Cornwall during the Iron Age and - Cornwall Archaeological Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The basic pattern of life does not appear to have changed much under Roman rule, but our understanding of it has greatly increased over the last 25 years (see Radford, 1958). The round continued as the main (detected) settlement type (Fox, 1964), 148; Fowler, 1976). Thomas emphasised this continuity in 1966, and the lack of evidence of much Roman influence on basic life styles. The main evidence for the continuance of rounds comes from Castle Gotha (Saunders and Harris, 1982), occupied from the Later Iron Age to the 2nd/3rd century AD; Trevisker (ApSimon and Greenfield, 1972), with activity until the 2nd century, and possibly Merther Euny (Thomas, 1968). During the 2nd century a number of new rounds were constructed: Shortlanesend (Harris, 1980), Carwarthen (Opie, 1939; unpublished material now in Truro Museum), Crane Godrevy (Thomas, 1968a), possibly Kilhallon (Carlyon, 1982), and Trethurgy (Quinnell, forthcoming). Of these, Shortlanesend and Kilhallon apparently had a short span of a century or so, and for Crane Godrevy only a small sample of pottery has been published (Thomas, 1964, 61). Carwarthen was occupied into the 4th century, Trethurgy into the 6th. The excavated sample is still small, but it is noteworthy that no round seems to have been continuously occupied from the Iron Age throughout the Roman period. Any dislocation in settlement patterns seems to have occurred in the 2nd century AD rather than the 1st (perhaps related to the ending of occupation of the small hillfort at St Mawgan-in-Pydar) and to have been a gradual occurrence. The reasons are obscure. Was there some historical event leading to temporary decline in population? Were there changes in agricultural practice, brought about by new demands or new techniques? Did the establishment of new administration centres and communication patterns (though no Roman roads have yet been proved for Cornwall) ultimately cause shifts in settlement? It need occasion no surprise that minor fortifications were allowed under the Roman administration. Even minor defences were regarded in the Iron Age as a symbol of status. It was regular Roman practice to integrate the local upper classes in the administrative, military and economic structure of the Empire, and to encourage them to continue to look after their own areas. The building of new rounds, and more substantial rectangular enclosures, implies the continuance of local traditions of maintaining order, and not necessarily a specific threat. However there could be a link between the construction of new rounds, after a gap of about one hundred years, and the construction of fortifications around towns which occurred at Exeter in the late 2nd century (Bidwell, 1980, 66). Cornish rounds have been compared to the raths or enclosed settlements of south-west Wales, but recent work in the latter area has shown a significant difference. There, all excavated earth-works were constructed before the Roman occupation; some continued in use, but no new works were built. Gradually during the Roman period the nature of their occupation changed, from dense concentrations of circular houses, to include single rectangular houses, as at Dan-y-Coed (Williams, 1985) and Walesland Rath (Wainwright, 1971). This difference must reflect the longer presence of the Roman army in Wales and the establishment of an urban centre at Carmarthen. South-west Wales was left less to its local traditions than was south-west England. In Dyfed there are also several rectilinear enclosures, now proved to start in the Iron Age in the case of Pen-y-Coed, Llangynog (Murphy, 1983), though Llangynog II and possibly Castle Flemish were built in the Roman period (James and Williams, 1982, 299). The population of Roman Britain as a whole is now considered to have expanded rapidly, possibly even to around six million (Salway, , 1981, 554). It is reasonable to expect more later Roman sites in Cornwall than in the 1st to 2nd centuries. Dates given for sites which differ from those in the published reports are based on a current study of pottery from Carvossa (information P.M. Carlyon) and Trethurgy (Quinnell forthcoming), sites situated 15 km apart but which overlap chronologically to present a continuous sequence from the 1st century BC to 6th or 7th centuries AD. The number of rounds may have increased, and this increase may 124
AL •r, .4 •eakitiocto dp° • • • kir w..s..- ny o bo ,:7 4iVal■pAiii. 44,4,as• .. 40 • )1F• a 4 gal I . , ...;-__. 'Z1 •', so 443.-0 ; 0 Trethurgy T4 1. ..1.1'..1.,, , . ,...„,„,,, ...,„ n ‘Nip.p ca ,19. .. 033 411? -.4?). V Vio8;ks ... ' •°FliMeLft •■ •. q • 0 d'on 7.1_07L. OVv.elio e " ig1610 °,0 -791 '4;6 ...oz,,;%•,.- , . 4,1,goq • C.,,C) CIP Trebarveth 3 rvi 5 10 • ;',4;p'• el •• .44 A ■ Uob 11-* r • 9 • , Porth Godrevy Ft 0 10 20 30 Fig 4 Trethurgy Houses Z2 and T3, early 4th century AD; Grambla Building I (simplified,) 2nd century AD or later (after Saunders); Trebarveth 3, 3rd century AD (after Peacock); Porth Godrevv, 3rd century AD (after Fowler). 125 •
Page 1 and 2: CORNISH ARCHAEOLOGY No. 25 (1986) 5
Page 3 and 4: pottery from Trevelgue confirms the
Page 5 and 6: enclosure was apparently scantier.
Page 7 and 8: een occupied entirely within the La
Page 9 and 10: 420±70 be (HAR —238) suggested a
Page 11 and 12: it is only reasonable to accept tha
Page 13: whose ancestors had occupied hillfo
Page 17 and 18: Fig 5 Trethurgy Round Period 2 c. A
Page 19 and 20: Exeter in the 3rd and 4th centuries
Page 21 and 22: The question of Late Bronze Age and
Page 23 and 24: McAvoy, F., 1980. 'Excavations of a

Cornwall during the Iron Age and - Cornwall Archaeological Society

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?