Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T13:52:01.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Megalithic Monuments of Wales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2014

W. F. Grimes
W. F. Grimes*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, National Museum of Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper summarises the results of the first attempt at systematic study of the megalithic monuments of Wales. Time after time, in the pages of Archaeologia Cambrensis and other journals will be found scattered papers in which the same familiar tombs present themselves; they have formed very inadequate foundations upon which to build, and none of their writers has attempted to place matters upon the only really sound basis, which is that of the study of each and every individual site in the field.

This omission is the more unfortunate because so much destruction has taken place in the last fifty years, and inevitably it has been the less well-known sites which have suffered most. No less inevitably the feeling of gratitude to earlier workers for what they have recorded—frequently under some difficulty—is tempered with one of regret for their failure to cover a wider field, and to replace passing references with plans, sketches, or even a few lines of more detailed description, which would have enabled us to obtain a better picture of the monuments as a whole than is now the case.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 2 , Issue 1-2 , 1936 , pp. 106 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 106 note 1 Sheet 7 of the ¼ inch to mile map, covering South Wales and the Border counties, has recently been published; Sheet 4, for North Wales, is in preparation.

page 108 note 1 The largest is Parc y Meirw (8), with 8 stones ranging in height between 5 feet 9 inches and 8 feet, the alignment having an overall length of about 130 feet. The smallest, Saeth Maen, Llanafan Fawr (5), has 8 stones, 1 to 2¼ feet in height, with a length of 25½ feet.

page 110 note 1 I have said nothing of omitted sites. Many of the ‘stone circles’ and ‘Druids' Circles’ of the maps are either hut circles or cairn-circles. The latter, which are numerous in the upland, consist normally of slabs set on their edges, with their wide faces looking towards the centre of the circular space which they enclose, and their ends usually touching. They are the kerbs of round cairns, the body of which has been more or less completely removed, and within them are frequently to be found, below the old ground surface, traces of one or more cists. Another important omission is that of the supposed stone circle at Yspytty Cynfin, Cardiganshire, which has achieved a certain degree of fame from its association with the work of the late Hadrian Allcroft. I have stated my reasons for omitting this site elsewhere. This applies also to the Presely region of north Pembrokeshire, which is important because of its association with Stonehenge, and which had been thought to be an area outstandingly rich in stone circles. The ten or so previously ‘recognised’ I have felt obliged to reduce to two (22, 24) on the south side of the range; a third site is that of a round cairn with peristalith of free standing stones; and there is a fourth doubtful example (not shown on the map) to the north.

page 112 note 1 The publications of the Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments in Wales and Monmouthshire down to the date of publication of the most recent volume (1925) should be treated with considerable caution in this respect.

page 112 note 2 In Anglesey the omissions consist of a number of natural features which can be recognised as such today, and a string of destroyed monuments, the latter mostly in the southwest of the island.

page 114 note 1 See Arch. Camb., 1915, 47 ffGoogle Scholar, and 1914, 247 ff respectively. The pottery (reports by Mr Piggott) and other finds have recently been republished by Mr T. A. Glenn. Occasional finds of pottery are also recorded from caves in the same area ( Arch. Camb., 1935, 191 Google Scholar, etc.).

page 115 note 1 Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1935, 120 Google Scholar. Hemp, Mr's original account is in Archaeologia, LXXX Google Scholar.

page 115 note 2 Scott, W. Lindsay in Arch. Camb., 1933, 185 ff.Google Scholar

page 115 note 3 Hemp, W. J. in Arch. Camb., 1927, 1ff.Google Scholar

page 115 note 4 Antiquity 1931, 98–101 Google Scholar.

page 117 note 1 For these sites see O. G. S. Crawford, Long Barrows of the Cotswolds.

page 118 note 1 Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., LXIII, 29–98 Google Scholar.

page 119 note 1 In passing I should like to add that I believe that Hawkes, Mrs's opinion (Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1935, 129)Google Scholar that the Windmill Hill culture and [at any rate the western] megalithic culture were distinct may ultimately be confirmed when we know more about the pottery from our western sites—including those of Ireland. We may well find that we have to deal with two main streams, one associated with the causewayed camps, the other with the megaliths. The pottery of the two movements will show certain similarities because it may prove ultimately to be rooted in the same tradition; but it will also show the differences which are the natural outcome of a divergence.

page 120 note 1 Plan, etc., in Proc. Prehistoric Soc., 1936, 81 Google Scholar.

page 123 note 1 For plan of Garn Turne see Proc. Prehist. Soc. E. Anglia, 1932, 91 Google Scholar.

page 127 note 1 Conclusions as to their original form are quite impossible from the available evidence as anyone will see who compares Ward's plan of Tinkinswood before excavation ( Arch. Camb. 1915, p. 258 Google Scholar) with the plan given in fig. 7. The former resembles that of Maes y felin in its present state, and there is nothing about it to suggest the angularity of plan which was finally revealed.

page 128 note 1 Recently re-figured in Piggott, Mr's paper (Proc. Prehist. Soc. 1935, 118)Google Scholar.

page 132 note 1 Mr Hemp has noted the influence of the shape of a capstone on the plan of its underlying chamber at Stone, Arthur's, Herefordshire. Arch. Camb., 1935 Google Scholar.