A Research Framework for the Archaeology of Wales
Southwest Wales – Later Prehistoric
22/12/2003
INTRODUCTION
The analysis of our existing
knowledge strengths and weakness in this paper is based upon an Archaeological
Research Audit compiled in 2002. During the course of 2002 a Later Bronze Age
and Iron Age of Southwest Wales Working Group was convened and met on 30 July
to advise on the Research Audit and to discuss research opportunities.
Following the meeting, a draft of this paper prepared by K Murphy and
circulated among members of the Working Group. Comments from the group were
incorporated into a second draft, which was then presented at the Southwest
Wales Archaeological Research Assessment Seminar held at Trinity College,
Carmarthen on 5 October. Observations
made during this open seminar when incorporated into the final version of this
paper.
This paper has been divided into a
series of topics – settlements, land-use and enclosure and so on. The existing
knowledge strengths and weaknesses of each topic is analysed and research
opportunities presented. Following this is a short section on research
priorities and a means of implementation. Appendices, including a list of key
sites, a list of scientific dates and a list of current research projects,
support the analysis. Key references are provided at the end of the paper.
There is an abundance of Iron
Age settlement sites in the form of Iron Age hillforts/defended enclosures,
with over 600 such sites listed on the regional Sites and Monuments Record,
dominating our knowledge of this period. This compares with 82 hillforts and
defended settlements and over 400 open settlements in northwest Wales, 345
hillforts and 234 defended enclosures in northeast Wales, 126 hillforts and
defended enclosures and 15 settlements in south Wales.
Several Iron Age
hillforts/defended enclosures – Caer Cadwgan, Castell Henllys, Coygan Camp,
Llawhaden group of small defended enclosures, Penycoed, Porth-y-Rhaw and
Walesland Rath – have been the subject of modern, large-scale excavations
supported by environmental analyses and radiocarbon dating.
Over 20 other Iron Age
hillforts/defended enclosures have been partially excavated.
Good publication record of
completed major excavations. The Castell Henllys report process is underway.
New discoveries of Iron Age
hillforts/defended enclosures are being made every year through aerial
photography. Toby Driver’s work in north Ceredigion has increased the number of
defended enclosures from c. 40 to over 90. Most show as parch-marks in pasture.
A drawback is that the parching is confined to a seven-kilometre strip along
the coast.
No
Iron Age unenclosed settlements are known, and no middle and late Bronze Age
settlements of any form have been identified.
Particular types of Iron Age hillfort/defended
enclosure – enclosures with widely spaced ramparts, small rectangular
enclosures, and larger hillforts have received little attention. The excavation
emphasis has been on small hillforts and ‘circular’ defended enclosures.
There has been little attempt to excavate outside the
main defended areas of Iron Age hillforts/defended enclosures, in annexes and
outer enclosures. The exception to this is Castell Henllys.
Artefacts are not common on Iron Age
hillforts/defended enclosure excavations.
Scientific dating methods have not always been used
most efficiently on excavations.
Research
opportunities
It is important
that the research momentum achieved over the past 30 years on Iron Age
hillforts/defended enclosures is not lost.
Information
from Iron Age hillfort/defended enclosure excavations in southwest Wales rivals
that from any area of Britain. This enables, amongst others, the formulation of
different social and economic models to challenge that based on data from
Wessex and southeast Britain, tackle questions such as the defence versus
status role of hillfort ramparts, examine the control of people, goods and
services within and outside the ramparts.
The whole
problem of Iron Age hillfort/defended enclosure chronology requires further
research. This should be targeted at hillfort and enclosure forms that are
currently poorly known:
The chronology and function of larger hillforts needs
to be addressed
The chronology and function of small rectilinear
(often now cropmark) enclosures is not understood. Are they Iron Age or do they
originate in the Romano-British period, or in a different period entirely?
The function of defended enclosures with widely spaced
ramparts and annexes requires investigation.
Coastal promontory forts have received some
archaeological attention in recent years, but this class of monument is still
little understood. Further investigation is required.
