A Research Framework for the Archaeology of Wales
Southwest Wales – Early Prehistoric
22/12/2003
This first section attempts a
brief evaluation of our current state of knowledge. Essentially, what are the
strengths (what do we already know a lot about and what are we doing well) and
what are the weaknesses (what do we not know much about and what are we not
doing well)? A draft table of excavated sites is attached as an appendix. The
final version of this paper will be accompanied by current and recent research
project, lists of radiocarbon dates and a detailed bibliography that will build
on the draft resource audit recently prepared by Cambria Archaeology.
The region is characterised
by numerous, highly visible Neolithic and early Bronze Age funerary and ritual
monuments. Barker lists 31 Neolithic chambered tomb sites from Pembrokeshire
and Carmarthenshire in his review of the evidence plus 12 probable sites and 7
well documented lost sites. For the Bronze Age there are over 700 barrow sites
and 221 recorded sites of standing stones recorded on the Sites and Monuments
Record plus numerous possible sites (including those from documentary and place
name evidence). In addition there are numerous stone circles and several
possible henges and linear stone alignments.
All the known Neolithic and
Bronze Age funerary and ritual monuments are currently the subject of an
extensive condition survey being funded by Cadw and being undertaken by Cambria
Archaeology (Dyfed Archaeological Trust). This is allowing the preparation of
an updated descriptive and photographic record. Chris Barker has undertaken a
comprehensive and more detailed review of the evidence for the Neolithic
chambered tombs. George Williams has carried out a similar survey of the
evidence from standing stones and Cambria Archaeology has undertaken a
considerable amount of fieldwork on standing stones.
The lack of excavated
evidence means that our understanding of the Neolithic tomb sites is
negligible. Only two sites, Carreg Coetan Arthur and Carreg Samson, have
produced any significant excavated evidence in recent years. However,
information on the nature of burial or ceremonial activity is very poor. The
quantity of human remains (generally cremations) could probably fit into a
matchbox and there is very little artefactual evidence. There is generally very
poor survival of unburnt bone due to soil conditions. There has been very
little excavated evidence from the areas in the immediate vicinity of the sites
and yet these areas are currently under threat from erosion and plough damage.
The excavated evidence for the Bronze Age is little
better. Although the list of excavated sites appears to be long, only a small
handful of sites have been the subject of full scientific investigation.
Furthermore, as with the Neolithic sites, there has been very little
examination of the areas in the immediate vicinity of barrows and standing
stones. The few exceptions, such as Stackpole Warren, Plas Gogerddan, Glandy
Cross and Llanilar, demonstrate the huge potential of these peripheral
areas. The surviving monuments are
often just one element of an extensive and complex ritual activity. There has
been very little attempt to develop the role of monuments in the landscape,
although an important exception been the recent work of Vicki Cummings.
Settlement
Strengths
The two or three houses
excavated at Clegyr Boia, is one of the few excavated Neolithic settlement
sites anywhere in Wales and suggests that significant evidence for house
structures may exist even if it is difficult to find. However, the series of
radiocarbon dates recently recovered from several stakehole structures at
Redberth, Pembrokeshire suggests that more ephemeral sites, which have left
very little material evidence maybe more common. There are other sites other
sites with evidence for Neolithic settlement activity (eg Coygan Camp and Plas
Gogerddan). However, this tends to be fragmentary consisting of just a few
pottery sherds or the occasional radiocarbon date.
Apart from Stackpole Warren,
the evidence for settlement in the early Bronze Age is also very fragmentary. A
significant concentration of burnt mound sites are known from the region –
largely due to the work of Cantrill’s geological survey. These have a quite
tight Bronze Age date range and, whatever their function may be, they are
possibly indicative of the extent of Bronze Age settlement. However, these
sites are under threat from erosion.
Weaknesses
Generally the quantity of
settlement evidence remains poor – although this is common throughout Wales and
indeed throughout much of Britain. This is likely to be because of the lack of
visibility of many sites (such as Redberth). They are unlikely to survive as
earthworks and they are unlikely to be visible on aerial photographs. As a
consequence, much of the available settlement evidence appears to have been
incidental discoveries during the course of salvage excavation or while investigating
later settlement sites and structures. There is no evidence at all for
Neolithic and early Bronze Age settlement in some areas of the region such as
the Tywi valley. The lack of sites
means, for example, that there is little or no information about the nature of
the later Mesolithic –Earlier Neolithic transition.
There is also a lack of
chronological understanding of field systems, cairnfields and some sites of
upland ploughing. Many of these sites maybe early in date. Similarly, there is
a lack of detailed dating information or understanding of unenclosed hut
circles and palisaded enclosures, many of which might also have early
prehistoric origins.
The survival rate and
discovery rate of stones objects from the Neolithic and early Bronze has tended
to be high. There is now and extensive distribution of known stone axes known
throughout the area, many linked to at least two major sources within the
region. An increasing number of lithics are now being reported through the
Portable Antiquities scheme.
