Talk:Llygadwy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

Journalists have 5 questions : who, what, where, when and why.

Who, what and when are well-attested in the Channel 4 webpage for the programme ; where is the current locus of my research. There is a noticeable silence on the locations in the "official" websites associated with this programme and site (which silence doesn't surprise me).

CPAT, the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust, lists publications in their area of interest, which includes the line "Jones.P M.1985.'Llygadwy.Near Bwlch'.Archaeology in Wales 25.51." This way be the site, given the dating. The TT programme includes a map of the area. Which I'll screen-grab in a few minutes. Screen grabbed, Google maps consulted, location found. In the corner of a tight turn in the A40 (London to Brecon) road, approximately 3/4km SE of the village of Bwlch in Powys, Wales. Google maps link [1]

When : some evidence (from old maps) that the "Norman tower" was constructed between 1844 (first mapping of the area) and 1886/1904 (a subsequent re-mapping), which puts the present owners "in the clear" with respect to that part of the site's archaeological fakery. A victorian "antiquarian", Reverend Thomas Price, was known to be active in the area, and may have been associated with this phase of the archeological fakery.

The barbed wire under the La Tène sword provides some dating of the recent fakery. There are museums dedicated to barbed wire who might be able to date it more precisely. The statue of Hercules is genuine, but its engraving post-dates the patina on the metal.

An enjoyable programme nonetheless, for it shows how hard it is to fake these things. And the loathing with which RTony describes the strap from which a sword is hung speaks volumes concerning other archaeological events. "Someone salted the spring, within living memory." Post-1980 from barbed-wire evidence ; post service cables (1992).

Mick Aston's summary - the experience re-emphasises the importance of two boring concepts in archaeology : the stratigraphy surrounding the finds and the context of the finds. It is not clear if the finds and their context are sufficient to imply crimes under the theft of and reporting of treasure trove laws operating in England and Wales. The issue is compounded by the most valuable finds likely having been imported from abroad (Switzerland), and possibly before the relevant laws changed (there were changes in the late 1970s to early 1980s in response to the availability and low cost of metal detectors), plus the prime suspect(s) has (have) a number of plausible stories that they could tell if questioned. No doubt there were serious discussions off-camera. At the end of the day, the contempt in RTony's summing up is a powerful lash - "Now, they [the finds] can tell us nothing."

Excuse me if I've missed yr humour, but isn't Tony's loathing over the belt directed at his character in Blackadder? Courtesy of Gavla 05:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavla (talk • contribs)
While it's difficult to see how the reference could have been anything other than intentional the belt described is indeed called a Baldric. 203.214.69.139 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can people please give me their opinions on the following two things about all this:

  • How does the sword get dated by the service cables going to the house? I'll explain what I mean. The wire goes under the sword, and therefore the sword must come after the wire. The wire also goes under the cables, so the cables must come after the wire. But, and this is my point, how does the cable date the sword? For example, if the wire were put there in 1950, the sword in 1960, and the cables in 1970 we would get what is shown in the program. Equally, if we had the wire in 1950, the cables in 1960, and the sword in 1970 we would again get what is shown. The wire dates the cables and the sword. The cables and the sword cannot date each other! Yet, in the program, around 42 minutes in (and after they've shown the cable going under the sword) they state: "The barbed wire disappears underneath the service cable. This is confirmatory evidence that the sword can only have been put in the ground at the same time or later than the cables were laid." No it isn't!
  • I agree (obviously) that it's all a fake. It also appears to have been done over a long period since around the 1850s. What I don't agree with is the statements at the end of the programme where they say that (at least some of) the artifacts spread around the site are stolen from other sites that have been raided, and that those artifacts are now of no use to "us" (by which they mean them). It is entirely possible that the artifacts in question have been dug up in legitimate circumstances (by people such as the Time Team), subsequently handed over to the owner of the land, who then sold them on the open market. Then they could have been bought by the fakers and sprinkled over this site. The way they make it look is that the fakers have stolen the artifacts from an undug site. Most of it (or that is the impression I drew) was done by the Victorian antiquarian, who we can hardly tar and feather by applying our modern day values (he was more than likely just building his equivalent of our modern day decking and summer house). The more modern day artifacts could easily have come from legitimate sources in the way I have described. I am surprised that the Time Team went to the lengths they did to show how they recorded and discovered all that they did (and did a good job too), and then completely failed to point out what I have done here. It seems to me that whilst they are commendably thorough in their scientific examinations, they are far too quick to jump to conclusions outside of that science.
    • All three items were found in the same archaeological stratigraphic context. There was only a single matrix (soil colour, consistency, texture etc...) surrounding all three items. We know that there was a trench dug and filled in the early 1990s. If this had been formed in different stages, we would expect to see some reflection of this in the matrix. The fact that the soil around the sword matches the backfill of the services trench strongly suggests that it was buried at the same time.
    We do not need to pass judgement on the Georgian jam jar under the tower or the fake carvings. The upset is at the contents of the walled spring which contained modern barbed wire and was absent from the 1970s aerial photograph. Additionally, the finds experts were convinced that they were looking at an assemblage (collection of finds) from a modern-style dig - it did not resemble the sort of collection a nineteenth century antiquarian would like to remove from the ground.
    Ancient objects are expensive and fragile. If these artefacts had been excavated before the advent of scientific archeology and entered private collections, a more innocent scheme by 'fakers' to add them to the site - for publicity or mischief? - becomes a very expensive affair. Looting is a large and profitable industry and it is a much more sensible explanation of such an investment, if we accept that these artefacts were salted in the last few decades and that the owners of the sprinkled finds were vaguely aware of their value.
    Even if the more innocent but less plausible case is true, the wasted the time of experts, and the further damage to the artefacts by modern people who should know better, are well worth the exasperation of Mick and Tony. Time Team is public archaeology and needs to vocalize these concerns about Heritage conservation, to educate the public that the past belongs to everybody. Courtesy of Gavla 05:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavla (talk • contribs)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Llygadwy&oldid=1200879051"