may be levigated, the non-plastic component size-graded or burnt. Finally the clay-non-clay mixture is heat-treated so that many of its components undergo further mineralogical and geochemical modification. Metals are, of course, the most difficult. They comprise just one, albeit the most valuable, end product of a number of such products including slags, ashes, gases, burnt clays etc. These in turn are formed at the end of a complex process or usually more than one process involving the mixing and radical heating of beneficiated ore(s), fluxes, fuels, pre-existing metals plus furnace linings, components that are themselves often highly processed. It is little wonder that successful metal provenancing (matching metal to ore) is contentious and, once metal recycling becomes significant, probably impossible (Budd et al 1995, 1996).

Developments in lithic provenancing and its future Provenance studies on polished stone axes, including many from Wales, undertaken over the last fifty years by the Implement Petrology Committee (now the Implement Petrology Group) have been based almost exclusively on transmitted light petrography (Clough and Cummins 1979; 1988; Davis 1997). These studies have progressively demonstrated one of the main problems in lithic provenancing methodology namely ‘petrographic drift’. In the case of the IPC this has resulted in the broadening of the definition of each axe group leading to a less, rather than a more, secure provenance. Initially when the axe groups were being determined and their provenance sought there was a strong internal consistency amongst the small group of petrographers leading to a set of ‘tight’ definitions but as the group of workers changed and expanded so this cohesion has progressively become

eroded. Indeed in order to counter this erosion a number of the axe groups have been and/or are being redefined and reassessed using combinations of petrographical and nonpetrographical techniques (Markham 1997; Markham and Floyd 1998; Williams-Thorpe et al 1999b; Jones and Williams-Thorpe 2001). These reassessments have been part of a long term investigation of the strengths and limitations of various petrographical, geophysical and geochemical techniques or combinations of them in lithic provenancing (WilliamsThorpe and Thorpe 1993; Stillman 1996; Potts et al 1997; Mandal 1997; Williams-Thorpe et al 1999b). A major finding of these studies has been that a combination of total petrography plus geochemistry (using either portable or non-portable XRF techniques) is very effective in provenancing lithics often to highly defined areas (Ixer 1994; 1997). The most recent work (Ixer et al in press) shows that it needed three petrographers (using transmitted and reflected light) plus a geochemist (using portable XRF) to provenance twelve ‘random’ axe heads and illustrates the degree of effort, expertise and cost that is required. It shows the limitations of a single geologist/petrographer and that further advances, including rectifying the mistakes of the past, require the use of more than one independent determinative technique, team work including a number of specialised petrographers and a dedicated geoarchaeological database. It is these last two requirements that are the problem. Finding a competent petrographer to undertake archaeological work is becoming increasingly hard and teams will be even more difficult to create. The skill is perceived to be old fashioned, time consuming, difficult to learn, dull to teach and unpopular with undergraduates. The use of the electron microprobe or scanning electron microscope in mineral identification has become a routine alternative to optical petrography so weakening the need for the skill. Classically trained petrographers will be difficult to replace when retired. It is therefore important to do as much archaeologically related petrography as is possible whilst teams may still be created from qualified petrographers. There is also the need to produce archaeologically dedicated geological databases. Despite there being a huge petrographical and geochemical database built up over the last hundred years or so, many rocks have yet to be fully characterised. Research on common rock types including many fine-grained or altered lithologies has been neglected in favour of ‘exotic’ and often coarse-grained rocks. The present day, detailed geographical location of a rock, its outcrop (geological provenance) and/or its natural dispersion pattern is of less significance to most geologists than is an understanding of the origin and subsequent history of the rock, its petrology. Hence fine-scale petrographical and geochemical variations in a rock, those over tens or 215

Towards a research agenda for Welsh archaeology: proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru conference, Aberystwyth 2001

Main/Minor Ore Minerals

Trace Minerals

Tonnage, Grade, Continuity

Beneficiation and Results

Metals in ‘Smelter Charge’

Chalcopyrite, malachite, copper-bearing limonite, minor pyrite, marcasite. Coarse-grain size. Few intergrowths.

Copper sulphidesdigenite, djurleite, covelline, spionkopite Copper-oxides – Cuprite, tenorite. Native copper, Sphalerite, manganese oxides

High tonnage, continuous ≈10% Cu metal

High grade chalcopyrite-malachite ± Cu-bearing limonite concentrate by hand-cobbing

Cu, Fe trace Ni, Ag, Mn

Bronze Age Ores 1a Copper-veins 1b Copper-vug infilling

High tonnage, discontinuous ≤10% Cu metal.

By-product Bronze Age Ores? 2a Copper ddu

Amorphous ironcopper-bearing oxides/hydroxides, Minor malachite Powdery

None

Tonnes locally, discontinuous.