There are 12 known
prehistoric metal mining sites in the region. Six of these now have radiocarbon
dates and these are linked to programmes of investigation. Although the nature
of the dating evidence for quarries and mines is not straightforward (and has
been questioned) the dates from at least one of the sites (Copa Hill,
Cwmystwyth) have been recovered from at least two contextual sources (including
artefacts).
The quantity of ceramic
evidence from the Neolithic is very poor and fragmentary. Although this
improves in the early Bronze Age, the evidence is predominantly from funerary
contexts.
The known distribution of
lithics scatters is heavily influenced by collection biases in particular on
the Pembrokeshire coastal path. The lack of arable farming also tends to
influence the location of fieldwalking. The lithics assemblages often tend to
be one dimensional – ie they lacked good environmental or settlement context,
although exceptions might be located in the sand dune areas. Insufficient is
known of the stone axe production sites in southwest Wales. Specific quarry
sites have not yet been confidently identified and there is still the
possibility that local glacial boulders have been used such as at Glandy Cross
and Glyn-y-Fran.
There have been no excavated
wetland or waterlogged sites and so the full range of artefacts and material
culture is not known.
There is little or no
evidence for the exploitation of metal ores outside of north Ceredigion and
little or no evidence for ore-preparation and smelting processes.
This part of the paper
attempts to ask some of the questions that remain unanswered or only partly answered
following the evaluation of our existing state of knowledge. That is what are
the opportunities, what potential problems do we want to solve and what are the
gaps that we want to fill? Of course, it may be felt that many of these themes
are unachievable (although Part C tentatively suggests some possible
approaches). There are going to be inevitable constraints (threats) on our
ability to achieve many of these ambitions that are based on the nature of the
archaeological resource and the current political, financial and legislative
framework of archaeology in Wales. Nevertheless, this is meant to be a start at
considering some of the issues.
1 - The study of later
Mesolithic –Earlier Neolithic transitions
·
Did farming substitute
or supplement the economy of later Mesolithic communities?
·
What is the evidence for
Mesolithic and Neolithic material being found at the same location?
2 - The introduction,
character and development of agricultural practices - Overlaps with all other
themes
·
How significant was
arable farming during the earlier Neolithic (cf Thomas 1991)?
·
Were non-intensive
farming practices (with long fallow agriculture) added to activities already
being undertaken by Mesolithic groups (cf Barrett 1994)? Were early Neolithic
populations of SW Wales essentially pastoralists?
·
What is the evidence for
the co-existence of different socio-economic groups?
·
Do we see a change in
farming practice during late 3rd M early 2nd M with more
intensive farming and shorter fallow periods?
·
What was the attitude
toward land ownership? Was there a change in concept from one of right of
access to land (by essentially mobile communities) to one of ownership and
family tenure (by essentially settled communities)?
3 – The identification of
settlement
·
Why is the settlement
evidence at variance with the data from Ireland and the continent?
·
Was the earlier
Neolithic landscape and settlement characterized by its mobility (cf Whittle
1997)?
·
Was there a change to
more permanent settlement during the later Neolithic/earlier Bronze Age?
4 - The study of how
different landscape zones were exploited from the 5th to the 2nd
millennium BC
·
Were earlier Neolithic
farmers essentially confined to lowland environments as suggested by
distribution of chambered tombs (cf Lynch 2000)?
·
Was there only a move
into the uplands following population pressures during later Neolithic (cf
Lynch 2000)?
·
Were there more complex
arrangements with different responses to different landscape zones?
·
Was there greater agricultural
diversification during the later Neolithic?
·
What is the evidence for
seasonal variations in the exploitation of upland zones?
5
- The development, role and use of ceremonial and funerary monuments and their
environs
·
What was the nature of
mortuary or funerary activity during the Neolithic and early Bronze Age?
·
Was there a change from
communal to individual burial?
·
What can monuments tell
us about the nature of society?
·
What was the
relationship between different monuments and between monuments and the wider
landscape?
·
What can the immediate
environs tell us about the development, role and use of monuments? – This is
particularly pertinent in the light of an ongoing threat to the non-visible
elements of monument complexes.
6 - Industrial processes
and access to resources and trade connections
·
Where were the stone axe
production sites/quarries (if formal quarries existed)?
·
Was the exploitation of
quarries for stone axe production formalised or ritualised with working
restricted to certain groups and times or was it more casual with people making
axes whenever they needed them?
·
Did this change during
the Early Bronze Age – both for stone and metal ores?
·
Is the evidence for the
exploitation of metal ores confined to north Ceredigion?
·
What were the mechanisms
for dispersal? Was the raw material or finished products formally traded (by
merchant class) or passed hand to hand by neighbours?
·
Was there a seaborne
trade?
·
What was the nature of
the contact with the east (flint, axes and pottery) and with the west (styles
of tomb architecture)? Was there a change in emphasis during the later
Neolithic?
·
What is the evidence for
routeways across mountains or coast?
