British Archaeology, no 6, July 1995: Letters


Mesolithic food

From Ms Christine Ivory

Sir: New evidence for Mesolithic subsistence patterns is always welcome (Mesolithic food industry on Colonsay, June), but to promulgate the idea that Mesolithic groups fell back on plant foods only after suitable game became unavailable is to persist with the outmoded `man the hunter' paradigm.

The role of plant foods in prehistoric diets is seriously under-represented owing to its scarcity in the archaeological record; and a find such as the large-scale processing of hazelnuts is of great value. Unfortunately, the false dichotomy set up by opposing vegetarianism and carnivorous diets ignores the potential for a continuous use of plants by Mesolithic groups. Plants would have been playing an increasing role by this period, when a wider diversity of all subsistence resources was becoming available in northern Europe.

Yours sincerely,
CHRISTINE IVORY
Department of Archaeology
University of Newcastle
12 June

Farming revolution

From Dr Keith Dobney

Sir: I was very interested to read that a recent study of animal bones from Launceston Castle had shown possible evidence for livestock improvement as early as the 16th/17th century (Early start for Agricultural Revolution, April).

Similar and even earlier evidence has recently emerged from a study of animal-bone assemblages from Lincoln. A large collection of sheep lower limb bones, dated to the first quarter of the 16th century, showed these sheep were much more robust than earlier counterparts. Also, cattle remains from the Civil War period suggest they were substantially larger then than in earlier periods. The evidence seems to suggest that systematic stock improvements were underway, at least in parts of the country, with the move towards pasture enclosure during the Tudor period.

Yours faithfully,
KEITH DOBNEY
Environmental Archaeology Unit
University of York
1 May

Disability Bill

From Dr Margaret Faull

Sir: I write as someone responsible for a site which will be affected by the Disability Discrimination Bill, having listed buildings open to the public, and who is also registered disabled (Defusing the disability time bomb, June).

At the National Coal Mining Museum for England (NCMME), from some four years before I became disabled, we adopted a policy of attempting to make as much of the site as possible accessible to visitors with disabilities, while at the same time preserving the architectural and historical integrity of the buildings. By involving the local authority's access group, we were better able to appreciate problems not immediately apparent to the able bodied. The result is that most of the site, despite being preserved as a colliery, is accessible to people with disabilities, and the museum has won four major awards for disabled access. We believe the ramps and lifts installed are unobtrusive.

We would be most averse to making structural alterations to the historic fabric of the buildings, and on the one hand I hope that such alterations would not be enforced by this new legislation. But on the other, I am only too well aware that one of the reasons why local authority access officers appear `often extraordinarily doctrinaire' is that all too often damage to the historic fabric is used as an excuse to avoid the trouble and expense required to permit disabled access. In the first year of the ADAPT Awards, in which the NCMME won the museums category, the Committee made no awards in the cinemas category because none met the criteria. Each cinema had a range of arguments why in their particular case it was impossible to provide disabled access, and it is this attitude which has made the legislation necessary.

It is often argued that providing facilities for wheelchair access is catering at great expense for a very small proportion of the population. We find that these facilities are appreciated by a wide range of our visitors, including the elderly and those in poor health, and parents of small children, especially those in pushchairs.

Yours faithfully,
MARGARET FAULL
Director, NCMME
Caphouse Colliery
Wakefield
10 June

National Trust

From Prof Peter Salway

Sir: I was pleased to see your interview of David Thackray (June), but sorry to see that the stereotyped image of the National Trust will be little dented by the article. As the Society of Antiquaries' nominee on the Trust's Council, I have been able to observe the place of archaeology in the Trust; and I have found the organisation led by Dr Thackray impressive, both in the quantity of its work and its quality. Its old-fashioned aspect is a certain pleasing reluctance to blow its own trumpet.

It is unfair to label the Trust as `intellectually passive vis-a-vis archaeology'. Its first priority, under the National Trust Acts, has to be the protection of its properties. However, the Trust is nowadays acutely aware that understanding its monuments, historic buildings, and historic landscapes is central to their proper management, and to their presentation to the public. Some of the current research is undertaken directly by the Trust's own staff (for example, excavation at Chastleton), some in collaboration with others (such as the re-interpretation of Bodiam Castle by the Royal Commission).

Perhaps the area in which the spin-off from its archaeological and other environmental research is least well-known but potentially among the most important is its evolving policy towards farm tenancies. The introduction of `whole farm agreements' allows it - at breaks or reviews in tenancies - to negotiate critical changes in farming methods to conserve or restore features of archaeological and ecological importance, with compensation for any drop in farm income. Other landowners please note!

Yours sincerely,
PETER SALWAY
All Souls College
Oxford
9 June

Popular place-name

From Mr Richard Pope

Sir: I think I have another example of a modern place-name that emerged like a traditional name (by popular consent) - to add to `Spaghetti Junction' (Place-names at the barricades, April). `County Road Roundabout' in Swindon, consisting of five mini-roundabouts replacing a single large one where five roads met, was officially renamed `The Magic Roundabout' by Thamesdown Council because that was what everybody else called it.

Yours sincerely,
RICHARD POPE
Swindon
1 May


Return to the British Archaeology homepage

Return to the CBA homepage


© Council for British Archaeology, 1995