A Research Framework for the
Archaeology of Wales
Southeast Wales – Roman
22/12/2003
A working party undertook a SWOT analysis (see Appendix)
using raw data in the Regional Research Audit (Evans et al). This analysis has helped to identify our
current state of knowledge and formulate future objectives and questions. Consideration
has also been given as to how these topics might be pursued.
Southeast Wales has within its area both a legionary
fortress and a civitas-capital only a
short distance apart. This situation is
unique in Britain and should be exploited within the Research Agenda. Both Caerleon and Caerwent are relatively
free of medieval/modern occupation, which means that large areas of both sites
are available for study
On the wider scale it should be borne in mind that the
geo-political bounds of the considered area were not Roman ones and research
within it cannot be examined in isolation.
Trans-Severn links are particularly important, but obviously the wider
Roman context needs to be appreciated.
Whilst in implementing a research agenda for the Romans in Southeast
Wales local signatures will be reflected, there is a need to be conscious of
other wider endeavors and influences, specifically the recommendations made in
James and Millett (2001).
In Southeast Wales, there has been a long tradition of
investigation and study of Roman remains. This is reflected in the staffing of
existing institutions and continuing public interest. Whilst some antiquarian observers had started to establish
patterns of settlement through observation and considered speculation and
others had responded to discoveries through fieldwork, it was the development
of museums and learned societies that stimulated excavations most notably at
the legionary fortress at Caerleon and the Civitas capital at Caerwent,
but also at a number of fort sites (eg Gelligaer) and villas (Ely and
Llantwit Major). Much of this work was undertaken by staff of the National
Museum of Wales. In the second half of
the twentieth century the establishment of a university archaeology department
at Cardiff, and the later creation of the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust
added to the bodies carrying out excavations, surveys and other investigations
and research. More recently the formation of an archaeology department at
University of Wales, Newport has increased the academic resource within the
region.
The Ancient Monument Inspectorate, now part of Cadw:
Welsh Historic Monuments, have overseen initiatives to allow protection through
scheduling, and in some cases guardianship. The advent of developer funding has
led to changes in procurement in turn increasing the range of excavating bodies
working within Southeast Wales. This
does not always lead to a maximisation of recovered data in broader research
terms.
The Regional Sites and Monuments Record currently
contains 1,119 records pertaining to various indications of Roman
activity. Whilst the normal starting
point for many archaeological investigations as a tool for weighting research
priorities it is of only limited use, but it does provide a snapshot of the
potential range of data.
Undoubtedly some remains such as those at Caerleon are of
international significance. Excavations and related studies there, at Caerwent,
and at certain military sites have been of more than national
significance. Furthermore, there is an
inherent value in the exploration and study of Romano-British remains for other
archaeological interrogations both locally and nationally.
The SMR requires enhancement (currently under review), so that it can
be used readily as a research tool rather than primarily for development
control as at present. It also needs to
be made available to the wider community in a readily accessible form.
That the data in the Regional Sites and Monuments
Record is weighted towards the major settlements and military sites may to some
extent reflect past interests and endeavours. This apparent large volume of
data may have given rise to false impressions about the state of knowledge
leading in turn to unfortunate judgements about the need for further work.
Much of our data, particularly that gathered in the
second half of the twentieth century, has been derived from excavations in
reaction to development threat or piecemeal surveys by different individuals
and agencies. Whilst knowledge has been enhanced and understandings changed,
the information base is disparate and limited by the different means of data
retrieval and excavation timing, time-scale and resources. Some of these
investigations may have had a ‘research dimension’, but this was not the
driving force. Only at the Caerwent
have excavations been undertaken recently (1981-1995), where has research been
the prime reason for the work.
Other than at Caerwent and some investigations on the
Gwent Levels, our raw data set has seen little addition since the late 1980s.
This may be no more than a reflection of effective planning control or other
factors, but in contrast to some other parts of Britain we know very little -
indeed we may not have sufficient data (or know where to look for it) to follow
some avenues of inquiry.
Whilst the whole of our region has not been the
subject of a broad-ranging synthesis there have been works that have gone some
way towards this either covering part of the county of part of the period. The county histories (Gwent in preparation)
are a good example of this and there are overviews of parts of the period in
some excavation reports, Usk for example, and in works designed for wider consumption
and also more limited circulation such as the threat-led assessment surveys of
‘South East Roman Wales’ and ‘Vici and roads’ carried out for Cadw.
