Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
Settlement and Metalworking in the Middle Bronze Age and Beyond
Settlement and Metalworking in the Middle Bronze Age and Beyond
Andy M Jones2015, Settlement and Metalworking in the Middle Bronze Age and Beyond
Between 2008 and 2011 excavations were undertaken by the Cornwall Archaeological Unit at Tremough, near Penryn, Cornwall. The site is situated on a plateau overlooking the Carrick Roads, historically one of the busiest waterways in Cornwall. The excavations led to a large number of significant archaeological features being uncovered ranging from Neolithic pits to Bronze Age structures and late prehistoric enclosures. Foremost of these sites were a Middle Bronze roundhouse (circa 1500-1300 cal BC) and a large circular Late Bronze Age enclosure (circa 1000-800 cal BC). Importantly, the roundhouse was found to contain stone moulds associated with the production of socketed tools and pins, and traces of metalworking were found inside the building. As such, the excavations have provided the first evidence for metalworking inside a Middle Bronze Age roundhouse in southern England, as well as radiocarbon dating for a range of metalwork forms. As part of the project finds of metalwork from other roundhouses in the South West region have been reassessed. The Late Bronze Age enclosure is the first of its type to found in the South West of Britain. It encircled a large number of pits and postholes, some of which were associated with rectangular post-built structures. A carefully made cairn of burnt stone beside a large pit and a second large pit containing burnt stone and pottery were also investigated. These may have been associated with cooking or perhaps with a small-scale episode of metalworking, as the tip of a sword mould was found in one of the pits. The significance of the investigated sites is fully discussed with regard to their relationships with other prehistoric sites on the plateau and in terms of their wider context with other sites in the South West and beyond.
Related Papers
Cornish Archaeology
Archaeological excavations at Tremough, Penryn, 2000-6, Cornish Archaeology, 2009-10, 48-9, 1-662010 •
Cornish Archaeology
A Bronze Age roundhouse at Carnon Gate, Feock, Cornish Archaeology 47, 2008, 101-1162008 •
Archaeological monitoring during the construction of the A39 Carnon Gate road improvements revealed a well-preserved Bronze Age roundhouse. The roundhouse was a particularly well-preserved example of its kind, comprising curvilinear stone-faced walling around a hollow cut into the hillslope, subsequently sealed by downhill movement of soil deposits. Deposits cleared from the top of the roundhouse produced finds of Trevisker-style Middle Bronze Age pottery, worked flint and a perforated stone weight. The small Trevisker pottery assemblage provided evidence for the transport of gabbroic clays from the Lizard for manufacture near the site. Residues from two sherds of pottery were submitted for radiocarbon dating, producing a date of 1500-1300 cal BC. The results of the investigation help to characterize the nature and date of Bronze Age occupation in lowland Cornwall and increase understanding generally of prehistoric settlement activity in the Mid Cornwall After recording of its upper levels, the roundhouse was reburied for preservation in situ.
Cornish Archaeology
A Middle Neolithic structure and Iron Age pits at Manor Tannery, Grampound, Cornwall2016 •
Between October 2011 and May 2012 a series of archaeological watching briefs were carried out at the Manor Tannery site, Grampound, in advance of the construction of new housing. One burnt spread and sixteen pits and postholes were uncovered, among other features, spread across three fields. None produced artefacts but eight had charcoal-rich fills suitable for analysis. Three charcoal samples were s_ubmitted for radiocarbon dating, two from pits, and one from a posthole associated with a structure. The posthole produced a determination of 3634–3376 cal BC, placing it within the Middle Neolithic period. Buildings of this period are rare in Britain and it is the first to be recorded in the south-west region. The pits produced determinations in the range 380–100 cal BC, dating to the Middle to Late Iron Age, and are unusual because they are not associated with any artefacts. The following paper describes and considers the character of these features, and discusses their significance.
Cornish Archaeology 52
Archaeological excavations at Bosiliack, Madron, Cornwall2013 •
In September 2011 archaeological investigations were carried out on a Bronze Age settlement at Bosiliack, near Lanyon in West Penwith. The project was undertaken to gain further information by excavating one of the roundhouses and to ascertain the effects of bracken rhizomes upon buried archaeological deposits. During the course of the project, eight 1m square test pits and a small structure, house 3, were excavated. Excavation revealed the substantial impact of bracken but also led to the recovery of Middle Bronze Age pottery which suggests a second millennium cal BC date for the roundhouse. Later activity dating to the Middle Iron Age was revealed by two radiocarbon determinations. In 1984 two roundhouses and an Early Bronze Age entrance grave were investigated in the same area. These sites have been published elsewhere. However, a summary is included in this paper to provide a wider context for the 2011 excavations and to make the results more widely available.
Cornish Archaeology
The Neolithic and Bronze Age periods in Cornwall, c 4000 cal BC to c 1000 cal BC: an overview of recent developments, Cornish Archaeology, 50, 2011, 197-2302011 •
An overview of the period 4000 cal BC to 1000cal BC - based on recent work
Cornish Archaeology
A Late Bronze Age pit, burnt bone and stones at Manuels, Quintrell Downs, Newquay, Cornwall2015 •
In December 2013 archaeological investigations were carried out at Quintrell Downs, near a large cropmark enclosure at Manuels, in advance of the construction of a housing estate. A few small pits were uncovered and were notable for containing selected stones. One pit contained some probable cremated human bone, which gave a radiocarbon determination in the period 997–844 cal BC. This paper considers the wider context of the pit and its significance and also discusses the undated pits, which are also likely to have prehistoric origins.
