Mynydd Llangynidr, Brecknockshire - Royal Commission on the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>Mynydd</strong> <strong>Llangynidr</strong> Upland Survey UIP081 Report Version: Final Produced for RCAHMW National Soil Resources Institute http://www3.landis.org.uk/soilscapes/ National Monuments Record of Wales (NMRW) extract RCAHMW Coflien RCAHMW Uplands Project air photo transcriptions Rob Evans’ compilation of aircraft crash sites Assessment and compilation 2.4 The NMR data for the survey area contained 121 records, of which twenty are Scheduled Ancient Monuments. A high proportion of the NMR records in some areas were recently updated by Uplands survey or similar fieldwork, with good location information and descriptions, but were monuments unknown as yet to the HER. 2.5 The HER data contained 320 records within or immediately adjacent to the survey area. The description field in the HER was truncated for some entries due to the export format used by CPAT. 2.6 It was sometimes not possible to locate sites on the HER record. This could be because, as has been found previously, multiple records in the HER are in fact the same monument – transcribed from various epochs of early OS mapping with slightly different positions. From discussion at the Uplands Forum February 2007 it was apparent this is a known occurrence (Bob Sylvester, pers. comm.). Some failures to locate sites could be explained by changes in conditions such as vegetation cover. 2.7 In several cases HER records were found to be vague, occasionally wrong or incorrectly located; those by Palmer and Jones have in particular been found to warrant care in their use, quite often due to their failure to adequately differentiate between nearby monuments. 2.8 The 1st – 3rd Epoch OS maps were assimilated into the project GIS as georeferenced images, then all monuments, sites and former tracks & boundaries transferred to the initial sites record ahead of fieldwork. Where features existed on more than one epoch of mapping, the latestmapped position of the feature was taken. HER data 2.9 The HER data for this area proved to be of abnormally low quality for a variety of reasons. One major issue that emerged late in the project is that the quality of the position stated in many of the records is open to question and this appears to have resulted in successive episodes of fieldwork appending to the record rather than updating content. As a result, it has proved extremely difficult and occasionally impossible to be sure exactly which HER record applies to any given monument or locality in the field. 2.10 Second, having battled through this, it has become evident that some previous episodes of fieldwork have resulted in very different quality records. While this is inevitable in an accumulating record, the situation becomes grave when the same monument is comprehensively but differently described in each record. This extends beyond the description to monument type classifications and hence the process of matching HER records to Uplands fieldwork records has proved an abnormally long-winded and convoluted affair. 2.11 The number of records in the database with form stated as ‘documents’ is proportionally larger than usual; to avoid their loss any that appear to be describing a locatable monument have been included. The certainty of them being associated with their stated position is, however, low. Page 3 \\Harappa\projects\UIP081 <strong>Mynydd</strong> <strong>Llangynidr</strong>\Reporting\Draft Final\AP UIP081 <strong>Mynydd</strong> <strong>Llangynidr</strong> report (Draft Final).doc Copyright ArchaeoPhysica Ltd. 10/02/2009
<strong>Mynydd</strong> <strong>Llangynidr</strong> Upland Survey UIP081 Report Version: Final Produced for RCAHMW Field survey Dates & personnel 2.12 Fieldwork ran from February 2008 through to the beginning of March 2009. A number of days were partly or completely lost due to adverse weather conditions. 2.13 The entire personnel were drawn from ArchaeoPhysica Ltd. Within each team there was a nominated First Aider and a mixture of people with varying experience. Graham Arnold oversaw health and safety and was responsible for data collection and collation procedures. Equipment 2.14 Each field team carried cameras and GPS units and each walker had a waterproof notebook and a laminated booklet of templates to guide recording. Detailed maps depicting known sites and all landscape details were carried. 2.15 Individuals provided their own appropriate clothing. High visibility vests/jackets were worn and mountain safety gear and first aid kit were spread amongst the team members. Technique 2.16 The vast majority of the survey area was unenclosed heath and subsequently the open mountainside was surveyed according to the topography, e.g., a side of a valley at a time. Coverage was monitored daily and no significant omissions were found. In areas of open grassland and peat bogs, traverses were up to 50m apart if there was sufficiently clear visibility. 2.17 Through previous experience it was known to be necessary to work with the landscape at all times to avoid undue exertion. For this reason fieldwork usually worked along the contours wherever possible, starting at the base of slopes and working uphill until about midday and then returning downhill in the next swathe of country. In the low lying areas of thick marsh and peat bogs care was taken to ensure that they were passable safely. 2.18 For safety reasons the fording of streams was avoided wherever possible, these being used to bound survey areas instead. 2.19 There were no reportable or non-reportable injuries or near miss incidents. Records 2.20 The overall rationale behind the formation of the record was to ensure the basic information was captured efficiently in the field, whilst allowing checking of previously known sites. As for previous surveys the emphasis was on the collection of a total record regardless of whether a monument had been previously described. 2.21 Record sheets carry the identity of the author and the date of survey to enable auditing, along with GPS unit ID and way-mark number as well as the recorded co-ordinates. 2.22 Record fields such as ‘Broad Class’, ‘Form’, ‘Condition’ and ‘Land Use’ were completed from lists of permitted field contents to minimise the chance of ambiguous records, using a template. A sketch of the monument was required where complex or unusual shapes or layouts existed. This was usually the case within quarry sites and composite sheepfolds. 2.23 In general one photograph was taken of each site, the exceptions being where more than one view of a site was felt necessary or where multiple sites appear on photographs. Occasionally poor light and other conditions prevented a photograph from being taken. Photographs were not always included in the case of the modern hollows dug into the scree slopes or modern quarries that had recently gone out of use. 2.24 Monuments within complexes were allocated ad hoc between team members with internal specialisms brought to bear. Larger complexes were recorded within specific field campaigns to avoid accidental omissions or duplicates. Page 4 \\Harappa\projects\UIP081 <strong>Mynydd</strong> <strong>Llangynidr</strong>\Reporting\Draft Final\AP UIP081 <strong>Mynydd</strong> <strong>Llangynidr</strong> report (Draft Final).doc Copyright ArchaeoPhysica Ltd. 10/02/2009
Page 1 and 2: Mynydd Lla
Page 7: Mynydd Lla

Mynydd Llangynidr, Brecknockshire - Royal Commission on the ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?