7 - The distribution and
context of material culture deposition
·
Was pottery essentially
domestic or ritual in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age?
·
What was the nature of
Neolithic stone axe and BA metalwork deposition?
This part of the paper
attempts to set out some ideas or approaches to answer some of the possible
agenda questions outlined above. Consequently, an attempt has been made to link
the approaches to the questions suggested in the agenda. However, it is written
with much trepidation. There is already a concern that it maybe far too soon to
draw up of a set of methodological approaches in this way and that any attempt
to do so may appear to be too prescriptive.
It maybe felt that this stage of the research framework exercise should
be confined to the identification of the key issues. It is also debateable whether the approaches that are suggested
could result in SMART outcomes (Specific/Measurable/Achievable/
Realistic/Timebounded). Nevertheless, it was felt that it would do no harm to
put some ideas down to start the debate. Without a discussion of how we can
approach the key themes and questions we will never be able to determine
whether or not the answers to those issues are achievable or not.
1 - The study of later
Mesolithic –Earlier Neolithic transitions
·
Reassessment of lithics
assemblages (eg ‘flint working floors’) from Pembrokeshire especially those
with recorded Mesolithic and Neo artefacts
·
Examination of locations
with mixed assemblages (eg cave sites) including sub-surface investigation
linked with comprehensive dating programme and palaeoenvironmental sampling
·
Examination of submerged
forests and coastal wetlands that may have deposits spanning this crucial
period for forager-farming transition – linked to dendro programme (see
Caseldine 1990)
·
Considerable potential
for the use of isotope analysis and C14 dating has been highlighted by the work
of Rick Schulting. This suggests a possible way forward.
2 - The introduction,
character and development of agricultural practices
·
Essential to undertake
comprehensive palaeoenvirnomental sampling programme from all excavated
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites – including sampling for charred plant
remains.
·
Examination of buried
land surfaces beneath funerary and ritual monuments. Also under later
prehistoric earthworks and enclosure banks.
·
Pollen studies need to
be integrated into programmes of archaeological fieldwork
·
Examination of nature
and chronology of field systems – perhaps focused on areas with complex
palimpsests such as St David’s Head
3 – The identification of
settlement
·
Early sites cannot be
found using existing locational strategies unless by chance (eg Redberth).
Perhaps more innovative locational strategies needed – eg greater use of remote
sensing (phosphate surveys, magnetic susceptibility surveys) and perhaps closer
investigation of apparent blank areas (eg during topsoil stripping of
developments such as road building).
·
Reassessment of known
lithics assemblages. Targeted programmes of fieldwalking in Pembrokeshire using
transects across different landscape zones to locate discrete earlier Neolithic
scatters with re-survey at closer resolution is necessary.
·
Programmes of aerial
survey linked with programmes of systematic fieldwalking, especially in those
areas being ploughed for the first time.
4 - The study of how
different landscape zones were exploited from the 5th to the 2nd
millennium BC
·
Development of survey
and fieldwork techniques to undertake comparative mapping of different
landscape zones
5
- The development, role and use of ceremonial and funerary monuments and their
environs
·
The examination of
ceremonial and burial monuments will enable the exploration of the nature of
Neolithic and Bronze Age societies – eg though different types of burial and
the character and potential status of grave goods.
·
The development of
terrain modelling, examining visual relationships between individual and groups
of monuments and between monuments and their topographic settings.
·
The examination of the
use of space within monument complexes. For example, from the perspective of
the observer or participant.
·
Identification of
landscapes that were re-used or avoided (due to the ‘historical knowledge of
past communities’). Perhaps though an examination of monument complexes with
evidence for multi-period use.
·
Fieldwork involving
monuments and monument complexes should include examination of the gaps between
them – especially in the light of the ongoing threat.
·
Unpublished excavation
archives (eg Bedd yr Afanc and Pentre Ifan) need to be studied and brought to
publication
6 - Industrial processes
and access to resources and trade connections
·
Systematic programme of
fieldwork and rock outcrop characterisation linked to existing petrographic
data needed to identify stone axe production sites.
·
Improved provenancing of
Bronze Age metal artefacts linked to geochemical fingerprinting of Welsh ore deposits
– as a means to identify sources of raw material.
·
Review of excavated
evidence for metal ore processing.
7 - The distribution and
context of material culture deposition
·
Re-assessment of
distribution and context of artefact locations – both hoards and individual
finds
·
Examination of the
context of deposition of artefacts within sites
·
Re-assessment of
existing archives – examining potential for further research eg scientific
analysis and radiocarbon dating, lipid analysis etc
·
The need to integrate
research programmes with agri-environment schemes
·
Continued development
and enhancement of the SMR – in particular the creation of records for
artefacts in local museum and private collections and the development of shared
data with NMGW and other ENDEX partners
Paper prepared by Gwilym
Hughes (Cambria Archaeology)
This
document’s copyright is held by contributors and sponsors of the Research
Framework for the Archaeology of Wales.