Re: Welsh Ramblers walks May 2014 | Forum

Maen Llia 7

Image by thesweetcheat

Welsh Ramblers walks May 2014

GLADMAN May 17, 2014 17:09:02

Replying to thesweetcheat

thesweetcheat wrote:

The difficulty I have is with the idea that equidistance is more important than topography in placing a particular monument somewhere.

Because for me, most BA and Neolithic monuments appear to be placed because of where they "ought" to be, not how far or otherwise that is from any other monuments in proximity. For every group where the measurements (on a map, not on site) suggest distance is important, there must be 100 more groups where the measurements do not.

At Maen Llia, the placement of the Rhyd Uchaf cairn seems to me to be based more on the fact that it's on a prominent little hillock in the landscape, between branches of the watercourse, looking down the valley, than how far it is (on a map) from Maen Llia. 10 yards either way and it would be in a stream, so the position is dictated by the terrain not the distance from something else. And the cairns on Fan Nedd are surely placed in the most suitable location based on the underlying topography, not how far they are from each other.

I'm not discounting the possibility that a particular monument may be deliberately placed x metres from another monument, but surely that can't apply to the vast majority of monuments that we see in the Welsh uplands? There seem to be far too many other factors involved that would override equidistance, aren't there? Not least of which is pure practicality in a very uneven landscape criss-crossed by streams.

Seems this is going off at a generalised tangent SC.... the point I've been struggling with here - that is specifically at this site, no others - is that the fieldnotes of the Royal Commission have been dismissed as nonsense since there is - apparently - a high likelihood that such specific placement could have occurred without intention. I just don't buy that. Possible, of course, but likely?

I look forward to going and having a much delayed proper look some time and perhaps commenting further. Currently, however, I'm with Cerrig who's done more fieldwork in the area than all of us on TMA put together.

Sanctuary May 17, 2014 17:29:01

Replying to GLADMAN

[quote="GLADMAN
I look forward to going and having a much delayed proper look some time and perhaps commenting further. Currently, however, I'm with Cerrig who's done more fieldwork in the area than all of us on TMA put together.[/quote]

Hooray...someone who's actually out in the field doing real research and not just sat at a computer googleing and reading work carried out by others. Way to go Cerrig.

tiompan May 17, 2014 17:30:04

Replying to GLADMAN

GLADMAN wrote:

the point I've been struggling with here - that is specifically at this site, no others - is that the fieldnotes of the Royal Commission have been dismissed as nonsense

The nonsense comment is related to the site descriptions on Coflein that have been derived from measurements on a map ,hardly “field notes “ notes . e.g. “The site lies equidistant from Maen Llia and concentric 'hengiform' earthwork within the triangle and thus is probably related to them.” . Since when did equidistance show a relationship ? And “its geometric relationship with nearby Bronze Age monuments points to its prehistoric origins .” Since when did geometric relationships provide dating evidence ? Both comments are nonsense .

thesweetcheat May 17, 2014 17:42:54

Replying to GLADMAN

I don't quite agree that it's a generalised tangent. The cairn at Rhyd Uchaf is where it is because of the terrain and the streams on either side of it. You couldn't move it nearer to Maen Llia without it being in the water and off its hillock. Of course, the cairn could have been the first feature there, then Maen Llia conceivably could have been placed x number of metres from it. But what if the hengiform was there first? And how does all this relate to the broadly contemporary cairns on Fan Nedd and Fan Llia (all of which are intervisible with this group).

I totally appreciate that Cerrig has done more fieldwork there than any of us. But the surveying points still need to be factored in if the equidistance aspect is going to hang together convincingly. You'd be surprised (well, maybe you wouldn't) how many people think that a line they've measured using their fabric tape measure, on a slope, without any correction to take the slope into account, will give the same measurement as if they measure the same line shown on a 2D map that has been accurately surveyed.

It looks from the Coflein notes that the sites may have been measured using modern surveying techniques. As I said, without "modern" (i.e 18th century!) surveying equipment, using only technology available to the builders, it would be very difficult to achieve proper equidistance on site over such uneven terrain, without even so much as a steel chain to use. Far more likely that there would be some degree of error. It may sound perverse, but in some ways I'd be more convinced if the sites appeared equidistant when paced out, but actually aren't when checked using modern equipment.