Such consideration that has been given as been made in
the context of discussions in excavation reports or, more recently, formed
parts of limited circulation studies within the aegis of threat-led assessment
works for Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments. In either case the synthesis is
limited by the project or report context and purpose.
Improved communication amongst the archaeological
community could lead to a dynamic that produces partnership projects that at
present cannot be delivered by a single organization. Although many parties are
interested in the Roman period in Southeast Wales (Cadw, Cardiff University,
GGAT, NMGW, UWCN and local societies), there have only been rare instances of
productive partnerships. Sharing ideas
and resources should provide the potential for a greater number of projects
with a higher profile. A pan-Wales
conference held on a regular basis (?triennial), would provide an opportunity
not only to disseminate new information, but also to provide a stimulus for new
research.
The management of Scheduled Ancient Monuments,
scheduling enhancement, and the implementation of protection ‘in situ’ policies
in planning may lead to false notions that the untapped research resource is
safe. Waterlogged sites (not only in
the Severn Estuary, but also in other locales – eg Coelbren) may have vast untapped
potential, but be subject to unseen, and certainly untested, decay through
desiccation. Elsewhere the
implementation of preservation engineering solutions, that include elements of
acceptable loss - the judgment made in a research agenda vacuum, and limited
excavation intervention leads to at best disparate recovery of data. Whereas
for Roman sites meaningful data is best collected through open area excavation.
Continuous partial protection and/or ‘nibbling’ minor excavations may adversely
affect the archaeological resource.
Romano-British artefact studies in Wales are
under-represented in the published record.
The commencement, let alone completion, of catalogues of museum
collections should be a priority and could be filtered into the wider record
through the Extended National Database or successor. There is a need to place greater emphasis on the study of
artefacts from Wales and the use of the existing archaeological archive stored
in Museums. The successful Portable
Antiquities Scheme (with support from the Heritage Lottery Fund) is addressing
the recording of artefacts that have been recently discovered, mainly by metal
detectorists, and the dissemination of the information for future research. There have
been few palaeoenvironmental and zooarchaeological studies and these have been
mostly in response to particular discoveries.
Whilst bone survival in some areas is a problem study of such remains
that do survive should be given more weight than has previously been considered
necessary.
The Research Audit for Southeast Wales draws attention
to the large body of reports (grey
literature) arising from developer-funded works in the past fifteen years. The assimilation of this data into the
record and making it more widely available should be made a priority for
enhancement funding; it would also be a comparatively easy process to develop a
continuously updated resource index that included not only published works but
also ‘grey literature’ and post-graduate thesis data. Understanding material cultures
is critically important.
At this stage of the process we have organised our
identified research topics under functional headings but recognise that there
is inevitably cross-fertilisation and connection and the approach when considering
pan-Wales agenda may take a wider thematic approach (for example ‘Transitions
and Identities’ or ‘Characterising Settlement and Society’ cf English Heritage
1998, James & Millet 2001). Much of the work undertaken
to date has been on a site-specific basis and future projects should consider
the wider context and their setting in the landscape.
The Roman military bases and adjacent civilian settlements (canabae
or vici) form an extensive high quality physical data resource that has
seen varying degrees of investigation in the past. Whilst the forts are
well-protected, this is not true of the adjacent militarily controlled
settlements, although a current survey for Cadw may go some way to addressing
the balance. The focus of investigation has, perhaps inevitably, been coloured
by colonial (imperial) views of romanisation and dominated by considerations of
fort dispositions and occupation, army organization, and military material
culture. A topic only passingly examined is what was the impact of
the army (economic, social, political, cultural, technical - within and beyond the gates) on the native
population (and vice-versa)? Connected
with this would be investigation of what were the forms, extent, inception and
duration of Romanisation through military influence and the physical impact of
military/imperial activities? Taking post-colonial approaches can we detect
discrepant responses to Roman rule – opt in, hybrid, resistant?
One critical aspect of such a study is to realize that contact is not
simply restricted to the gates of forts.
The army carried out many functions at different locales. Whilst canabae
and vici are obviously starting points evidence of civilian/military
interaction will be found within forts and civil settlements and
elsewhere. In a geographic area where
the historic sources would suggest active resistance from, and subsequent
defeat (?elimination of) the late pre-Roman Iron Age military formed from the
high class elite. What were the cultural influences from the new civil
leadership? Were these people ex-military, or native opportunists, do we even
have sufficient information to start to make a reasonable analysis?
