Welsh Journals

Search over 450 titles and 1.2 million pages

sample of characteristic 'farm-buildings' from the sixteenth century to c. 1800, including such antiquities as barns, rick-yards, cowhouses, stables, pigsties, etc. This is a welcome appendage to the list of farmhouses and cottages, but it is surprising that it does not include such agriculturally significant monuments as lime-kilns which were used fairly extensively by Vale of Glamorgan farmers during the second half of the eighteenth century. Indeed, Arthur Young observed (c. 1772) that in Glamorgan 'every farm has a lime-kiln'. Equally surprising is the absence of any reference to wind-mills, although the remains of some are still visible in the Glamorgan landscape-for example, St.-y-Nyll, St. Brides-super-Ely, Wick, Merthyr Mawr and Newton. Like other farm-buildings, the lime-kilns and wind-mills (and indeed some water-mills) surely formed part of the totality of local agricultural capital or equipment, and must be regarded as worthy monuments of Glamorgan's pre-industrial heritage. In a work of such proportions, it is, perhaps, inevitable that some assertions and conclusions will be reappraised and possibly modified or refined in the light of further investigation and discussion. One or two topics, however, invite immediate comment. For example, in Section 3 (p. 7) it is stated that 'one may never understand the exact motives which led so many farmers in Glamorgan to invest money in domestic comforts rather than in farm stock when they did (italics mine). But how many farmers did in fact register such a preference when disposing of their surplus money? How can the respective proportions of money spent on 'domestic comforts' and 'farm stock' be calculated during the period in question? Is there any quantifiable evidence to substantiate the averment? It is obvious that the cash available to a farmer for investment at any one time would come from profits (less fixed out-goings and the payment of tithes) accruing from the sale of goods and services, and would vary according to the size of the farm and the prevailing price levels. The prudent farmer, irrespective of local or regional mentalites (p. 47), would most likely, in the first instance (unless there was an overriding claim to do otherwise), expend on his working capital, his farm buildings and implements of husbandry (ploughs, harrows, chains, etc. which were subject to rapid depreciation) rather than on acquiring 'domestic comforts' and embellishments. The argument is pertinent to the whole question of the chronology of 'rebuilding' in Glamorgan which, in any case, is not easy to establish precisely for, as we are told, 'the date of a building is assumed to be the period to which its first recognisable phase belongs-a late 16th century house may have been extended in the early 17th century, and again after 1700' (p. 28). Indeed, even the first phase of building a house could take up to two or three years. In short, it would appear that the process of rebuilding or of acquiring 'domestic comforts' proceeded intermittently according to the necessity to invest money in farm stock, etc. The chronology of building in the coastal regions of Glamorgan was certainly influenced by the added necessity for the farmer/mariner class (not mentioned in this text) to repair, refurbish and rebuild their ships, boats and trows, or even to acquire new fishing gear. What is not clear, however, is whether or not the periodicity of 'rebuilding' (in its various manifestations) of domestic houses per