A Research Framework for the Archaeology of Wales
Northwest Wales - Roman
22/12/2003
Interest
in our region’s archaeological remains, at both professional and amateur level,
has been of long duration and is undiminished.
Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the Romano-British period,
since NW Wales contains some of the defining type-sites of the age -the enclosed and unenclosed hut-groups-
together with some of the best known and extensively excavated military
installations; Segontium being a prime example. It is also one of the few British regions which Classical sources
specifically mention: the Anglesey campaign of AD 60 and the final capture of
the island by Cn. Julius Agricola in AD 77 being notable geographical markers
in the context of first century military operations. At the close of the Roman age it briefly figures in the context
of the politico-military struggles of the fourth century -the withdrawal of the Seguntienses- whilst
its Roman past is also alluded to in the hero-tales and historical writings of
the Early Christian period, in which Constantine the Great and Magnus Maximus
figure large.
For
many years Gwynedd has exemplified ‘Romanization at the fringe’; an upland
region devoid of those manifest indices of Romanity seen, for example, in SE,
and to a lesser extent in SW Wales.
Following its conquest in the 70s of the first century and a garrisoning
phase which effectively only lasted to the mid-second century, its native
communities accepted Roman rule, but seemingly played no part in that
self-motivating process that we term ‘Romanization’. Urban centres are notably
absent, whilst there is no hint of villa development. Military remains are all too obvious, and,
in the case of Segontium, indicative of a long-lasting, but markedly localised
garrisoning phase. There is evidence
for the exploitation of the region’s metals by Mediterranean-style business
partnerships (societates), whilst Romanization has been perceived as
being essentially limited to the circulation of a range of consumer
durables -pottery, coinage, metalwork
and objects of worked stone, such as rotary querns- on settlement sites whose
origins lie within the latter centuries BC.
When the politico-military infrastructure of Roman Britain collapsed in
the early fifth century, there was apparently a return a pre-Roman
socio-economic framework within the region.
Is
this, simplistic, traditional view acceptable, especially in the context of
publications such as Simon James and Martin Millett’s edited volume, Britons
and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda CBA, 2001), which
exemplify new concepts /approaches to the study of the period based upon the
application of archaeological theory, some of which, admittedly, are specific
to a southern English landscape, others, such as ethnicity, which have an
Empire-wide applicability? Surely, such questions cannot be addressed unless we
have an opportunity to assess the traditional narratives, and then revisit them
in the light of what we know, or, more importantly, don’t know. Only then will be able to progress along
these theoretical lines.
My
brief is, firstly, an assessment of our present state of knowledge, based upon
a SWOT analysis of what the Resource Audit contains, addressing the themes of
Invasion and Military Occupation, Communication Systems, Rural Settlement,
Technology and Trade, and, finally Ritual and Funerary activities. Secondly, to
consider research priorities and strategies for the furtherance of our
knowledge. My comments incorporate those
voiced by other members of the Romano-British working group, Richard Kelly and
George Smith in particular, and those made at the Bangor seminar.
The
conquest and pacification of the region in the early Flavian period is well
established, and it is probable that the majority of the auxiliary forts
founded in the train of conquest are known to us. These may be contextualised
with reference to contemporary establishments in mid- and south Wales.
We
have a reasonable overall chronology for the majority of the sites
investigated, and also a good publication record. The military presence diminished rapidly about AD 120-30. Only three forts can claim some evidence of
occupation to circa. AD 140-50, and only one certainly -Segontium- thereafter.
We
have an exceedingly rare overall plan of an earth and timber fort at Pen Llys
Tyn based upon rescue work in the late 50s and early 60s, and basic plans of
the interiors of stone forts at Caerhun (long a type-site for a quingenary
unit), Pennal (based upon aerial photography and geophysical survey) and a
multi-period interior at Segontium. Our
understanding of the structural sequence at sites such as Bryn y Gefeiliau has
also been clarified as a result of geophysical survey undertaken by Gwynedd
Archaeological Trust as part of the Roman Forts Environs Project. The remarkable plan of the apparently
single-phase, large earth and timber fort at Llanfor is testimony to the
effectiveness of this technique.