Whilst some attempts have been made to define landuse,
these have been either too broadbrush or limited in scope. However, if we can
achieve some understanding of how land was owned, managed and used, this may in
turn inform political, military, socio-economic and cultural narratives.
We have only a limited understanding of how land was
apportioned after the conquest. How much remained in indigenous hands? Clearly
there is continuity at some sites, but control of some parts will also have
passed initially to imperial authorities with some subsequent handover to civil
authorities. Whilst it may be difficult without epigraphic evidence to
determine the extent of the civitas silurum or territorium of the
fortress at Caerleon, the extents of landholding in the Gwent Levels, which
offer a resource that is not commonly found, and indeed the manner of
reclamation, may be explored? Can we detect estates?
Caerleon/Bulmore/Caerwent offer the best opportunity
for a high profile project investigating the inter relationship of these two
important sites and their hinterlands.
The intention would be to define a block of land and identify the full
rage of sites (morphology, chronology, function, status etc) within the study
area. Mapping the Roman landscape would
lead to a greater understanding of the relationship between the two sites and
the legionary territorium/civitas
Silurum. Filling in the gaps around
these two sites should be a priority, in order to answer questions about
economy and cultural interaction.
The imposition of a new set of communications and more
frequent long-distant contact must have impacted on indiginous culture. Physical change such as roads and towns
impose marks on the landscape and long-distance riverine/maritime access open
out new possibilities for cultural interchange. The nature and role of maritime
movement has often been overlooked and data for the road system and ports and
landing places is generally poor.
The long southern boundary of our area, and its
alluvial margin offers an opportunity to explore and recover evidence for
waterborne trade and contacts. Communication need not be restricted to physical
manifestations and it would be worthwhile to try and detect evidence of for
human/social (imperial, military, political, educative etc) exchanges?
Finally can we detect patterns to trading in relation
to both imports and exports, although the former may be the easier to define?
Are there different signatures (in terms of range of artefacts) for different
types (in form, function or status) of sites or even between sites of the same
type? Can we detect macro- or
micro-economies at work? What’s being
manufactured/produced and where is it going?
Exploring the relationship of sites to their environs
produces better contexts for achieving understanding of function and
change. Study of the periphery can
sometimes be more informative than that of the core. Effort in the past has tended to be site specific. However, for interrogations to be meaningful
data sets need to be robust and meaningful exploration may be limited to
examining the relationships of key sites to their environs. Exploration may be particularly fruitful at
both Caerleon and Caerwent (at the latter we know little about its relationship
with the immediate hinterland), but also Coelbren, Gelligaer, and Cowbridge.
Our evidence for and from small towns remains limited.
Whilst some exploration has occurred at Great Bulmore, Cowbridge, Monmouth and
Usk, our knowledge of other probable sites Abergavenny, Cardiff, Chepstow is
scant. Here we have little knowledge further than the general area of potential
settlement.
At all these places better understanding of the forces
that stimulated development (and collapse) is needed. Connected with this we
need to understand further morphology, relationship to the major centres or
military sites, and relationship to sources of production both
agri-evironmental and industrial?
As the recent discovery at Ford Farm, nr Undy shows, there are still
high-class sites to be discovered. More particularly none have been subject to
modern excavation using the gamut of scientific analysis now available. Most past excavation has focused on the
principal structures (the core), and we have less idea about the extent of
landholding and activities within it (the periphery). Traditional views of the
Romans providing a civilising influence occurring (or not) through
hierarchical diffusion have prevailed.
In overall terms we still know little about the
organisation of the countryside and less so for areas to the east and west of
the Vale of Glamorgan. How did sites develop? What was the extent of
LPRIA-Roman continuity? Is there cultural resistance in rural communities? Was
there post-Roman continuity? Why is there an apparent collapse in some parts of
the rural economy in the 4th Century.
At present we cannot develop meaningful models.
There is a clear case for the survey of
‘Farmsteads’ and potential sites (object scatters), and for a modern
site-type excavation. The opportunity for this to occur as a result of re-development
is low and therefore public or grant-resourcing would be needed. Here we may
note that any sites in Gwent Levels have a high palaeo-environmental potential.
