 Felly, wrth ei ddefnyddio yn cael ei ddechrau'n dwylai'r ysbyt? Felly, rwy'n cael eu gwahanol o'r ysgolwleddau Lleidwyr Cymru, boedau'r argyflwyno'r sydd i'r argyflwyno'r ysgolwleddau. Rwy'n cyfeirio ar gyflwyno'r archiolygiad yw 11 yma. Felly, rwy'n cyfrifio'r ysbytio ar y llawll ffyrdd ysgolwleddau, y llawll ffyrdd ysbytio ar y llawll ffyrdd ysbytio. I now work for Historic Environment Scotland, but I should emphasise that this paper is coming out of my personal experience of both these jobs and shouldn't be taken as a sort of institutional expression of policy or anything like that is just a contribution to a wider discussion. The Archer Hebrides have 4,415 kilometres of coastline, so it's over 20% of the whole of Scotland's coast with a population of only 26,000 people on over 100 islands, only 17 of which are presently occupied. So it's a long coastline, a relatively low population. In Scotland, of all the archaeological monuments that we know about, only 5% are scheduled that is legally protected. And this is why I was asking Pernilla earlier on about the degree of scheduling and legal protection in Denmark, which I think is very, very different to the Scottish situation. The red dots that you're seeing on this image are the scheduled monuments, and you'll notice that right across Scotland, many of our scheduled monuments are coastal, most of our scheduled monuments are coastal. And Mady spoke earlier today about the properties in the care of Historic Scotland, scheduled monuments are different from that. They have legal protection, but only a very, very tiny proportion of our scheduled monuments are actually in the care of the national government. So I've been involved in curatorial archaeology for, I suppose it's getting on for 20 years now, more than 20 years now, coming up. And most of that work has been done in the Western Isles, the Outer Hebrides, where we have very dynamic coasts. There's both hard geology, very ancient metamorphic rocks, but also a lot of soft geology, which we call machar. It's a shell sand with stabilized dune systems behind it. And that machar is incredibly vulnerable to impact from storms, but also the hard geology can fail catastrophically. So that although the most dramatic damage is caused to sites like this one that we're looking at here, which was in North US following a storm in 2015. That's the coastal defences which have disappeared at an access point onto the shore. We can nonetheless have very catastrophic failures on cliffs as well, despite the ancient and hard rock on which the islands are based. We've also got an issue of inundation. The islands have been isostatically readjusting downwards, locally variable, but around about a millimetre a year for the last 5,000 years is a good rule of thumb for a working archaeologist. But there's been a recent acceleration of course in sea level rise. We're now working at three to four millimetres in addition to that one millimetre per year. So we've gone up from a sea level rise of a metre a millennium to potentially a sea level rise of four metres a millennium and rapidly accelerating. We're awaiting the latest figures from that should be coming out this year in terms of coastal, in terms of climate change projections. We also have a major issue with storminess in the islands. We've had two really huge storms with winds significantly over 100 miles an hour in the last, we had one in 2015 and we had one almost exactly 10 years earlier in 2005. And I want to look at in my case studies today just how that storminess has impacted on a couple of sites that I watched through the years that I was regional archaeologist in the islands. And I'm putting up, I've also put up here a photocopy, a copy from the present historic Environment Scotland policy on how we deal with legally protected sites and how we determine whether excavation can take place on those sites. And I draw your attention to point 3.21, which is at the bottom of this, which gives us the policy permission, as it were, to excavate legally protected sites. And I'll come back to this later in my talk. So both the sites that I'm looking at are sites which are scheduled, which are legally protected, but they both have very different histories. This is the site of Ddun Vwllum in South Hewist. It is an iron age tower, this little sort of area here on the edge of the shore of this headland is the iron age tower. It was first scheduled in 1972, and the local community were very interested in interpreting and presenting that site. So in 1991 to 1996, the University of Sheffield, who were involved in a much larger survey and excavation project in the islands, did some work on the site. And under significant pressure, hard defences were established around the site by the local community. And this is a photograph of the site in 2003, that curving drystone wall and the concrete skirting apron that you can see there. Wrap around the edge of the broch, which is this iron age tower, which is actually in here. You see the towers, of course, largely dismantled. And that was the case in history and prehistory. In 2005, January 2005, we had an enormous storm that came in. And this is a photograph taken from just slightly off the position of the previous photograph, showing that in fact the concrete skirt of the defences was ripped out. The road accessing the site was totally destroyed. We had a huge storm surge. The sea went right over the site. It scoured out large amounts of what had previously been stable land. And then we had a second major storm in 2015 that exacerbated the position. If you look at the site, you'll see the landscape is very flat, very open. It's also on the western side of the island, so it's directly exposed to the main storm track. This is a site at the north of the island. It opens northwards in this valley here. The site is here adjacent to a modern graveyard. It was exposed by an anomalous and very severe storm in 1992, which came in from the north, which cut a known site in half and revealed substantial remains of a late iron of late iron age houses. It was part excavated in 1995 and then legally protected in 1997. And then we got another anomalous storm coming in, which meant that the legally protected area had to be altered less than a year later in 1998. In 2005, the storm that came in was not a northerly storm. It