Cornish Archaeology
A posthole structure and post-Roman pits at Gloweth, Truro, Cornwall2015 •
In the summer of 2014 archaeological investigations were carried out at Gloweth on the western edge of Truro in advance of the construction of a housing estate. Most of the uncovered features were field boundaries of later medieval and post-medieval date. In addition a posthole structure and a small number of pits were recorded which had the potential to be earlier. A twig from a posthole within the structure produced a radiocarbon determination which fell in the post-medieval period, and is therefore likely to be unreliable. A second date, obtained on residue from a sherd of Grass-marked pottery within pit [252], fell in the period cal AD 537–645. This is an early date for this type of pottery and is a useful addition to the evidence for its start date.
Summary This report presents the results of a desk-based assessment, geophysical survey and archaeological evaluation carried out adjacent to Winnianton Farm and Gunwalloe Church, Gunwalloe Parish, Cornwall. This work was undertaken by Dr Imogen Wood, on behalf of the National Trust, and in collaboration with local and regional archaeological groups, members of the local community and The University of Exeter, which has successfully brought people together achieving a high level of public engagement. This work formed part of the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) -funded ‘Unlocking Our Coastal Heritage’ project concerning archaeological sites threated by coastal erosion along the south-west coast path. The multi-period site at Gunwalloe, located on the western coast of the Lizard Peninsula in Cornwall, has been a locus firstly for burial and later for settlement for over 3000 years. This is a rapidly-eroding section of coastline, and the results of the evaluation have not only answered the many questions raised over the past century, but also recorded a visibly receding archaeological resource. Six Trenches were opened across the coastal strip: five within a known early-medieval settlement, and one across the ramparts of a suspected promontory fort. The investigation of the Scheduled promontory fort revealed a complex stratigraphical sequence: a Middle Bronze Age cist burial unique in Cornwall overlain by Late Bronze Age midden, indicating the presence of a previously unknown settlement. This was buried beneath an Iron Age rampart defining a defended enclosed space that was in use until the post-Roman period when it appears to have been destroyed by fire. The accumulation of material within the interior of the bank suggests it was continuously occupied, and that the inhabitants had contacts beyond Cornwall, with the discovery of an Iron Age Kimmeridge shale bracelet fragment and a sherd of Roman Oxfordshire colour-coated ware. The early medieval settlement in the sand dunes has now been firmly dated to the 8th to 12th centuries. The evaluation uncovered evidence for middens, working-surfaces and a sub-rectangular sunken-featured building, and revealed unique evidence of daily life during this period and of how the settlement changed over time. What was once a long-lived rural settlement and early Christian community transformed into an important Royal Hundredral manor site. The sunken-featured rectangular house, with its revetted clay-bonded stone walls and a central hearth dating to the 10-11th century, is the first of its kind to be encountered in Cornwall. The middens have revealed detailed faunal evidence of changes in diet over time, changes which are also reflected in the extensive ceramic assemblage. The preservation of animal bone was very good, due to the calcareous shell sand, and the fish bones recovered suggest that the inhabitants exploited the marine resources as well as farming the land and keeping animals. The evaluation also determined that the initial formation of the dunes took place in the Early Bronze Age. An extensive programme of paleoenvironmental analyses was undertaken, including: soil micro-morphology and geochemistry, phytolith analysis, environmental profiles through mollusc analysis, charcoal species identification and radiocarbon dating. The results have examined the internal processes involved within middens, found evidence for cereal processing inside the house and the use of water reeds, and outlined the changes in the wider environmental from scrubland with wooded areas to grassland more conducive to agriculture.
Cornish Archaeology
Later Neolithic pits and an Iron Age and Romano-British settlement at Penryn College2017 •
Archaeological monitoring during the redevelopment of playing fields at Penryn College, Cornwall, revealed activity dating to the Late Neolithic and to the Iron Age – Romano-British period. The Neolithic evidence took the form of pits containing Grooved Ware, the eighth occurrence of this pottery type to be found in Cornwall. Three radiocarbon dates were obtained, indicating activity in the period 2900–2400 cal BC. The investigations also revealed a Middle to Late Iron Age ditched rectilinear field system, over which a settlement of two curvilinear enclosures and several post-built structures developed between the Late Iron Age and the second century AD. A Romano-British toilet set, the only example found to date in Cornwall, appears to have been deposited in one of the structures as a votive object.
Cornish Archaeology
Trethelllan Farm, Newquay: The excavation of a lowland Bronze Age settlement and Iron Age cemetery1991 •
A full account of the discovery and excavations in 1987 of a Bronze Age settlement dating from the 15th to 13th centuries BCE and a mid to late Iron Age cemetery found on the slopes of the Gannel estuary, Newquay, Cornwall. The site was located on a terrace and buried under a massive blanket of collouvium which ensured comprehensive concealment and exceptional preservation of 7 roundhouses, edges of fields, material culture and palaeo-environmental data. The largest volume of distinctive Trevisker ware pottery was found. Human remains were less well preserved but the density of Iron Age graves - some bodies buried with brooches - reveals a community cemetery who occupied this location some 900 years later. Trethellan Farm is one of the most comprehensive excavations of a Bronze Age lowland settlement in south west Britain with significant insights and evidence for building histories and planned abandonment.