At
Tomen y Mur we have a truly remarkable survival of a military landscape, with a
two-phase auxiliary fort, vicus, ?parade-ground, bath-house, ?mansio,
leat/aqueduct system, military cemeteries, marching-camps, roads and the
largest concentration of practice camps in Britain after the group on
Llandrindod Common (Rad.). This is a
truly invaluable resource and still has much to contribute to our understanding
of the Roman army of the Flavian-Hadrianic period and its impact upon the
surrounding area. The wetland nature of
the fort’s surroundings holds the promise of high quality palaeoenvironmental
data.
At
Llanfor we have a unique complex of two marching-camps, a large earth and
timber fort and a pentagonal enclosure, possibly a ‘stores-base’ or a
‘construction camp’ belonging to a campaigning phase, all as yet undated.
In
Segontium we have the only continuously occupied, long-lived auxiliary fort in
Wales, with occupation only terminating circa AD 393/4. There is some evidence that the site served
not only as a military base, but also as an administrative focus for the region
from the mid-Antonine period to sometime in the mid-third century.
The
late Roman politico-military situation in the region appears to have been
radically different to that which prevailed over most other parts of
Wales. It appears to have been
threatened with raiders/would be settlers from across the Irish Sea. We thus have evidence for an integrated
system of defence, certainly functioning in the early 390s, based upon a fort
for limitanei at Segontium, a small coastal fort, presumably for a naval
squadron at Caer Gybi, and a watchtower, the ‘eyes’ of the fort, on Holyhead
Mountain. The coastal warning system,
if such it is, may have been more extensive.
The
Roman Forts Environs Project has produced remarkable detail not only of
the planning of forts at Llanfor,
Pennal and Bryn y Gefeiliau, but more importantly much of the layout of the vici
associated with them. Such detail is unparalleled elsewhere in Wales. Here we
have an excellent resource not only for the management of these complexes, but
also for future research.
We
have a reasonable understanding of the artefactual range present on military
sites, and on the probable relationship between the late Roman garrison of
Segontium and their suppliers, at both local and provincial level.
Though
a number of marching-camps belonging to the campaigning phase are known,
they are too few and widely scattered to form a cohesive and comprehensible
pattern in which relationships between camps and operational bases become
evident. Clearly, in the light of what
we know historically of both pre-Flavian and Flavian operations in the region,
many camps remain to be discovered. The
chronology of those known to us is unclear.
Only where they lie in close proximity to Flavian and later forts may we
hazard a guess at their relationship and hazard an approximate date.
Short-lived
semi-permanent military establishments associated with operations in AD 60,
such as the fort(s) on Anglesey, and the base for that operation on the
mainland are still undetected.
Key
components of the campaigning phase, such as the large fort and ‘stores base’
at Llanfor are unexplored and their chronology, as well as the specific
function of the latter, remains uncertain.
All
of the auxiliary forts in the region have been subjected to archaeological
investigation, but the work has been frequently small-scale, and mostly
undertaken in the first half of the 20th century. This frequently revealed sketchy building
plans belonging to the ‘stone’ phases and little else. It is clear that most
forts have complex histories raising issues that cannot be addressed by
small-scale work. Even the date of the
provision of stone defences and stone internal buildings is far from clear. Pennal has not even been subject to
excavation, nor has the fortlet at Brithdir.
Were these forts ever fully garrisoned throughout their occupation? The Segontium evidence is instructive here,
since it showed that garrisons could be reduced to diminutive size without a
reduction in the size of the defensive perimeter. Were units, then, commonly split between several forts? Was Caerhun occupied beyond the mid-second
century? Is there a likely relationship
between mansiones and later Roman material on fort sites?
