Hi Roy,
The report should be ready soon and will send you over a PDF copy. Concerning your colleague’s scepticism, a prominent barrow cemetery does stand around 2.5 km to the north but they don't have to be in direct view with Trefael. It could be the case that during the Bronze Age, Trefael and other standing stones (associated with the barrows/cairns) interacted with each other and only the nearest standing stone to the barrow cemetery was intervisible (see Children & Nash 2001 [research in Breconshire]). I will say that your mate Tiompan is a tad curt with his responses. When dealing with archaeology, there are number of approaches one can make. The first and most useful is the report which is usually very flat, banal but informative. However, we are dealing with people but many archaeologists still focus on artefacts. In prehistory, ‘if we don’t have a go’, the subject is dehumanised flat and...guess what...banal. To play safe, I will still use 'maybe'. Like I said earlier, you should have been there. We will be probably excavating/investigating here in June/July 2011 and you are of course welcome to come along and have a look. GHN
Image by postman
close
more_vert
http://www.archaeology-safaris.co.uk/gn/pdf/Time%20&%20Mind%20paper%2007.08.pdf.
I've been to most of the cromlechs here, the stone for GarnWynda must be this one maybe .......
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/32020/parc_hen_stone.html
In defence of tiompan (another George) I would say that I'm sure he never meant to come across as being curt as I have always found him to be very courteous but like myself and of course yourself, he is very focused and takes things seriously and makes no claims unless 100% satisfied he can confirm things. And I'm delighted to hear that you are always prepared to 'have a go' so that the subject matter is kept alive as by doing so it stays so much more interesting and leaves things somewhat open for others to also consider.
Moving sideways a little from this thread and with reference to what the original walesonline article said:-
M
George Nash wrote:
Hi Roy,
The report should be ready soon and will send you over a PDF copy. Concerning your colleague’s scepticism, a prominent barrow cemetery does stand around 2.5 km to the north but they don't have to be in direct view with Trefael. It could be the case that during the Bronze Age, Trefael and other standing stones (associated with the barrows/cairns) interacted with each other and only the nearest standing stone to the barrow cemetery was intervisible (see Children & Nash 2001 [research in Breconshire]). I will say that your mate Tiompan is a tad curt with his responses. When dealing with archaeology, there are number of approaches one can make. The first and most useful is the report which is usually very flat, banal but informative. However, we are dealing with people but many archaeologists still focus on artefacts. In prehistory, ‘if we don’t have a go’, the subject is dehumanised flat and...guess what...banal. To play safe, I will still use 'maybe'. Like I said earlier, you should have been there. We will be probably excavating/investigating here in June/July 2011 and you are of course welcome to come along and have a look. GHN
I have'nt been keeping up with the thread but something similar is being said here is'nt it? in your 'Encoding the Neolithic Landscape' article The report should be ready soon and will send you over a PDF copy. Concerning your colleague’s scepticism, a prominent barrow cemetery does stand around 2.5 km to the north but they don't have to be in direct view with Trefael. It could be the case that during the Bronze Age, Trefael and other standing stones (associated with the barrows/cairns) interacted with each other and only the nearest standing stone to the barrow cemetery was intervisible (see Children & Nash 2001 [research in Breconshire]). I will say that your mate Tiompan is a tad curt with his responses. When dealing with archaeology, there are number of approaches one can make. The first and most useful is the report which is usually very flat, banal but informative. However, we are dealing with people but many archaeologists still focus on artefacts. In prehistory, ‘if we don’t have a go’, the subject is dehumanised flat and...guess what...banal. To play safe, I will still use 'maybe'. Like I said earlier, you should have been there. We will be probably excavating/investigating here in June/July 2011 and you are of course welcome to come along and have a look. GHN
http://www.archaeology-safaris.co.uk/gn/pdf/Time%20&%20Mind%20paper%2007.08.pdf.
I've been to most of the cromlechs here, the stone for GarnWynda must be this one maybe .......
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/32020/parc_hen_stone.html
This is going to sound silly, but years ago when I was studying a map of Pembrokeshire, there seemed to be standing stones in a straight row from around St.Clears to St. David's through the landscape..