Settlement and
metalworking
in the Middle
Bronze Age and
beyond
New evidence from
Tremough, Cornwall
edited by
Andy M. Jones, James Gossip
and Henrietta Quinnell
This is an Open Access publication. Visit our website
for more OA publication, to read any of our books
for free online, or to buy them in print or PDF.
www.sidestone.com
Check out some of our latest publications:
Settlement and metalworking in
the Middle Bronze Age and beyond
Sidestone Press
Settlement and metalworking in
the Middle Bronze Age and beyond
New evidence from Tremough, Cornwall
edited by
Andy M. Jones, James Gossip and Henrietta Quinnell
© 2015 A. Jones, J. Gossip & H. Quinnell
Published by Sidestone Press, Leiden
www.sidestone.com
ISBN 978-90-8890-293-2
Lay-out & cover design: Sidestone Press
Photographs cover: Cornwall Archaeological Unit, Cornwall Council
Also available as:
e-book (PDF): ISBN 978-90-8890-294-9
Contents
List of figures
9
List of tables
13
Acknowledgements
15
Summary
17
1. Background to the investigations
Introduction
Report structure
Terminology used in this report
Overview of work undertaken on the site
Location and setting
The plateau
Geology
PAC building
AIR building and Car Park 4
19
19
20
20
21
23
23
24
24
25
2. Results from the excavations
PAC building
Early Neolithic pits
Prehistoric ‘tree-throws’
AIR building
Structure 1
Additional features
Car Park 4
Roundhouse 1
Roundhouse 2
Stone spread/bank and buried soil/old land surface
Enclosure 1
Area south of Car Park 4: Enclosure 2
27
27
28
31
31
31
33
33
34
38
38
38
49
3. The prehistoric ceramics
Introduction
Early Neolithic pottery from the PAC building
Details of the assemblage
Comment on the PAC assemblage
The pottery from the AIR building and Car Park 4
Introductory comments
Structure 1
Roundhouse 1
Roundhouse 2
Adjacent features
Enclosure 1
53
53
53
53
56
57
57
58
61
67
72
72
4. The prehistoric worked stone artefacts
Structure 1
Roundhouse 1
Enclosure 1 and associated structures
81
81
82
84
5. The moulds and metalwork
The moulds
The moulds from Roundhouse 1
The clay moulds from Pit [124] in Enclosure 1
Clay moulds from other contexts in Enclosure 1
The copper-alloy objects
Copper-alloy objects from Roundhouse 1
89
89
89
99
101
102
102
6. Geochemical analysis of samples from Tremough
Preparation
Methods of analysis
Results and discussion
107
107
107
109
7. The lithics
Flint from the PAC building, including Early Neolithic pits [102]
and [105]
Raw material sources
Comments by context
Lithics from Roundhouses 1 and 2 and Enclosure 1
Raw material sources
Comments by type
Discussion
111
8. The charred plant remains
Charred plant remains
Results
Early Neolithic pits
Structure 1 (Earlier Bronze Age)
Pit [37] (Romano-British)
Roundhouse 1 (Middle Bronze Age)
Enclosure 1: ditch and internal features (Late Bronze Age)
Crop plants and weed assemblages
Triticum sp (wheat)
Hordeum sp. (Barley)
Avena sp. (Oats)
Vicia faba (Celtic Bean)
Wild plants
Arable weeds
Grassland taxa
Discussion
Comparison with other earlier and Middle Bronze Age sites
in Cornwall
Key to charred plant remains
121
121
122
122
122
123
123
124
125
125
126
126
127
127
127
127
128
111
111
114
116
117
117
120
129
132
9. The charcoal
Methodology
Early Neolithic pits [102] and [105]
Results
Discussion
Bronze Age
Results
Structure 1
Roundhouse 1
Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1
Discussion
Woodland resources
Origin of the charcoal assemblages
Conclusions
137
137
137
137
138
138
138
139
140
140
142
142
144
146
10. Radiocarbon dating
Dating strategy
Results from dating programme
Earlier Neolithic period (circa 3900-3350 cal BC)
Earlier Bronze Age period (circa 2400-1400 cal BC)
Middle Bronze Age period (circa 1500-1100 cal BC)
Late Bronze Age Period (circa 1100-800 cal BC)
149
150
150
150
152
154
157
11. Discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
Early Neolithic pits
The PAC building pits
Early Bronze Age activity
Earlier Bronze Age Structure 1
Leaving the structure behind
The setting of Structure 1
Structure 1, a summary
Middle Bronze Age settlement
Roundhouse 1: A ‘life’ history
Metalworking in the roundhouse and beyond
The setting of Roundhouse 1
Roundhouse 1, a summary
Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1
The wider background
Enclosure 1 and the regional Late Bronze Age settlement context
in the south west of Britain
Enclosure 1 and its wider relationships to other enclosures
The organization of space and activity within Enclosure 1
The setting of Enclosure 1
Enclosure 1, a summary
159
160
160
169
169
172
173
177
178
179
189
195
200
202
202
Bibliography
227
203
205
215
222
224
List of figures
Figure 1.1
Location map showing Tremough.
Figure 1.2
Location and areas of archaeological investigation at Tremough.
Figure 2.1
Plan showing Early Neolithic features in the PAC area.
Figure 2.2
Plans and section drawings of pits [102] (top) and [105] (bottom).
Figure 2.3
Photograph of pit [102] showing stones within and beside it.
Figure 2.4
Plan showing AIR Structure 1 and adjacent features.
Figure 2.5
Photograph of Structure 1 taken from the south-east, with stakes
marking positions of posts.
Figure 2.6
Plan showing Middle Bronze Age Roundhouse 1, Roundhouse 2 and
adjacent features.
Figure 2.7
Plan showing features within Roundhouse 1.
Figure 2.8
Photograph of Roundhouse 1 taken from the south.
Figure 2.9
Plan showing Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1 and internal features.
Figure 2.10
Sections across Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1 ditch [160]. Southern
terminal section (left) and northern terminal section (right).
Figure 2.11
Plan showing Pit / Posthole Group 1.
Figure 2.12
Plan showing Pit Alignment 2.
Figure 2.13
Photograph showing Structure 205 from the east. Note its careful
construction and flat laid stone on top.
Figure 2.14
Plan of Post Structure 3.
Figure 2.15
Plan of Post Structure 4.
Figure 2.16
Photograph showing pit [124], half excavated. Note the burnt stones in
its fill.
Figure 2.17
Plan showing evaluation trench across Enclosure 2.
Figure 2.18
Section across Enclosure 2 ditch [713].
Figure 2.19
Photograph showing Ditch [713] and outer stone bank, taken from west.