Though
we may be confident in Caer Gybi’s late Roman date, we have no specific
evidence as such. When was it
built? We also only possess a terminus
ante quem for the associated watchtower on Holyhead Mountain.
The
Roman Forts Environs Project has dramatically enhanced our knowledge of the
extent and planning of military vici, but that is about all.
Frankly, we know next to nothing even about their basic chronology. The built-over vicus at Segontium
produced material of Flavian-Antonine date, yet the fort was much more
long-lived. Was there a late vicus
here? Was the extra-mural settlement at
Brithdir, for example, a small vicus or a works-complex? How long-lived were the vici ? Did any survive the abandonment of the
parent fort? Who exactly lived there?
Did they have a role as market centres? These are big issues, but the
dearth of basic information pertaining to their establishment,
growth/contraction, abandonment and socio-economic role severely hinders any
assessment of the relationship between the Roman army and the civilian
community at large.
The
strategic road system, intimately connected with the needs of military
supply, has been extensively researched, with aerial reconnaissance having proved
particularly successful in the elucidation of the course taken by the road
network to the SE of Tomen y Mur, to the E of Caer Gai, and again to the E and
S of Brithdir. Some fine stretches of
road survive within the region: particularly significant are those whose course
is largely indicated by quarry pits for road material.
There
is still considerable interest in resolving the problem of road alignments at
both professional and amateur level.
The input of the RCAHM and the Snowdonia National Parks has been
notable.
There
is, as one might expect, evidence for maritime communications as evidenced by
the distribution pattern of ceramic containers as well as rare discoveries such
as the Porth Felen lead anchor stock, which, though probably of the first century
BC , could manifestly have been used at a much later date.
Substantial
stretches of the road system are still conjectural. There are big question marks against the presumed course of the
roads from Pennal to Brithdir, Segontium to Pen Llystyn and Pen Llystyn – Tomen
y Mur. Similarly the route linking Bryn
y Gefeiliau with Segontium, if such existed.
Nothing is known of the road system on Anglesey.
Virtually
nothing is known of bridges on these routes.
The small bridge abutment south of Tomen y Mur is unique.
Very
little is known of sea-borne communications, the existence of which is
indicated by the presence of bulk containers such as amphorae on fort sites,
and the distribution of ceramic products such as SEDBB1.
The
region has long been known to possess one of the defining features of the RB
upland landscape; stone-built settlements, typified by the enclosed hut group,
and associated field systems. These are
numerous and widespread with complete landscapes surviving almost intact around
the N and W margins of Snowdonia, less frequently on Anglesey. They exhibit a
variety of forms, with indications of regional styles of construction
Excavations
spanning three quarters of a century have produced a considerable body of
evidence for the origins, development, and socio-economic background as well as
the environmental context of some of these settlements. Results from those investigated in the
Graeanog area, circa 20km to the SW of Caernarfon have been particularly good.
The stone-built settlements are now known to have origins in the latter part of
the first millennium BC, to have complex histories and for some to continue in
occupation to the mid first millennium AD at the earliest. Not all are strictly RB in date as hitherto
thought, though those with elements of straight, rather than curvilinear
enclosing walls, and a mix of rectangular and circular buildings seem to
consistently produce evidence of RB occupation, if not outright origin in the
period.
Recent
work has demonstrated that other types of RB settlement also exist: typically
unenclosed, clay-walled round-house settlements, such as Bush Farm (Caerns.),
Melin y Plas and Cefn Cwmwd on Anglesey, and rectangular, embanked and ditched
farmsteads of the Bryn Eryr (Ang.) type.
The recognition that the rectangular enclosure, otherwise known
throughout Wales and the Marches, is also a feature of the later prehistoric
and RB landscape of the region, though not apparently in great numbers, has
been an important discovery.
Continuity
of site, and in some cases clear evidence of near continuous occupation from
the late pre-Roman Iron Age into the Early Christian era is evidenced at a
number of rural settlements, such as Pant y Saer and Cefn Cwmwd on Anglesey.
