Now I'm rather confused. It looks as if the focus is shifting from Castell Mawr (which is segmented and looks as if it might have been a very old site re-used as a defended farmstead in the Iron Age) to Bavil, which is even more messy -- a Neolithic or Bronze Age defended site used later as a cemetery........
Why the shift of emphasis? I suspect this is because the diggers have looked at Castell Mawr, with a view to finding stones or stone sockets, and having found none, they have moved on to the next candidate.......
http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/castell-mawr-neolithic-henge.html
First it was Waun Mawn as the site for proto-Stonehenge, and then Castell Mawr. Now Bayvil. As usual, fantastical theories and virtually no facts. Watch this space.
From Davy's Report of the Sept 17th talk by MPP:
His big reveal update was the possibility of finding the new Welsh henge at Bayvil, not far from Castell Mawr (which he ruled out as iron age). He described it as a segmented ? (can't recall exactly what, but there is a nice photo of a segmented ditch in a photo he showed taken by Dr Toby Driver). There had been some preliminary digging there in the last few days and they had found some pot shards (plain ware) and what he described as the best flint scraper he had ever seen and that this flint had been mined from elsewhere and was likely to be Neolithic in age. He did say that it was very early days but he was hopeful of undertaking further digs at Bayvil in the coming seasons.
He said that the importance of Bayvil is that could be the place where the Bluestones were placed for up to 400 years before they were moved lock, stock and barrel to Wessex.
From Mytum and Webster 2003
Caer, Bayvil (1989)
Caer lies at the end of a ridge of the high ground to the north of Castell Henllys (SN
11244171). It was partly excavated in 1979 by the Dyfed Archaeological Trust and
more details of the site can be found in the report of that work (James 1987). The
excavations showed that a late prehistoric defended enclosure had been reused in the
post-Roman period as a cemetery. Over 50 graves were recorded (though not all were
excavated) and a radiocarbon date of 650-890 cal AD (2 sigma) obtained from the
only bone recovered. Most of the graves were simple dug graves but there were also
stone-lined cist graves and a few “lintel graves” with stone capping as well.
--------------------------------
Added following advice from Davey. You can see in this RCAM photo the crop marks in the field to the right of the hedge :
Wrong place. I managed to find the exact image on coflein
ReplyDeletehttp://www.coflein.gov.uk/en/site/90524/images/ST+ANDREW%27S%2C+BAYVIL%2C+CROPMARK+ENCLOSURE+SOUTH-EAST+OF/
I doubt if there will be much left of any very early occupation at Bayvil. The late prehistoric was followed by a heavy series of post-Roman graves, they pretty much peppered the whole of the DAT trench as I remember it. I suppose the un-excavated areas and the ditches may have better chance for preservation.
ReplyDeleteDave
I think that is the actual slide shown.
ReplyDeleteIt is from here that the finds included the 4 pottery shards and the flint scraper.
MPP said the ditches were 1.5m deep the same as the socket depths at Stonehenge.
Interestingly this location is in the field across the lane from the Trefael Stone.
Thanks Davey. Hope we have now got this correct. The 1.5 m issue is interesting -- this is also the depth of the "enormous" post holes in the Cursus -- talked about by Vince Gaffney in the recent TV prog. Maybe these tribal groups had all sorts of artefacts in common -- including measuring sticks 1.5 m long?! Well, that's no more ridiculous than some of the other stuff doing the rounds......
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the Stonehenge tv program last night. My brother (a geologist) expressed surprise that these techniques had not been used before. Asking Vince Gaffney to Pembrokeshire might throw lots of light on several situations.
ReplyDelete