Perhaps less easily we also need to explore the relationship between the
upland and lowland zones. Are the uplands really deserted, is there evidence
for transhumance?
We have some literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence, but
otherwise know relatively little about the people who inhabited Southeast Wales
for much of the Roman period. We can pose some questions, even if there is no
ready route to answering them? What was the ethnic make-up (and change)? Can we
assess changes in populace and social/ethnic groups? What was its condition/make-up (at any
period)? Are there gender/age/class
regional biases/patterns? What drives and/or dictates different consumption
(foodstuffs/clothes/tools/household etc) patterns?
Our knowledge of specific religious practice in Roman
Southeast Wales is limited.
Apart from the temple at Caerwent, no religious
centres have been excavated, evidence is restricted to chance finds and
epigraphy. Evidence for burial practice
is better with a recent cemetery excavation at Caerleon and, as yet unpublished,
excavations of late/sub-Roman cemeteries at ATE and Llandough, but many may yet
need to be located and identified and excavated. Local soil conditions may in
some parts of the region affect survival of human remains.
We can pose some questions. Is there cultural resistance
in rural communities with continuation of LPRIA religious practice? Can
we detect evolved Romano-Celtic religious practice as opposed to imposed Roman
or continuing (resisting) native forms?
Can we clarify the relationship between late Roman settlements, evolving
Christian centres and late Roman/early medieval cemeteries? These will not be answered by a single
intervention and might be best examined through a multi-period project, which
looked at changes in religious practice and belief over time. It is a project that potentially has a wide
popular appeal.
We conclude by offering some thoughts as to the
various approaches that might be adopted in answering the questions posed.
New evidence does need to be collected through select
research excavations. This is critical
in considering rural sites, vici, small towns, cemeteries, romano-celtic
temples, barracks, production points (eg kilns and metal goods manufacture).
New data can also be gained through long-term
field-walking programmes over potential sites (but this is limited by
agricultural practice, the predominance of pastoralism and the lack of
well-organised or supported amateur archaeological sites), and monitoring of
coastal erosion in the intertidal-zone, and reen maintenance on the Gwent
Levels. We also consider that there should be dedicated programmes of aerial
photography (limited potential), and geophysics at key sites. Mapping of Roman
Southeast Wales would allow settlement diversity and density to be explored
Excavation, evaluations or watching-briefs required through implementation of
planning guidance should be informed by this assessment and should inform
other studies through better data diffusion, even if
results may only form random sampling.
Existing evidence should be re-examined. This can be achieved through long-term
field-walking programmes (limited by agricultural practice) and remote sensing
surveys at known sites. A synthesis of
developer-funded archaeological results (particularly minor investigations) from
1990- should be produced. Likewise a list of relevant theses should be
collated. Finally material culture
collections (predominantly) in Museum archives should be reviewed for
potential.
English Heritage 1998 Exploring our past 1998
James, S & Millet, M (eds) 2001 ‘Britons and Romans: advancing an
archaeological agenda’ Counc Brit
Archaeol Res Rep 125.
Paper prepared by Professor M Aldhouse-Green, Mr RJ Brewer, Dr EM
Evans, Dr P Guest, Professor WH Manning, Mr AG Marvell (Co-ordinator), Mr R
Trett, Dr PV Webster.
This
document’s copyright is held by contributors and sponsors of the Research
Framework for the Archaeology of Wales.