Indeed,
by virtue of early medieval documentary sources, as well as defined type-sites,
the region has an extremely important potential for research into settlement
continuity and land-use.
The
publication record in respect of the investigation of RB rural settlement in
the region is good.
Many
settlements exist in a clearly defined landscape context of terraced fields and
enclosures. These relict elements of an
agricultural landscape, coupled with frequent areas of mire, enable the
investigation of landscape/settlement history over the span of over a
millennium, through the examination of associated soils/sediments, pollen
spectra and macrobotanical remains. We
probably know more about the settlement history and landscape use of this
region in the pre-Roman Iron Age and RB period than any other part of Wales.
A
high percentage of hill-forts in the region produce evidence of activity within
in the RB period, though the context is frequently unclear. Some sites, such as the now vanished Braich
y Dinas produce a range of artefactual evidence which cannot be readily matched
at the farmstead sites, whilst others, such as Moel Trigarn, apparently show
evidence of maintenance in the RB period.
The
problem of the partial survival, and the relict character of the evidence, is
paramount. The stone-built settlements
are grossly under-represented in the low-lying areas; antiquarian, particularly
19th century evidence for their destruction being important. The recognition of timber/clay-walled settlements
in these regions is also significant.
Excavations on the course of the A55 on Anglesey has for the first time
provided us with some idea of the true settlement density in this part of the
region. It is manifest that many more
settlements must have existed than are presently visible.
Research
has tended to concentrate on the enclosed hut groups. Very little work has been done on the isolated, upland-type stone
huts, and the so-called ‘villages’ or agglomerations of huts. We need to determine the relationship
between the enclosed hut-groups, the ‘villages’ and the upland varieties of
settlement.
Excavation
has also been biased within the region.
The Crawcwellt area excepted, Merioneth has only seen small-scale little
work, and until of late relatively little excavation has been conducted on
Anglesey.
The
isolated, upland huts remain a problem.
A few have produce RB material.
What is their origin and function, and how do they relate to the
enclosed and other types of settlement?
The
social context of rural settlement as a whole is still a matter of dispute.
Some interesting points emerge in the context of the possible relationship
between the farms on the Graeanog Ridge, but require testing against data from
other groups of like monuments. We are
still largely ignorant of the way in which society was organised prior to the
Roman conquest and how it was affected by it.
We
do not know whether the settlement history of the region was static. Did any new types appear? What of the record of tile, samian and
coarse-wares at Maenhir/Tre Anna? Is
this a Romanised rural dwelling, or perhaps the centre of an Imperial
estate? How many settlements transcend
the conquest? What is the settlement
pattern over time? What proportion
continued in occupation into the post-Roman period?
Our
knowledge of land-use in general is poor.
What proportion was under cultivation at different times? How much woodland survived, and what
economic use was made of it?
What
is the relationship, at an economic level, between the differing types of rural
settlement and the military? The
Segontium palaeoenvironmental data is a pointer to such links, but is it
representative? A comparative exercise
is urgently needed. In this respect the
non-survival of animal bone on some the recently excavated hut-groups is a
problem, since it severely limits inferences as to their economic base and
overall relationships. The excavation
of settlements on limestone should, thus, by accorded high priority.
The Roman period saw the introduction of new
technologies and crafts, and, significantly, a fundamental change in the scale
of production and exchange. Coinage, ceramics and other consumer goods were
introduced into the region. The
military produced their own brick and tile, whilst entrepreneurs set up pottery
kilns in the vicinity of forts catering for much of the garrisons’ requirements
in terms of coarse wares from the 70s to the early second century AD. Some of these local products reached native
communities, to judge by the evidence from farms on the Graeanog Ridge.
The
location and structure of military kilns for the production of tiles/bricks are
known, and two - Dolbelydr and Pen y Stryd (Mer.)- may be linked, spatially and
chronologically, with the fort at Tomen y Mur.
