From Mrs Gillian Varndell
Sir: Having been involved in the publication
of the current series of fascicules on
excavations at Grimes Graves, I should like
to make one or two comments on your
article `Grimes Graves mined for ritual
reasons', (October).
It seems to me there is confusion between
the kind of ritual woven into daily
life, and formalised ritual practice. Without
doubt there was ritual activity at Grimes
Graves but I question the significance of
this as motive force. One has to be very
careful about the interpretation of Pit 15
(the `Goddess' pit discussed in fasc 3) - I
remain convinced that there are elements
of fakery. Even if entirely genuine, the
excavator A Leslie Armstrong's explanation
of the deposit as propitiatory,
following disappointment at the poor return
on much labour, is satisfactory.
I have always been wary of the contention
that most tools were made of
non-mined flint. Such material would have
been available and adequate for day-to-day
needs in some areas, but I believe that
taphonomic processes - the processes allowing
some but not other deposits to
survive - are obscuring the picture. For
every non-functional axe destined for ceremonial
or other symbolic purpose there
must have been many workaday tools. A
massive amount of timber felling and construction
activity during the later Neolithic
is evidenced by the increasing number of
enclosures of that date. At Hindwell in
Powys, for instance, an enclosure with an
estimated circumference of 2.35km might
have taken 1,400 oak posts (see BA, May),
a total of perhaps 4,500 tonnes of good
Welsh oak, and a great marketing opportunity
for someone who knew where to lay
hands on a supply of decent axes.
Charles le Roux, the French archaeologist
working on the extraction of stone
for axes at Sélédin, estimated the output of
axes at probably less than one per cent of
the rock quarried, for purely practical reasons.
By no means all the floorstone
extracted at Grimes Graves would have
been suitable for the manufacture of quality
axes and much raw material was discarded
on site. Thus it may appear that excessive
amounts of stone and flint were extracted
compared with implements produced.
That ritual activity occurred is not in question,
but this does not exclude the primacy
of a mainly economic motive.
Yours sincerely,
From Mr David Baker and Mr Bob Meeson
Sir: Do we preserve listed buildings too
much (`Buildings in the grip of preservation',
October)? Certainly the architectural
heritage is appreciated more than it was 20
years ago, as the annual rate of demolition
of listed buildings has declined sharply. But
good conservation is not just a question of
keeping large numbers of old buildings
standing whatever their appearance or condition;
witness, for example, the `façadism'
of the 1960s. If historic buildings are to
retain their character and value, alterations
and repairs must be informed by an appreciation
of the factors which make them
significant. The acquisition of such understanding
may necessitate building analysis
and associated historical research.
The arrival of PPG15 should not be
held solely responsible for any increase in
refusals to allow change to historic buildings,
or of requests for adequate
information. The advice note reflects what
has come to be regarded as the reasonable
application of existing planning measures.
It is now understood that informed repairs
and alterations depend upon an adequate
awareness of historical importance, architectural
style, and building fabric and
construction. To proceed without this may
result in unnecessary loss of heritage as a
result of uninformed works.
Applications to local planning authorities
for permission to carry out works upon
historic buildings will rarely, if ever, be
determined on purely archaeological
grounds, and it would be an exaggeration
to claim that archaeologists are gaining, or
would wish for the upper hand in that
process. It is incumbent upon specialists
from a range of disciplines to contribute to
the processes that will provide for the
conservation of architectural heritage.
However, conservation works must acknowledge
contemporary ideas of
function, comfort and safety if the community
at large is expected to maintain the
historic building stock.
The recently-formed Association of
Local Government Archaeological Officers
has been consulting widely about the levels
of recording that might reasonably be required
in order to inform works upon
historic buildings and will shortly publish a
document for professional guidance.
Yours faithfully,
From Mr Oliver Jessop
Sir: The preservation of historic buildings
is a highly complex and emotive subject. It
involves a variety of interested parties each
with a different agenda, often resulting in
tension and disharmony.
If our historic buildings are to survive,
they must be maintained and lived in. A
programme of renovation and repair is
ultimately necessary and we must take all
available opportunities to record structural
details, prior to their destruction or concealment.
It is better to have a controlled
photographic or illustrative record than
nothing at all. The only way this can be
achieved is by cooperation with other
building professionals and a sensitivity to
their needs and deadlines. We should perhaps
concentrate on selectively recording
areas most under threat, and only survey
the remaining fabric to a lower level to
establish the overall structural context.
PPG15 offers an exciting opportunity
for buildings archaeology, and we must
take advantage of it by not alienating ourselves
from architects and conservation
officers in the process.
Yours sincerely,
From Mr Glyn Jones
Sir: I refer to the discovery of another llys
at Newborough, Anglesey (`Welsh royal
court found in blown sand', October).
Since earlier discoveries appeared to confirm
the presence of Llywelyn ap
Iorwerth's llys at Aberffraw, why would
there have been a second llys at Newborough,
only five miles from Aberffraw?
Even if they were of a different date, would
this be a sufficient explanation?
Yours faithfully,
David Longley, of Gwynedd Archaeological
Trust, writes: Medieval Gwynedd was ruled
through a number of administrative areas, or
`commotes', each with a `llys' at its centre. There
were six `commotes' on Angelsey - one was
Malltraeth with its `llys' at Aberffraw; another
was Menai centred on Rhosyr. The two sites
were contemporary.
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1997
Grimes Graves
GILLIAN VARNDELL
Assistant Keeper, Prehistoric Department
British Museum
London WC1
21 October
Listed buildings
DAVID BAKER
BOB MEESON
Stafford
24 October
OLIVER JESSOP
University of Durham
29 October
Welsh courts
GLYN JONES
Newark
9 October