Figure 3.1
Earlier and Middle Bronze Age pottery. Vessels P1-2, Structure 1, AIR
Building. Vessels P3-9 Roundhouse 1 (Drawing by Jane Read).
Figure 3.2
Middle Bronze Age pottery. Fine cord impressed sherds from vessel P6
found within Roundhouse 1.
Figure 3.3
Late Bronze Age pottery. Incised sherds from vessel P11, found over
Roundhouse 2.
Figure 3.4
Late Bronze Age pottery. Vessels P10, P10a from Roundhouse 2. Vessels
P12-18 from Enclosure 1 (Drawing by Jane Read).
Figure 3.5
Late Iron Age pottery. Cordoned sherd from vessel P19.
Figure 3.6
Middle Bronze Age ceramic weight SF406 from Roundhouse 1.
Figure 4.1
Middle and Late Bronze Age stone artefacts. S1-S4 from Roundhouse 1
contexts. S5-S9 Enclosure 1 contexts (Drawing by Jane Read).
list of figures
9
Figure 5.1
Mould 1 showing front surface (Drawing by Craig Williams).
Figure 5.2
Photograph of Mould 1 showing font surface.
Figure 5.3
Photograph of Mould 1 showing back surface.
Figure 5.4
Mould 2 showing front surface (Drawing by Craig Williams).
Figure 5.5
Photograph of Mould 2 showing font surface.
Figure 5.6
Photograph of Mould 2 showing back surface.
Figure 5.7
Mould 3 showing front surface (Drawing by Craig Williams).
Figure 5.8
Photograph of Mould 3 showing font surface.
Figure 5.9
Photograph of Mould 3 showing back surface.
Figure 5.10
Mould 4 showing front and back surfaces (Drawing by Craig Williams).
Figure 5.11
Photograph of Mould 4 showing font surface.
Figure 5.12
Photograph of Mould 4 showing back surface.
Figure 5.13
Mould 5 showing front surface (Drawing by Craig Williams).
Figure 5.14
Photograph of Mould 5 showing font surface.
Figure 5.15
Photograph of Mould 5 showing back surface.
Figure 5.16
Mould 6 showing front surface (Drawing by Craig Williams).
Figure 5.17
Mould 7 showing front surface (Drawing by Craig Williams).
Figure 5.18
Moulds 8 (top left), 9 (bottom left) and 10 right showing front surfaces
(Drawing by Craig Williams).
Figure 5.19
Photograph of Mould 10 showing font surface.
Figure 5.20
Photograph of Mould 10 showing back surface.
Figure 5.21
Copper-alloy object SF400 from Roundhouse 1.
Figure 5.22
Copper-alloy, possible pin shaft SF413 from Roundhouse 1.
Figure 5.23
Copper-alloy spiral ring SF403 from Roundhouse 1.
Figure 5.24
Photograph of the copper-alloy spiral ring after conservation.
Figure 5.25
Copper-alloy spiral rings from house 1, Black Patch, Sussex (reproduced
with permission of the Prehistoric Society).
Figure 6.1
ICP-MS data. Copper, tin and lead concentrations normalised using
aluminium, potassium and lithium. Samples identifications are: 1-10 as
shown in Table 6.1.
Figure 6.2
XRF data. Copper, tin and lead concentrations normalised using
aluminium, potassium and calcium. Samples identifications are: 1-10
as shown in table 1.
Figure 6.3
Tremough copper and cobalt concentrations (ICP-MS data).
Figure 7.1
Selected flints from the PAC pits [102] and [105] (L1-6).
Figure 7.2
Flints from the 2011 excavations; L7 a side and end scraper from (165)
and L8 is a thumbnail like scraper.
10
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 9.1
Percentage frequency of taxa by phase: Ubiquity analysis (based upon
57 samples).
Figure 9.2
Percentage frequency of taxa by phase: Fragment count (based upon 31
samples, 813 fragments).
Figure 9.3
Ubiquity analysis of charcoal from pits/postholes with and without
burnt stone from the Pit / Posthole Group 1 and Pit Alignment 2, and
Structure 205 (based upon 18 samples).
Figure 9.4
Taxonomic composition of features found in Roundhouse 1, based upon
fragment count (6 samples; 227 fragments).
Figure 10.1
Date ranges from Early Neolithic pits containing pottery in Cornwall.
Figure 10.2
Date ranges from earlier Bronze Age structures in Cornwall.
Figure 10.3
Date ranges from Middle Bronze Age hollow-set roundhouses associated
with metalworking in Cornwall.
Figure 11.1
The distribution of pits with Early Neolithic pottery in Cornwall.
Figure 11.2
Early Neolithic features.
Figure 11.3
The principal earlier Bronze Age structures referred to in the text.
Figure 11.4
Early Bronze Age features.
Figure 11.5
Photograph of structure 66 taken from the south-west.
Figure 11.6
The distribution of hollow-set roundhouses in Cornwall.
Figure 11.7
Photograph showing the copper-alloy spiral ring which had been placed
into the top of posthole [705].
Figure 11.8
Plan showing the distribution of artefacts in Roundhouse 1.
Figure 11.9
Photograph showing in situ pottery deposit in Roundhouse 1.
Figure 11.10
Photograph of the copper-alloy knife from a posthole within the
roundhouse at Boden Vean.
Figure 11.11
Middle Bronze Age features.
Figure 11.12
Reconstruction of the Middle Bronze Age landscape showing the timber
circles in the foreground and roundhouses 1 and 2 to the south.
Figure 11.13
Photograph of structure 102 taken from the south.
Figure 11.14
Photograph of structure 392 taken from the south-east.
Figure 11.15
The distribution of finds in Middle Bronze Age structures.
Figure 11.16
Photograph of Enclosure 1 from the south. The site marks the first
formal enclosure of space. Note the burnt stones beside pit [124] in the
foreground and post-built structures in the middle ground.