We
have data on the currency of ceramic types in both military and civilian usage
from the Flavian period to the close of the fourth century. This represents an important contribution to
the study of trade patterns in general, since ceramics in particular represents
a ‘tracer’ commodity.
The
incidence of coin use, including hoarding, is well established, and may be
interpreted in the light of data pertaining to the coinage of Roman Britain as
a whole.
Advances
in water technology are demonstrable by the ubiquity of wells in fort/vicus
contexts, leats (and by implication a timber aqueduct) at Tomen y Mur, and the
epigraphic record of an aqueduct at Segontium.
Research
by Peter Crew has demonstrated that regional iron production was well advanced
in the pre-Roman period; may possibly have collapsed at the conquest, and,
following a hiatus, was apparently allowed to continue at Bryn y Castell. Whilst there is frequent evidence for
smithing at enclosed hut-groups, we are uncertain as to whether this depended
upon the continued exploitation of locally available iron, or upon a trade in
iron billet.
We
have explicit evidence for an extensive copper-extracting industry, apparently
not in native hands but based upon societates (partnerships), a number
of which are known from stamps on copper ingots. There is circumstantial evidence for copper mining at Parys
Mountain (Ang.) and the Great Orme.
There is also a little evidence for associated mining settlements; as at
Tremadoc, though uncertainty remains as to its specifics.
Whilst
it is clear that pottery kilns existed in the vicinity of most, if not all,
early forts; their location is unknown, and the attribution of pottery fabrics
to a regional rather than specific source is the norm. The spectrographic
analysis of these local types may possibly allow us to tie them down to
specific sources within the region.
The
precise sourcing of the extracted metals is unknown, whilst the identification
of the associated mining and smelting sites (?Tremadoc excepted) is yet to be
determined.
Was
the army involved in the exploitation of the region’s metals?
Nothing is known of the chronology of the
copper and lead/silver industry in the region, whilst the scale of production
of these, and the iron industry, is presently impossible to quantify. Was iron
being brought into the region in the form of billet, or was local, ?native
production sufficient to meet demand?
Whilst
it is clear that the region’s lithic resources
-slate in particular- were
being exploited, and distributed as far east as Cheshire and south as
Breconshire, we know nothing as to the location of Roman quarrying or as to who
was responsible for its operation.
We
have virtually no data on some aspects of native industry/craft production,
such as bronze casting, bone and woodworking, or dyeing and tanning? Was some craft production centralized, or
not? Could palaeoenvironmental deposits
on settlement sites throw light on these problems?
We
urgently need to know what access different social groups, or similar groups
spread throughout the region, had to the market. The analysis of artefact assemblages will throw some light on
this issue, though the scarcity of material from some areas will make such an
analysis woefully incomplete unless more excavated evidence becomes available
for study.
The
basic characteristics of intrusive ‘Roman’ funerary practices -at least those associated with forts and vici
of the late second to mid-third century, when cremation was the dominant
rite- is well established. Cremation
burials are known from the vicinity of several forts, such as Segontium,
Caerhun and Caer Gai, and some of the remains are curated in museums.
The
region has examples of the exceedingly rare survival of funerary monuments
above ground. These are constrained to
the vicinity of roads leading to the fort at Tomen y Mur, and comprise large,
rectilinear, ditched barrows to the south and a linear arrangement of small,
mounded burials to the NE. These
comprise a rare body of evidence for differences in burial rite in military
contexts. Aerial photographs and geophysical survey also hint at the existence
of stone-built funerary monuments close to the fort at Pennal. Such instances are again exceedingly rare in
Wales.
We
have precious literary evidence for the existence of native cult sites
destroyed by the army following the capture of Anglesey in AD 60.
The
region has produced rare examples of dedications to, and sculptural
representations of ‘Roman’ gods: Mars militaris, Minerva, Mercury,
Mithras and a horned deity, possibly British in origin, from Segontium; whilst
a fragmentary sculpture from Caer Gai either depicts Bacchus, or more likely
Hercules.