The theme of change and continuity of Iron Age
hillforts/defended enclosures from foundation to abandonment would be a
rewarding research project.
Currently, a
settlement hierarchy with hillforts at the top and open settlements and huts at
the bottom is assumed:
Prospecting for settlement sites outside Iron Age
hillforts/defended enclosures would enable a strategy for the detection this
lowest tier of settlement (assuming it exists).
In addition, this might lead to the discovery of
settlements of mid and later Bronze Age to early Iron Age date.
Examination of open settlements, hut groups and single
huts listed ‘prehistoric’ on the Sites
and Monuments Record is required to establish their date.
Techniques used would include aerial photography,
geophysical survey, topographic survey, test pitting and GIS and predictive
surveys.
The Castell
Henllys project and others have demonstrated the need to work on a large scale
to achieve satisfactory answers to research questions. Large-scale excavations
in both exteriors and interiors and on defences are vital if we are to advance
our knowledge of the period. Certain research questions can only be answered
using these techniques.
Resources
should be sought to publish unpublished sites, such as Dale Promontory Fort and
Strawberry Hill.
The good
practice of collecting environmental data including plant macrofossils,
charcoal and pollen must continue and develop on Iron Age hillfort/defended
enclosure excavations and other settlement excavations.
Detection of
Iron Age defended enclosures through aerial photography should continue. Most
sites are visible as parch-marks in permanent pasture, which is problem for
those areas where parching does not regularly occur. In a dry summer resources
should be made available to fly those areas in which parching is not an annual
event.
Use of multiple
radiocarbon dates, including AMS must become the norm on all settlement
excavations.
LAND-USE AND ENCLOSURE
Existing
knowledge strengths and weaknesses
Apart from at Stackpole
Warren, Garn Fawr and Pembrey Mountain no enclosure patterns/field systems have
been identified, although some systems are considered to belong to this period
– Skomer Island, St David’s Head and Mynydd Llangyndeyrn.
Land-use in this period has
not been studied
Research
opportunities
Investigation of known
prehistoric field systems, including excavation backed up by radiocarbon dating
and palaeoenvironmental analyses, would improve our chronological understanding
of these landscapes.
Prospecting for field
systems, including aerial photography, regressive map studies and field work
would assist in placing settlements in their wider landscape setting.
Archaeological curators
should be aware of potential useful information regarding the prehistoric
landscape that may be gained from the investigation of field boundaries in
linear engineering works - road schemes and pipelines – and be prepared to
write briefs including the provision for radiocarbon dating and
palaeoenvironmental analyses.
Our knowledge of past
land-use would be enhanced by the greater use of off-site palaeoenvironmental
analyses, particular pollen studies.
Existing
knowledge strengths and weaknesses
Iron Age burials are rare,
with just a handful of sites known – Plas Gogerddan, Castell Buckett, Stackpole
Warren, Drim Camp and Castell Henllys - and no burial tradition identified.
Later Bronze Age burials are
even more rare than those of the Iron Age. Metalwork finds, often antiquarian,
may have accompanied burials, but this is uncertain.
No temples or similar sites
are known.
Radiocarbon dates from Early
Bronze Age ritual and funerary sites indicate continuing use/reuse and possibly
even foundation in the middle Bronze Age.
Research
opportunities
Unaccompanied cremations and
deposits such as charcoal-filled pits from Early Bronze Age ritual and funerary
monuments should be routinely radiocarbon dated for evidence of later Bronze
Age and Iron Age use/reuse.
The archaeological
investigation of the findspots of newly discovered middle and later Bronze Age
metalwork may result in locating burial evidence and/or evidence of ritual
activity.
It is not possible to suggest
a strategy to located later Bronze Age and Iron Age burial sites and other
non-funerary sites. However, archaeological follow up on significant artefactual
discoveries, consistent radiocarbon dating of burials and a willingness to
study unexpected finds on sites considered to be of earlier or later date would
help to maximise the evidence available.