Figure 11.17
The distribution of possible late second /earlier first millennium cal BC
enclosures in Cornwall referred to in the text.
Figure 11.18
The multiple ditched enclosure at Trecrogo from the air (Historic
Environment, Cornwall Council).
list of figures
11
Figure 11.19
Bartinney from the air with central cairns visible (Historic Environment,
Cornwall Council).
Figure 11.20
Comparative ring-forts and Tremough Enclosures 1 and 2 (After Manby
2007 and Brown and Medlycott 2013).
Figure 11.21
The distribution of Irish (or possible) metalwork in Cornwall.
Figure 11.22
Photograph of the Ballintober-type sword from Carnpesseck (left) and
the Gundlingen-type sword from Sennen Cove (right). (Image taken
by Anna Tyacke, reproduced with permission of the Royal Cornwall
Museum).
Figure 11.23
Photograph of Post Structure 4 taken from the east.
Figure 11.24
Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1 and later prehistoric Enclosure 2.
12
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
List of tables
Table 3.1:
Details of pottery from Structure 1 by sherd number and weight.
Table 3.2:
Details of pottery from Roundhouse 1 by sherd number and weight.
Table 3.3:
Pottery from Roundhouse 2 and other features in Car Park 4 by sherd
numbers and weight (g). Total assemblage from Roundhouse 2, 59 sherds
1844 grams, from other features 44 sherds 1413 grams.
Table 3.4:
Details of pottery from Enclosure 1 contexts by sherd numbers and weight.
Total assemblage 355 sherds 6089 grams.
Table 4.1:
Stonework from Structure 1.
Table 4.2:
Stonework from contexts in Roundhouse 1.
Table 4.3:
Stonework from contexts in Enclosure 1.
Table 6.1:
Copper, tin and lead concentrations in the Tremough samples, as measured
by ICP-MS and XRF. Presented as ppm. Note, XRF values only confirm
‘presence’, see text, and are supplied only as ‘additional information’.
Table 7.1:
List of all pieces within the PAC building flint assemblage. The above table
presents the results of a piece by piece analysis. It should be noted that all
comments regarding use-related wear are based on macroscopic analysis
only.
Table 8.1:
Taxonomic composition of plant macrofossils from Early Neolithic pits
[102] and [105].
Table 8.2:
Charred plant remains from all Bronze Age features and Romano-British
pit [37].
Table 9.1:
Taxonomic composition of charcoal from Early Neolithic pits [102] and
[105] (x = present; x = dominant; h = heartwood; r = roundwood).
Table 9.2:
Quantified charcoal from AIR Building, Structure 1: Earlier Bronze Age
features (h = heartwood; s = sapwood; r = roundwood).
Table 9.3:
Charcoal assemblage from Middle Bronze Age Roundhouse 1 (fragment
count; quantified samples only) (h = heartwood; s = sapwood; r =
roundwood; b =bark).
Table 9.4:
Charcoal from Enclosure 1: Late Bronze Age features (fragment count;
quantified samples only) (h = heartwood; s = sapwood; r = roundwood;
b = bark).
Table 10.1: Results from the radiocarbon dating of PAC Building pits [102] and [105].
Table 10.2: Results from the radiocarbon dating of Early Neolithic features excavated
in 2000.
Table 10.3: Results from the radiocarbon dating of the earlier Bronze Age, Structure 1.
list of tables
13
Table 10.4: Results from the radiocarbon dating of Early Bronze Age features excavated
in 2002.
Table 10.5: Results from the radiocarbon dating of Middle Bronze Age Roundhouse 1.
Table 10.6: Results from the radiocarbon dating of Middle Bronze Age features
excavated in 2002.
Table 10.7: Results from the radiocarbon dating of Late Bronze Age features within
Enclosure 1 and residue on a sherd from over Roundhouse 2.
Table 11.1: Pits with Early Neolithic pottery with closely associated radiocarbon
determinations from Cornwall and Devon.
Table 11.2: Copper-alloy artefacts and objects associated with metalworking from
Bronze Age house structures in Cornwall and Devon.
14
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Tremough Development Vehicle for funding
the fieldwork, archiving and final publication. The Performing Arts Centre (PAC)
site was excavated with the assistance of Francis Shepherd and Tim Carter and
the project was managed by Charles Johns. The Academy for Innovation and
Research (AIR) building and Car Park 4 site were excavated by Francis Shepherd,
Ryan Smith, Jay Brown, Christine Wilson, Scott Hedge, James Dean, Hannah
Henderson and Chris Verran.
Thanks to Jane Read for illustrating the artefacts other than the moulds
illustrated in chapter 5, which were drawn by Craig Williams of the British
Museum. Thanks also to Francis Shepherd who produced the site plans and
sections and Anna Tyacke who photographed the Bronze Age swords. Thanks to
Carl Thorpe for photographing the copper-alloy ring.
Figure 5.25 is reproduced with permission of the Prehistoric Society.
Figure 11.22 is reproduced with permission of Royal Cornwall Museum.
The authors are grateful to Graeme Kirkham for commenting on the draft
report, to Stuart Needham for information on the enclosures at Cliffs End Farm
and to Ben Roberts for information on recent work on Bronze Age metalwork.
The Ordnance Survey mapping included within this publication is provided
by Cornwall County Council under licence from the Ordnance Survey in order to
fulfil its public function to disseminate information to a wider audience. Persons
viewing this statement should contact Ordnance Survey if they wish to licence
Ordnance Survey mapping for their own use.
acknowledgements
15
Summary
This monograph reports on three archaeological projects at the Tremough campus,
near Penryn, Cornwall, that were carried out over a two-year period between
2009 and 2011 by Cornwall Archaeological Unit. It also summarizes the results of
evaluation trenching undertaken in 2008.