The
temple of Mithras at Segontium is the only published example of a focus for
military cult observance in Wales, though the relief from Caer Gai alludes to
another shrine.
The
evidence for funerary practices is overwhelmingly biased towards military
establishments, and even then towards the late first to mid- third century.
With inhumation universal by the fourth century there ought to be inhumation
cemeteries in the vicinity of Segontium, though none are known.
Epitaphs
of serving soldiers and their families are known from north Britain in the
second-third centuries, but, curiously, none from Segontium, though such ought
to exist.
We
are sadly ignorant of native funerary practices throughout the period. There are no examples of burials from the
settlements of this age, though the peripheries of such have not been
tested. The only certain example that
we have of a native burial is that of Camuloris, an inhumation in a decorated
lead coffin, probably of the mid-late fourth century from Rhuddgaer on
Anglesey.
Encisted
inhumations are recorded at a number of hut-group sites dug into in the
nineteenth century, but it is unclear whether these are of the Early Christian
period or earlier.
Other
than dedications, shrines and temples associated with the Roman army there are
no examples of built shrines, or for that matter ritual deposits, pertaining to
native religious observances in this period.
We
know nothing about the Early Christian community, or even if such existed in
the region in a Roman context.
An
obvious priority must be the search for the short-lived pre-Flavian sites that
must exist in the region. The garrison
base(s) on Anglesey may be amenable to detection through aerial survey, as may
marching-camps, which antedate the crossing of the Menai strait.
Similarly,
the marching-camps for which a Flavian date may be suggested are far too few in
number, and aerial reconnaissance may prove crucial in the detection of missing
sites. A further spin-off may be a
substantial increase in the number of practice-camps in the vicinity of those
forts where hitherto only a few such sites are known. The dramatic increase in the number of practice-camps associated
with Tomen y Mur within the past decade is instructive. The budget for such
research-oriented flying needs to be substantially increased, with extra
funding being available for those seasons when a bumper crop of new sites may
be anticipated.
To
continue aerial reconnaissance within a 5-7km radius of auxiliary forts in
order to determine whether more examples of practice-camps are to be found.
A
resolution of the chronology of hitherto undated military complexes, such as
those at Llanfor, through research excavations.
Excavation
is necessary to clarify the occupation sequences at those auxiliary forts for
which we have the most imperfect knowledge, especially at sites such as Bryn y
Gefeiliau where geophysical survey suggests a much more complex history. At the majority the determination of the
strength of the second century or later garrisons is a priority. We may also be able to determine whether
ancillary structures such as mansiones with their associated
artefactual assemblages are responsible
for the apparent later Roman occupation sequence at some forts; for example,
Caerhun.
Research
excavations on military posts are vitally necessary in order to produce a suite
of palaeoenvironmental data for the investigation of the relationship between
the garrison base and its hinterland. In this respect a wetland site such as
Tomen y Mur and its associated vicus have a tremendous potential for the
survival of organic remains, which could be utilised to tackle the kinds of
issues raised above.
It
is important to determine the chronology of late Roman installations such as
Caer Gybi, and also search for potential late Roman watchtowers on Anglesey and
the mainland.
To
complete the Roman Forts Environs Project, which has produced invaluable
results. The results have clarified the
internal arrangement of some forts, whilst the plans of the vici not
only allow the effective management of the forts’ environs, but also throw up
new questions in respect of their interpretation. The detection of pottery kilns is a potential spin-off of this
project, as is the location of areas set aside for burial.
It
is essential to undertake excavations at selected vici with a view to
addressing their overall chronology, and their socio-economic role as an
interface between the military and the native community.
The
analysis of artifactual material from forts, vici and rural settlements
in order to address broad economic perspectives: the operation of a market
economy, barter systems, resistance to change etc. The economic dimension, an integral part of the impact of conquest,
will be difficult to grapple unless such an analysis is initiated.