S
George Nash wrote:
Hi Roy,
The report should be ready soon and will send you over a PDF copy. Concerning your colleague’s scepticism, a prominent barrow cemetery does stand around 2.5 km to the north but they don't have to be in direct view with Trefael. It could be the case that during the Bronze Age, Trefael and other standing stones (associated with the barrows/cairns) interacted with each other and only the nearest standing stone to the barrow cemetery was intervisible (see Children & Nash 2001 [research in Breconshire]). I will say that your mate Tiompan is a tad curt with his responses. When dealing with archaeology, there are number of approaches one can make. The first and most useful is the report which is usually very flat, banal but informative. However, we are dealing with people but many archaeologists still focus on artefacts. In prehistory, ‘if we don’t have a go’, the subject is dehumanised flat and...guess what...banal. To play safe, I will still use 'maybe'. Like I said earlier, you should have been there. We will be probably excavating/investigating here in June/July 2011 and you are of course welcome to come along and have a look. GHN
Thank you kindly George I look forward to receiving it. I don't know the site personally just picking up the report as I was browsing. Yes I would like to come along and have a look come next year. Maybe you would be kind enough to keep me in the picture.The report should be ready soon and will send you over a PDF copy. Concerning your colleague’s scepticism, a prominent barrow cemetery does stand around 2.5 km to the north but they don't have to be in direct view with Trefael. It could be the case that during the Bronze Age, Trefael and other standing stones (associated with the barrows/cairns) interacted with each other and only the nearest standing stone to the barrow cemetery was intervisible (see Children & Nash 2001 [research in Breconshire]). I will say that your mate Tiompan is a tad curt with his responses. When dealing with archaeology, there are number of approaches one can make. The first and most useful is the report which is usually very flat, banal but informative. However, we are dealing with people but many archaeologists still focus on artefacts. In prehistory, ‘if we don’t have a go’, the subject is dehumanised flat and...guess what...banal. To play safe, I will still use 'maybe'. Like I said earlier, you should have been there. We will be probably excavating/investigating here in June/July 2011 and you are of course welcome to come along and have a look. GHN
In defence of tiompan (another George) I would say that I'm sure he never meant to come across as being curt as I have always found him to be very courteous but like myself and of course yourself, he is very focused and takes things seriously and makes no claims unless 100% satisfied he can confirm things. And I'm delighted to hear that you are always prepared to 'have a go' so that the subject matter is kept alive as by doing so it stays so much more interesting and leaves things somewhat open for others to also consider.
T
George Nash wrote:
Hi Roy,
The report should be ready soon and will send you over a PDF copy. Concerning your colleague’s scepticism, a prominent barrow cemetery does stand around 2.5 km to the north but they don't have to be in direct view with Trefael. It could be the case that during the Bronze Age, Trefael and other standing stones (associated with the barrows/cairns) interacted with each other and only the nearest standing stone to the barrow cemetery was intervisible (see Children & Nash 2001 [research in Breconshire]). I will say that your mate Tiompan is a tad curt with his responses. When dealing with archaeology, there are number of approaches one can make. The first and most useful is the report which is usually very flat, banal but informative. However, we are dealing with people but many archaeologists still focus on artefacts. In prehistory, ‘if we don’t have a go’, the subject is dehumanised flat and...guess what...banal. To play safe, I will still use 'maybe'. Like I said earlier, you should have been there. We will be probably excavating/investigating here in June/July 2011 and you are of course welcome to come along and have a look. GHN
I was not sceptical about the cemetery I asked if that was the same one that is on Coflein and is unsighted from the stone . I am however sceptical about “A ritual marker to guide communities through the landscape” for many reasons , some of which have been noted .The concept of “sacred landscape “ is hardly one with strict parameters and of course a limited number of monuments even if unsighted from each other could fit the bill , after all we make the rules . For some ,their patch of earth /country/planet /universe is sacred . If the landscape around the Trefael stone is “sacred “ then anywhere with prehistoric or historic monuments for that matter within a couple of miles of each other is also sacred (we don't know that the capstone would have been considered like other standings stones with markings in the BA ,that's another maybe ).The problem then is how shall we redefine the “sacred landscapes “ of Kilmartin , Stonehenge ,Avebury , Loch