The first phase took place in 2009 and involved archaeological monitoring
during the construction of a new Performing Arts Centre (PAC). Two pits of Early
Neolithic date and two tree-throws, the infilling of which, is thought to be broadly
contemporary with that of the pits, were identified. Over the last 14 years a number
of other Neolithic pits and their associated artefact deposits have been excavated
at Tremough, and these PAC pits have added to our knowledge of this practice; in
particular there was evidence that their positions may have been marked by stones.
Tree-throws are being increasingly recognised and investigated on prehistoric sites
across Britain and the identification of these in a Cornish context has increased
our understanding of these features. It has been suggested that the voids left by the
fallen trees were used in a similar manner to the pits.
The second and third projects were carried out in late 2010 and 2011. On the
site of the Academy for Innovation and Research (AIR) a small, sub-circular, postbuilt structure was radiocarbon dated to the first half of the second millennium cal
BC. It is one of the first buildings in the South West region to be radiocarbon dated
to the earlier Bronze Age, and one of only a few to be found in southern Britain.
On the site of a new car park (Car Park 4), investigations revealed a hollowset roundhouse within which was a collection of stone bivalve moulds for the
production of copper-alloy objects, which included ring-headed pins, socketed
tools and chisels dating to the Middle Bronze Age, Taunton metalworking phase,
circa 1500-1300 cal BC. A small number of copper-alloy objects were also recovered,
which included a spiral finger ring and part of a pin. Analysis of the soil samples
revealed that small droplets of copper-alloy were present and the geochemistry
of the soils from several features identified high levels of copper and tin, which
indicated that metalworking had taken place inside the structure. At the end of its
occupation, the house was formally abandoned and infilled with material which
included over 600 sherds of Trevisker Ware pottery as well as worked stone. The
excavation of the roundhouse has been hugely significant because it represents the
first ‘metalworkers’ house’ to be investigated in England and provides a close set of
radiocarbon determinations for the metalwork.
A second hollow-set Middle Bronze Age roundhouse was located immediately
to the south west but this was not excavated and was buried in situ in order to
preserve it. Cleaning above, however, revealed ceramics of Late Bronze Age date,
which might suggest that the site had become used as a midden.
Nearby and to the north west of the roundhouses was a deeply cut curvilinear
ditch, which formed part of a circular enclosure. This ditch surrounded numerous
pits and postholes, a number of which formed rectangular structures. Large
quantities of burnt stone were found in association with two pits, and these were
summary
17
possibly linked with cooking. Worked stone, pottery dating to the Late Bronze Age
and the tip of a clay sword mould were also recovered from this enclosure, which
is suggestive of small-scale metalworking taking place within the site. Radiocarbon
dating places activity within the enclosure in the period circa 1000-850 cal BC.
The enclosure represents the first of its kind in the South West and parallels have
been drawn with sites found in the east of England and Ireland.
A second multi-ditched enclosure to the south was evaluated. This could not be
securely dated, although later prehistoric or Romano-British pottery was recovered
from an upper infill layer within the outer ditch. It is, however, possible that the
site was contemporary with the Late Bronze Age enclosure and the possible links
between the two enclosures are explored.
18
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Chapter 1
Background to the investigations
Andy M Jones and James Gossip
Introduction
The plateau upon which Tremough Combined Universities in Cornwall (CUC)
campus, Penryn, is located has proved to be one of the richest archaeological sites in
Cornwall, with evidence for human occupation extending, at least intermittently,
from Mesolithic flintwork through to the historic Queen Anne house and the
modern university buildings which stand on the site today. Over the last 15 years
several other archaeological interventions have taken place and the earlier stages
have been fully reported in two publications (Gossip and Jones 2007; Gossip and
Jones 2009-10).
In particular, large-scale excavations undertaken between 2000 and 2004 were
focused on the investigation of an earlier fourth millennium cal BC Neolithic flint
scatter and pits which were devoid of finds and a another pit group which contained
a significant later Neolithic Grooved Ware assemblage radiocarbon dated to circa
2900-2300 cal BC. Five timber post-ring structures dated to the Early to Middle
Bronze Age were uncovered and these appear to have been used for ceremonial
purposes. Finally, a Late Iron Age enclosure and a small enclosed Romano-British
settlement and field system were also investigated (Gossip and Jones 2007, 22-7).
Launceston
Truro
Mylor Bridge
Carrick
Roads
Penryn
Falmouth
Tremough Plateau
Carrick
Roads
Modern urban
development
0
2
Kilometres
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Cornwall Council (100049047) 2014
Figure 1.1 Location map showing Tremough.
background to the investigations
19
This report covers three phases of archaeological recording carried out at
Tremough by Cornwall Archaeological Unit, Cornwall Council, between 2009
and 2011. The first stage took place in 2009 at the site of the Performing Arts
Centre (PAC). The second, at the Academy for Innovation and Research (AIR),
and the third at Car Park 4 were carried out in 2010 and 2011. An earlier phase
involving the evaluation trenching in 2008 of a multi-circuited enclosure will also
be reported, as this site lay immediately to the south of the major sites discussed
here and has not been published elsewhere.
Report structure
In the light of the very significant results gathered by the recent archaeological
interventions relating to the Early Neolithic and Bronze Age occupation of the
plateau at Tremough (Gossip and Jones 2007), it was decided that rather than
reporting on the sites as separate entities in a series of journal articles, they
should be drawn together into a single publication. This would include all the
analysis undertaken on the component sites and consider them against the broader
knowledge which has been gained over the last 14 years. Given the significance of
the evidence for metalworking which was found in Roundhouse 1, and the lack of
nearby comparanda for both Enclosure 1 and Structure 1, it was also decided to
discuss these sites at greater length within a broader synthesis.
This resulting monograph is divided into four sections. The first (this section)
outlines the background to the project and gives a brief overview of related sites
and the programme of archaeological recording undertaken since 2008. It also
describes the setting of the plateau and the geological background, and provides
concise descriptions of each of the three investigated areas (PAC building, AIR
building and Car Park 4).