Our
knowledge base is exceedingly weak, and a substantial portion of the road
network is conjectural. Nothing is
known of bridges, or alterations to the road network as is hinted at by
apparently different alignments near Brithdir.
Research into this vital element in respect of military supply and a
means of economic development is important.
There
is still considerable interest in the investigation of road systems, and is a
fruitful field for co-operation between professionals and amateurs. The contribution of aerial reconnaissance in
the detection of features such as quarry-pits for road material, in the absence
of upstanding evidence for the roads, is vital.
Close
watch needs to be kept on the likely sites of river crossings in the RB period,
together with a monitoring of possible anchorages/docking facilities, as, for
example, close to Caerhun. Native
coastal traffic may possibly be revealed through concentrations of RB material.
Many
of the remains are in a fragile state, and their preservation and record must
be a high priority. The threat to the data-base through damage by
stone-clearance or ploughing needs to be addressed by providing better protection
through the increased use of scheduling, coupled with raising awareness among
landowners/farmers of the importance of the sites on their land.
The
reliability of data in respect of the overall distribution and density of the
settlement pattern needs to be addressed, since the evidence, such as that
gleaned from the A55 improvement scheme, indicates that large numbers of
settlement sites have been lost through stone-robbing and agricultural
operations. There is, thus, a need to continue field survey and aerial
reconnaissance targeting those areas those areas where evidence for settlement,
including, but not focussing exclusively upon hut-groups and field systems, is
patchy or very thin.
Only
a properly constituted research project, investigating selected types of rural
settlement within different parts of the region, can answer some of the
questions posed in respect of the chronology and socio-economic relationships
of different components of the RB settlement pattern. For example, so-called ‘villages’; isolated, upland huts, and the
better known enclosed hut-groups.
Similarly,
sites where Romanised buildings are probable, such as Maenhir/Tre Anna, require
investigation to determine whether these are high-status settlements within a
rural settlement pattern, or have an altogether different function.
It
is essential that research programmes embracing later prehistory take the RB
dimension into account, and that collaborative schemes be undertaken.
It
is important that the investigation of settlements on limestone is accorded a
high priority, in order to address issues arising from the poor survival of
animal bone on sites hitherto excavated.
A
high priority must be given to the investigation of landscape characteristics
from later prehistory to the Early Christian period.
We
still have minimal detail concerning the role of fortified sites in the
settlement pattern and socio-economic structures of the age. Very little work has been done on the
hill-forts of the region since the RCAHMW’s surveys in the 1950s and early
‘60s.
The
effects of the conquest might be recognised through abandonment or change of
use. Opportunities for the investigation of these sites must be accorded a high
priority.
Continued
academic interest in artefact assemblages and the distribution of finished
goods/consumables will lead to the analyses of material within the region. We will thus be in a better position to
discuss issues such as availability, selection and the social meaning of RB
artefacts on a wider front.
The
location of kilns for the production of pottery in the vicinity of auxiliary
forts should be accorded a high priority.
There
is a need to locate metal-extraction and quarrying sites, and to determine
whether these have a settlement component, as in NE Wales. The chronology and scale of such
exploitation needs to be addressed.
‘Domestic’
industrial processes and craft activity at vici and rural settlement
sites demand urgent investigation. What
is its history and scale? Is there specialisation at such levels of production?
High
priority must be given to the detection and excavation of burial sites, either
by the use of geophysics in the vicinity of settlements, or by the
investigation of multi-period burial sites (Bronze Age – Early Christian),
which may throw light on one aspect of native funerary practice.
The
detection of RB cult sites in either vicus or rural contexts is a high
priority. The investigation of the
interiors of hill-forts, which have produced RB material, may prove fruitful in
respect of the latter.
Paper
prepared by Jeffrey L. Davies (University of Wales, Aberystwyth)
This document’s copyright is held by contributors and sponsors of the Research Framework for the Archaeology of Wales.