of Harray etc . which are clearly of a different category . True , archaeology/anthropology is about people as is literary fiction but it's all too easy to make up stories about monuments and sometimes archaeology comes up with facts that are much more interesting than fiction .The report should be ready soon and will send you over a PDF copy. Concerning your colleague’s scepticism, a prominent barrow cemetery does stand around 2.5 km to the north but they don't have to be in direct view with Trefael. It could be the case that during the Bronze Age, Trefael and other standing stones (associated with the barrows/cairns) interacted with each other and only the nearest standing stone to the barrow cemetery was intervisible (see Children & Nash 2001 [research in Breconshire]). I will say that your mate Tiompan is a tad curt with his responses. When dealing with archaeology, there are number of approaches one can make. The first and most useful is the report which is usually very flat, banal but informative. However, we are dealing with people but many archaeologists still focus on artefacts. In prehistory, ‘if we don’t have a go’, the subject is dehumanised flat and...guess what...banal. To play safe, I will still use 'maybe'. Like I said earlier, you should have been there. We will be probably excavating/investigating here in June/July 2011 and you are of course welcome to come along and have a look. GHN
S
George Nash wrote:
Hi Roy,
The report should be ready soon and will send you over a PDF copy. Concerning your colleague’s scepticism, a prominent barrow cemetery does stand around 2.5 km to the north but they don't have to be in direct view with Trefael. It could be the case that during the Bronze Age, Trefael and other standing stones (associated with the barrows/cairns) interacted with each other and only the nearest standing stone to the barrow cemetery was intervisible (see Children & Nash 2001 [research in Breconshire]). I will say that your mate Tiompan is a tad curt with his responses. When dealing with archaeology, there are number of approaches one can make. The first and most useful is the report which is usually very flat, banal but informative. However, we are dealing with people but many archaeologists still focus on artefacts. In prehistory, ‘if we don’t have a go’, the subject is dehumanised flat and...guess what...banal. To play safe, I will still use 'maybe'. Like I said earlier, you should have been there. We will be probably excavating/investigating here in June/July 2011 and you are of course welcome to come along and have a look. GHN
Hi George,The report should be ready soon and will send you over a PDF copy. Concerning your colleague’s scepticism, a prominent barrow cemetery does stand around 2.5 km to the north but they don't have to be in direct view with Trefael. It could be the case that during the Bronze Age, Trefael and other standing stones (associated with the barrows/cairns) interacted with each other and only the nearest standing stone to the barrow cemetery was intervisible (see Children & Nash 2001 [research in Breconshire]). I will say that your mate Tiompan is a tad curt with his responses. When dealing with archaeology, there are number of approaches one can make. The first and most useful is the report which is usually very flat, banal but informative. However, we are dealing with people but many archaeologists still focus on artefacts. In prehistory, ‘if we don’t have a go’, the subject is dehumanised flat and...guess what...banal. To play safe, I will still use 'maybe'. Like I said earlier, you should have been there. We will be probably excavating/investigating here in June/July 2011 and you are of course welcome to come along and have a look. GHN
Moving sideways a little from this thread and with reference to what the original walesonline article said:-
(Quote) Much like medieval churchgoers wouldn’t just storm into a church or make lots of noise, there would have been various protocols to observe.
I think this is what we can see from the Neolithic people. You don’t just descend on the site itself, you go through a series of markers.
Dr Nash said that explains why we had in Wales, at that time, so many standing stones, especially in the upland areas.
We have got evidence of that at the Trafael site, he added. There were a number of stunning stones, which unfortunately over the years have been pulled up by farmers back in the distant past, which can be found on late 19th century mapping.
The stones worked as a series of markers within the landscape associated with other monuments within the Nevern Valley, such as Pentre Ifan.
They too would have ritual markers within their landscape, guiding their communities to the monument. (end quote)
A week or two back the forum was discussing Ley Lines and how things have developed with them since the days of Alfred Watkins and his book The Old Straight Track. Do you see any similarity or connection between the marker stones you mention and Watkins' original theory on Ley Lines?
Regards
Roy
© 2026 Head Heritage.
Unless otherwise stated, the copyright in each work is the property of the respective contributor. For usage or questions, contact [email protected].