The second section outlines the stratigraphical results from the major excavated
sites, including the PAC pits, Structure 1, Roundhouse 1 and Enclosure 1. In
addition, the evaluated Enclosure 2 is also described.
The third section contains detailed specialist reports on the artefacts, including
reports on the ceramics, stonework, copper-alloy finds and the moulds. The reports
on analysis of the environmental samples are also found within this section and
these include the geochemical analysis of Roundhouse 1, the plant macrofossils
and the charcoal. The results of the radiocarbon dating are also reported here.
The final section provides a synthesis which draws together the results from
the analyses of the excavated sites and places them within their wider context with
other excavated sites in Cornwall and beyond.
Terminology used in this report
Detailed records of all archaeological features were made, with each context being
allocated a unique number. All cut features are shown with [ ], archaeological
layers referred to throughout the report are shown within ( ) brackets. Structures
are denoted by an unbracketed number, and the major excavated sites reported on
in this volume are prefixed with a capitalized letter (for example, Roundhouse 1)
20
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
to distinguish them from sites excavated elsewhere and from sites covered by earlier
publications on Tremough. Details of the recording methodology and the project
archives can be found in the grey literature (Gossip 2008a; 2009; 2011).
The probability distributions for the radiocarbon determinations (see chapter 10)
have been calculated using OxCal (v4.1). The 95 per cent level of probability is
used throughout this report unless otherwise stated. Where determinations from
other sites are quoted in full they have also been recalibrated to OxCal (v4.1).
Consequently they may differ from the original published sources, where earlier
calibration curves were used.
Overview of work undertaken on the site
The Tremough plateau, which covers approximately 16 hectares, has proved to
be one of the richest and most archaeologically important areas in Cornwall
investigated to date (Figure 1.1). Several stages of archaeological investigation have
revealed a picture of human activity which spans several millennia.
Geophysical surveys, archaeological assessments and fieldwork by Cornwall
Archaeological Unit across much of the Tremough campus over more than a
decade, have identified many significant prehistoric, Romano-British and medieval
sites, including Early Neolithic pits, Late Neolithic pits associated with Grooved
Ware, Bronze Age ceremonial post-rings, a rectilinear enclosure of Late Iron Age
date, known as the ‘Fort’, Romano-British settlements and field systems (Gossip
and Jones 2007; 2009-10), and a structure of earlier medieval date (Gossip, in
preparation) (Figure 1.2).
Several of these sites were located close to and overlap chronologically with
those reported on in this monograph. To the north of the PAC building, Early
Neolithic pits, a ditch and a flint scatter were recorded in 2000; in 2002 (TRM
02 area) a number of Early Bronze Age pits and five post-rings of Early to Middle
Bronze Age date were investigated to the south of the AIR building development
and to the north of Car Park 4 (Gossip and Jones 2007, 6-22). These features will
be drawn into the discussion of the site in chapter 11.
Closest to the PAC and Car Park 4 development sites, a multiple concentricringed enclosure (Enclosure 2) of at least later Iron Age - Romano-British date was
revealed by a geophysical survey and recorded during evaluation trenching in 2008
(Gossip 2008a). The results from this trench are reported below in chapter 2.
The geophysical survey carried out in 2008 also revealed features suggesting
prehistoric activity in the area of Car Park 4 (Archaeological Surveys 2008),
including curvilinear features corresponding with Enclosure 1, which became the
focus for excavation in 2011.
In the spring of 2009 a programme of archaeological recording was carried
out in advance of the construction of a new Performing Arts Centre (PAC)
(Figure 1.2). This work proved to be very significant as it extended the evidence
for Early Neolithic activity across the plateau area, beyond where it had previously
been encountered (Gossip and Jones 2007, 6), and expanded the range of activity
identified on the site.
background to the investigations
21
The work on the PAC site was followed in 2010 by archaeological recording on
the site of the Academy for Innovation and Research (AIR) on the north side of the
college campus. The results from this fieldwork also proved to be highly rewarding
as they revealed a small circular post-built structure 7m in diameter (Structure 1)
associated with Bronze Age pottery, which was subsequently dated to the earlier
part of the second millennium cal BC. As such, it is significant because it is one
of only a small number of earlier Bronze Age structures to have been excavated in
southern Britain. It also provided the first hints of metalworking, a feature of the
Middle and Late Bronze Age sites reported on in this volume.
An archaeological watching brief was undertaken in January 2011 during the
construction of Car Park 4 and an adjacent area of temporary car-parking.
In the south-east portion of the stripped area, two hollow-set Middle Bronze
Age roundhouses were uncovered. One of these, Roundhouse 1, was excavated
and, although shallow, importantly it produced a collection of stone moulds
used for casting socketed copper-alloy tools and pins. These represent the first
AIR
TRM 02
CP4
PAC
Intervention
prior to 2008
Tremough College
complex
Excavated areas
2008 onwards
Geophysical survey
0
This map is based upon the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office
© Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Cornwall Council (100049047) 2014
100
metres
Figure 1.2 Location and areas of archaeological investigation at Tremough.
22
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
in situ evidence for metalworking within a domestic roundhouse to be recovered
from Britain. The radiocarbon dating provides secure dating for Taunton-phase
metalworking (circa 1500-1300 cal BC). The adjacent roundhouse, probably
contemporary, was preserved in situ.
At the northern end of the Car Park 4 area an enclosure ditch was revealed
surrounding structural remains dating to the early first millennium cal BC (circa
1000-800 cal BC). The excavated portion of the enclosure revealed no roundhouses
or obvious dwellings, but there were at least two rectilinear structures, as well
as features which may have been associated with structures and pits associated
with fire-cracked stones. These were possibly associated with food preparation.