Existing
knowledge strengths and weaknesses
No studies comparable to the exploitation and use of
iron ore in north Wales have been undertaken in southwest Wales.
The use and exploitation of other resources has not
been studied for this period, although radiocarbon dates from metal mines in
Ceredigion (in particular Cwmystwyth) suggests that mining continued from the
Early Bronze Age into the middle Bronze Age
Research
opportunities
Strategies for the
investigation of the use of natural resources need to be formulated.
Investigating the use of stone (querns in particular) and salt might be useful
avenues of research.
Existing knowledge strengths and weaknesses
Research
opportunities
The level of
use of environmental archaeology on settlement site excavations should be
maintained.
Off-site pollen analysis
needs to be more common in order to place settlements other sites in their
environmental background.
Excavation of a settlement on
calcareous soils should be encouraged in order to recover bone and other types
of environmental evidence not found on acid soils.
Existing knowledge
strengths and weaknesses
The lack of artefacts on most
settlement excavations is a hindrance to chronological and interpretive
studies. Southwest Wales is virtually aceramic and finds of other materials are
rare. However significant finds are occasionally made. Coygan Camp excavations
revealed a reasonable artefact assemblage, and work at Castell Henllys hints
that presence or absence of some types of artefacts may be due soil
preservation conditions, rather than a real absence in prehistory. Human and
animal bone only survives under exceptional circumstances or on the calcareous
soils of south Pembrokeshire and parts of Carmarthenshire.
Eleven mid and later Bronze
Age metalwork hoards containing over 100 items are known from southwest Wales.
These can be augmented by a similar number of chance finds.
The Portable Antiquities
Recording Scheme for Wales is increasing known discoveries year by year.
Research
opportunities
Material cultural studies
have been neglected in recent decades. This should be rectified:
The study
of Romano-British material culture can tell us much about earlier societies. A
research project on this theme would be very rewarding.
The
findspots of new discoveries of hoards and important single metal objects
should be archaeologically investigated as a matter of course. This may lead to
the discovery of burial sites, but more data on the context of these objects
would advance our knowledge of the period.
Consideration
should be given to the excavation of settlement sites on soils that are
conducive to the preservation of artefacts.
Sieving and other intensive recovery techniques should
be used more frequently as a strategy to increase the number of artefacts from
excavations.
Watching briefs on river dredging and work on other
‘watery’ sites should be undertaken as matter of course.
Existing
knowledge strengths and weaknesses
The origins of Iron Age
hillforts/defended enclosures, their use and decline is beginning to be
understood, but the general regional background against which these events were
played out is poorly perceived, and the evidence has rarely been worked into
wider syntheses and current interpretations.
Southwest Wales’s location on
the periphery of the Roman World places it in a good position to study the
interaction of Roman and Iron Age cultures and the processes of change that
accompanied it.
Research
opportunities
The large
number of settlement sites and the accumulation of excavation data place
southwest Wales in a good position to study social, economic and political
change. This study should be encouraged.
The interaction
of the Roman World and Iron Age cultures should be targeted as a field of
study.
Continue the investigation of
hillforts/defended enclosures, with an emphasis on those types of site that
have received little attention.
All excavation must be
accompanied by environmental and dating programmes.
Develop strategies for
discovering and investigating later Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements other
than hillforts/defended enclosures
Promote the study of material
culture.
The
implementation of the Research Opportunities should not be restricted by the
financial and planning constraints within developer funding.
It is important that
curatorial officers and others involved in producing design briefs are familiar
with the research opportunities presented by developer-funded archaeology.
However, over the past 15 years only a few small excavations in southwest Wales
on Iron Age sites have been undertaken through developer funding.
It is vital for us to
investigate new and different sources of funding if we are to study and advance
our knowledge of the subject.
Paper prepared by Ken
Murphy (Cambria Archaeology)
This document’s copyright
is held by contributors and sponsors of the Research Framework for the
Archaeology of Wales.