was a southwesterly. It was hurricane force winds, and it lifted a vast amount of sand onto this site. It was a deep transitional event, and it covered up the site entirely. By 2007, there was an admittance and a recognition in the local community that that site there would not potentially be a solution to the problem, the ongoing problems of erosion and deposition. These had very different community relationships, these two sites. The first one became confrontational. There was an argument about whether hard defences should be put in. There wasn't a degree of cooperation. And when the defences were put in, they were put in with a general acknowledgement by most professionals that there was no way that that site could long term be saved. Already we were saying that 10, 15 years ago. On this site at Bosta, we're looking at a situation where there was much more cooperation between the local community and the archaeologists. And though we have all come to terms with the fact that this is a site that we're unlikely to be able to save, I think that's been easier for people to accept because the site is less visible. It's actually covered up. The sand has deposited on top of it, and we are still getting erosion, but that's nibbling away at the edges. It's not a dramatic open exposed site, and I think that makes a difference. So I've been watching change on our coastlines for 20 years. I worked on the coastal zone assessment surveys funded by our predecessor body, Historic Scotland, in the 1990s. I worked with Scape throughout the time that they have existed, and they've done some fantastic recording around the Western Isles coast. And I now have a curatorial role at a more national level within HES. I don't have to be parochial anymore, which I was paid to be for quite a long time. I'd like to say that I think that our attitude to site is reflected in the language we have been using, particularly about protected sites. Our policy is to preserve our scheduled monuments, our legally protected sites, at all costs. And we talk about things being threatened by erosion. We talk about preservation of our heritage. We talk about managing things. But actually there hasn't been, the phrase may soon be destroyed, which is in this Scape web page here, is actually unusual. And we very rarely see an open acknowledgement that legally protected sites may not be savable. And I think this is really profoundly affecting our attitude towards management of legally protected sites, particularly also, of course, to ordinary sites. But the law and policy are presuming preservation for the 5% of our monuments, which are defined as nationally important. We rarely use the policy provision that exists for total excavation of sites, which are going to be destroyed, even where we know that we can't save them. We simply can't sometimes. Our recent report, which Mali spoke about this morning, which is a fantastic contribution and a really detailed discussion of the impact of all kinds of climate change shifts on our properties and care, doesn't actually have a category embedded in it that I could find and Mali can correct me if I'm wrong, where it says, we haven't got a hope in hell of saving this site. We just can't do it. We are not conute sitting on the shore. We have to start to take difficult decisions and as we use the language of risk, we hold out the possibilities ourselves in our own hearts and also to the community around us that sites can be saved and some of them cannot, regardless of what we do. So this was actually quite a difficult paper to write because I'm an archaeologist. I love my coastal archaeology. It's my home. It's part of my identity and our designated sites, which are the ones that we have said are the most important to us for both cultural and sort of intellectual reasons. They hold a lot of our identity as people and as groups. They're iconic and they're important for us as archaeologists and for others in our communities and we are not being brave enough. It's our responsibility as professionals to actually address this issue. We need to identify and prioritise, as everyone has been saying, which are the most important sites that we cannot save and that's only going to be a small percentage of even our legally protected, nationally important and internationally important sites. We're going to have to identify those and we have to accept loss and then we need to use frank and open language about these sites because our language is affecting others' expectations and it's also affecting our actions. I would strongly argue that once we have identified those most important sites, we've got to get them dug. Even if that means that we are looking at digging sites which are absolutely key to our identity as groups, nations, individuals, we need to find resources for total excavation and preservation by record. I don't think that preservation by record is as good as preserving sites. We've got to preserve them. But we need to think about this now and we need to make these decisions now. We've spent a lot of time gathering information in the last 20 years. The decisions need to be made now because soon, very soon, resources will become less available. People are going to need money and they're going to need manpower, human power, people power to actually protect escape routes from the coast, to move people's houses, to save people, to save people's livelihoods. Under those circumstances, archaeology, folks, is going to slip down the list of priorities. It's just not going to be key to people if it's a choice between identity and understanding and survival. It's very, very clear and I think all of us would go on the same side and I think this was particularly highlighted for me when we lost a local family in that 2005 storm in the Outer Hebrides who tried to escape their rapidly flooding home and their cars were washed away. We are losing people and so archaeology, we have to move now. We have to make long-term plans at this point in time because we're running out of that time, I feel. Now I would reiterate that this is my personal opinion but I think now is the time to make some of those decisions and start outlining policy for the next 20 years. I really strongly agree with Anne's comment that we have to do what we can with what we have, where we are now. We can't hang about. Thank you.