APPENDIX – SWOT ANALYSIS
|
|
Military
|
Military/ Civilian Interface |
Civilian (Urban) |
Civilian (Rural) |
Industrial/ Trade |
Religious/ Funerary |
General |
|
|
55-200 |
200+ |
|||||||
|
Strengths |
Extensive resource, well protected. High quality physical data resource International impacts |
Identified and protected resource, particularly at coastal sites in
late third/early fourth centuries |
Some Canabae at Caerleon well-investigated and published Bulmore satellite settlement (for Caerleon) investigated Relationship of Caerleon to landscape |
Principal settlement (Caerwent), long studied and well-protected Potential resource at small towns/ roadside settlements (particularly Bulmore,
Cowbridge, Monmouth) |
Some Villas well-established and protected Sites in Gwent Levels have high palaeo-environmental resource Excavation opportunities in countryside easier (and less expensive) |
A few production sites known and some excavation, but only limited
scientific analyses carried out Pottery and high-status objects distance trade well-established Maritime supply physically attested |
Religious? Some temples known Recent cemetery excavations at Caerleon Also late/sub-Roman cemeteries at ATE and Llandough (both
unpublished) |
Expertise locally available in Universities, Museums, Trust and
Societies Long tradition of well-published investigation; Archives maintained by national/local museums in area. |
|
Weaknesses |
Little detailed excavations or other investigation at marching or
practice camps Extent of military occupation (re-occupation) in mid- late-second
century not well understood |
Form and extent of later activity less well understood than for
earlier period Little evidence for army in late urban contexts? Outside Caerleon/ Bulmore no cemetery excavations |
Extent and form of vici, activities in vici Extent of
military/imperial involvement with mineral extraction (nature and form of
the same) or building projects Little evidence for army in late urban contexts? Is there a true civilian/military divide at the walls/gates? Would
further excavation resolve this? Relationship of soldiers with families (legal or otherwise) |
Relationship to rural settlement poorly defined Some rural settlement poorly protected Territorium forms and extents weakly defined Character, extent and dating of early urbanisation – ? Do some vici
develop into towns Form/history of small town development, economy (and related issues)
and collapse/decay poorly established |
Limited recent excavation. No review of exiting data or capture of new data in context of
alternate views of Romanisation Extent of settlement to west of Vale of Glamorgan poorly defined given
extent of chance finds. Insufficient evidence to develop meaningful models Is there cultural resistance in rural communities with continuation
of LPRIA practice |
Relationship of mineral extraction sources to production
centres poorly understood Few local pottery supply sources recently examined In general all artifact classes would benefit from further analysis
on regional basis |
Excluding examples above lack of excavation of military or civilian
cemetery – or other religious sites.
Soil conditions may be a restricting factor. Is there cultural resistance in rural communities with continuation
of LPRIA religious practice? |
No significant investigations in past 15 years. Excepting some popular works, no recent overall synthesis Earlier work generally lacked significant palaeoenvironmental
dimension Nature of trade/ economy military/ civil links at local/ national
level needs better definition |
|
Opportunities |
High quality data easily available and capable of withstanding
multiple lines of enquiry Activity can be linked to historical events Investigation at marching/practice camps could be carried out at
relatively low-cost (note – mostly scheduled) |
Vici under review (current Cadw Threat Led Assessment project)
geophysics/ evaluation proposed Review or re-use existing artefact data |
Large-scale excavations (Developer-funded) in response to urban
renewal; piecemeal or small-scale excavation may have less value |
Villas – some scheduled – ?would adjacent land surveys (physical and
remote) reveal anything – value of geophysics shown in recent Cadw Threat
Led Assessment ‘Farmsteads’ and potential sites (object scatters) could be
surveyed/tested -new type site excavation needed Work could focus on issues of PRIA/Roman and Roman/ Early Medieval
transition |
Multi-range investigations at industrial sites (eg Machen – quality
geophysics and metal-detectorist returns)– scientific analysis of materials
in archive Any new kiln sites and adjacent areas should be considered for
excavation Existing pottery archives could be continuing subject of study and
new scientific analysis Further ‘maritime’ and other well-preserved remains are likely to
survive in Levels |
Cemeteries should be excavated, if found |
However preferable large-scale excavation limited at known sites
without de-scheduling (or a more relaxed approach to SMCs); piecemeal
possible at some sites (not necessarily always a satisfactory approach) Archives available for review – useful for artefact studies |
|
|
Threats |
Piecemeal and mainly small-scale development at forts and fortresses
(excepting Coelbren), agriculture/forestry at other sites. Reluctance by Cadw to support investigations at Roman military sites
since 1994 Welsh Office Select Affairs Committee review |
Vici – mainly urban encroachment Mineral exploitation |
(see general) |
Likelihood of developer-funding opportunity low Public or grant resourcing needed Imperfectly understood baseline data Reasons for apparent collapse of rural economy in 4th
century not clear |
No developer resourcing for major studies, best met through
post-graduate and other research |
?lack of data – poor bone-preserving soils in some areas No developer resourcing for major studies, public funding for
research limited |
Cost deterrent for large scale works Knowledge base may become more fragmented Lack of co-ordination between different excavators, work
specifications/ designs tend to be concerned with individual sites at the
expense of wider context. Data
extraction, study and interpretation may accordingly be impaired |
|