|
Issue 71July 2003ContentsnewsNew Neolithic settlements found on Orkney Medieval double watermill found at Stafford Iron Age hilltop ‘town’ found at Margate Prehistoric landscape of settlement, ritual and magic Coins reveal how Hannibal bankrupted the Romans featuresUnderground warfare Great sites Islands in the Neolithic Tale of the limpet lettersRoman burials, medieval fields, and Saxons in Scotland issuesGeorge Lambrick on the looting of antiquities in Iraq Peter EllisOn archaeology and today's mentality of hurry, hurry, hurry booksA History of Childhood by Colin Heywood Conserving landscapes reviewed by Christopher Catling Farming in the First Millennium AD by Peter Fowler CBA updatefavourite findsPaul Pettitt on an antiquarian book found in a junkshop
ISSN 1357-4442 Editor Simon Denison |
CBA updateCampaigns and reports from the CBARaising the prow, and burying the sternContinued to be battered by waves of controversy, the final acts for the excavation of the Newport Medieval Ship were played out in April (writes Alex Hunt). Newport City Council appointed new contractors - a joint team from the Mary Rose Trust and Oxford Archaeology - to explore the bow. Further surviving timbers were recovered (see ba, October 2002, May 2003). The city council argued, however, that it would be unsafe to excavate the stern - and cast doubt over the archaeological need to do so. This view was challenged in a statement from the Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust, the original excavation team on the ship. And in a letter to the city council, Frances Lynch, the Chairman of CBA Wales, noted that excavation would be crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the ship. Whilst excavation would undoubtedly be difficult, she pointed out that it should not be judged impossible. The CBA and the Friends of the Newport Ship were thus greatly saddened by the council's decision in late April to pour concrete over the stern area of the site, leaving archaeologists unsure whether any of the stern survived, and if it did, unclear of the viability of the burial environment in which it lay to ensure its long-term survival. The CBA continues to work with the Friends of the Newport Ship in their efforts to put in place a coherent long-term plan for the post-excavation, conservation and eventual presentation of the ship to the general public. Protection for historic landscape boundariesFor many years, the CBA has lobbied for the protection of traditional field boundaries, in recognition of the archaeological information which they embody and their contribution to the historic character of the landscape. In 1997 the CBA's joint campaign with other bodies culminated in the passing of the Hedgerow Regulations, which provided frameworks for protecting at least some types of hedgerow in England and Wales. We were therefore pleased in April to respond to a review of the 1997 Regulations which offers the chance to improve the system, in particular to broaden its scope to protect the full range of vegetated field boundaries - though more radical reform will be needed to extend it to cover walls and other unhedged forms of boundary. In our response, we objected to the proposal to continue to exclude hedgebanks from protection under the regulations - they are the predominant form of boundary in South-West England and almost always of demonstrable antiquity. We recommended the redefinition of 'hedgerow' in the regulations as 'a boundary feature originally between or surrounding fields or lining a road, which is not a wall or a fence and which consists in whole or in part of vegetation'. We also called for new legislation for the protection all forms of traditional field boundary. Our full response is available on the CBA website or on request. (AH) Nelson housing public inquiryThe CBA wrote to the public inquiry at Nelson, Lancashire, which reopened earlier this year, objecting to the compulsory purchase of about 162 Victorian terraced houses for demolition (BA, April 2001). Evidence was heard from a local estate agent refuting claims that there was a housing market collapse in the area with a high vacancy rate. English Heritage gave examples of similar housing that has been restored elsewhere and now thrives. The Prince's Foundation Trust presented proposals for restoring the houses and stimulating business. If the compulsory purchase is allowed it may lead to mass demolitions of similar housing in the North. The decision is still awaited. (LW) More listed buildingsIn February, the CBA responded to a listed building application for demolition of a former privy in Robin Hoods Bay, North Yorks, to provide a patio (writes Lynne Walker). The privy was not listed in its own right, but was classed as a curtilage building as it served the main house. We felt that the pattern of main buildings, small outbuildings and alleys formed a tightly knit atmospheric streetscape, and we asked that the local authority consider the case carefully - to demolish the outbuilding might set a precedent for others in the area. We also pointed out that the introduction of the outside privy in the late 19th century was a major step forward for sanitation, and that these modest buildings were therefore part of the social history of the area. The story was picked up by local and national media. Opinion was divided as to whether the outbuilding should be retained or lost. At the time of going to press, we have not yet had notice of the decision. Another interesting recent case was that of the former Mitchell works in Bridlington, East Yorkshire. We were contacted by a local historian about the proposed demolition of buildings within a conservation area, to make way for 20 new houses. The main building on site was cement-rendered and ostensibly of little merit. It was also unlisted, but the historian believed it to be an early building possibly associated with Bridlington Priory. Photographs taken around 1919 showed the building to be of coursed stone with brick above - materials that suggest a prestiguous building. The CBA made a firm objection to the application and it has since been withdrawn. We also recommended that the building and site be evaluated. A survey of 1538, used in M Prickett's A History of Bridlington Priory (1831), describes a number of buildings on site including a huge tithe barn and a 'house'. The former Mitchell works may have formed a part of this complex. |
CBA web:British ArchaeologyFebruary 2000 CBA BriefingFieldwork CBA homepage |