Fragments of moulds were also found, indicative of small-scale metalworking. This
site, Enclosure 1, is the first securely dated Late Bronze Age enclosure to be found
in the South West peninsula, and the activities within it are to date unparalleled
in the region.
Taken together, the excavations at Tremough described in this report have shed
valuable light on the changing character of settlement activity over several millennia
and on the character of metalworking over the span of the second millennium
cal BC. This theme will be addressed in the following chapters.
In particular, the results of the investigation of sites within the car parking area
are of national significance because they have revealed some of the best evidence to
date for Middle Bronze Age metalworking within a settlement context in southern
Britain. This aspect of the project is the focus of subsequent chapters.
Location and setting
The plateau
The excavated sites at Tremough are situated at the north-western and southern ends
of an elongated spur or plateau which lies at a height of 80-120m OD immediately
north west of the town of Penryn (NGR SW 76741 34834) (Figure 1.1). The
plateau covers approximately 16 hectares, and until recently much of the area
was agricultural land adjacent to the existing Tremough University campus. There
are good views from the site over the large area of tidal estuary known as Carrick
Roads to the east and to the sea beyond. The Penryn River, which flows into
Carrick Roads, lies some 2 kilometres to the east of the investigated area and it is
likely that these waterways formed important communication routes in prehistory.
To the west and north of Tremough lies the elevated undulating granite plateau
of Carnmenellis while the landscape around Tremough is dominated and strongly
influenced by the Fal Ria. This comprises a series of interlocking tributary creeks
flowing into the River Fal, widening into the large estuary of Carrick Roads with
the sea beyond. To the east and north lie gentle undulating hills dominated by
arable and pasture fields.
The Tremough place-name is of early medieval origin and prior to the development
of the University campus the site was farmland characterised as ‘Anciently Enclosed
Land’ (Cornwall County Council 1996). ‘Anciently Enclosed land’ is made up
background to the investigations
23
of farming settlements documented before the seventeenth century AD and field
patterns of medieval origin. The medieval and post-medieval farming landscape
was, however, extensively altered in the later eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
following the construction of the present Tremough house. During this period the
field layout was reorganised to make larger rectilinear fields and an ornamental
landscape was laid out around the house (Gossip and Jones 2007, 1).
Investigations across Cornwall have demonstrated that Anciently Enclosed
Land has high potential for buried archaeology dating to the prehistoric and
Romano-British periods (for example, Jones and Taylor 2010, 3), and it was for
this reason that, despite having few known archaeological sites in 2000, the area
was first targeted for investigation in 2000.
Geology
Geologically the excavated sites are at the junction between the igneous granite
of Carnmenellis and the Devonian Mylor Beds. The exposed Tremough bedrock
is categorised as metamorphic, with visible quartz veining, frequently contorted
metamorphosed slates and mudstones (Geological Survey of Great Britain 1974) –
known locally as killas – and granites and other igneous rocks occurring.
The underlying natural subsoil in the area of the PAC Building comprised a
granitic yellow clay, known locally as rab, becoming paler at the base of the field
slope. In the area of Car Park 4 the natural clay subsoil ranged from a bright pale
yellow to a deep rusty orange across both sites with abundant weathered stones
present in the subsoil. The overlying soil-type across the excavated areas has been
classified as Stagnogley soils and Rankers (Soil Survey of England and Wales 1983).
PAC building
The PAC development site at Tremough was located on the lower slopes of a hill
on the south-eastern side of the CUC campus (centred on SW 77049 34536), at
a height of approximately 85m OD (Figure 1.2). Inland views are restricted to
the north and west by rising ground. There are more extensive views to the south
and east, and in the immediate area lower lying ground has been developed as a
modern retail estate. Beyond this the land rises up towards Penryn College, the
site of recently identified Late Neolithic Grooved Ware pits and Romano-British
settlement activity (Gossip 2008b).
The tithe map for the parish of Mabe, circa 1840, shows the field much as it
was prior to the development. Arrows pointing downslope on the north-eastern
edge and along the south-western boundary hedge suggest that water drained
along these routes.
Most recently the area of the PAC development has been in pasture but the
geophysical survey (Archaeological Surveys 2008) found that much of the area was
masked by a deposit of modern overburden and could not therefore be reliably
surveyed.
24
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Topsoil stripping confirmed that there had been significant ground disturbance
in recent years both as a result of drainage improvements and adjacent development.
Evidence of post-medieval attempts to drain the field effectively was most noticeable
on the lowest part of the slope where regularly spaced linear trenches lined with
stone formed a series of land drains aligned north west – south east. Ceramic land
drains were also recorded close to the eastern edge of the site running parallel with
the access road. The growth of reeds along this side of the field prior to stripping
suggested that poor drainage was a recurrent issue. However, some archaeological
features, in the form of pits were found to survive.
AIR building and Car Park 4
The AIR building (centred on SW 76848 34868) and Car Park 4 (SW 76787
34606) sites are located at the north-western and southern ends of the elongated
spur which forms the plateau (Figure 1.2). The AIR site is located on a gradual
north-facing slope, less than 50m to the south of a break of slope above a stream
valley followed by the old road descending to Penryn. The site had much less
extensive views than those from the PAC area or Car Park 4.
Prior to the development the AIR site had become covered with rough scrubby
vegetation and trees planted in about 2000 had impinged upon it. No geophysical
survey had been undertaken in this area but it was topsoil stripped because of the
significant results from the excavations immediately to the south in 2002 (Gossip
and Jones 2007) and to the east in 2009 (Gossip, in preparation). The potential of
the area was confirmed by the discovery of Structure 1.
The Car Park 4 site was situated at the top of an even, gentle, south-facing
slope, from which there were extensive views to the east and south east over the
river Fal estuary. The tithe map again shows that there had been little change to
the field layout in the area of Car Park 4 and until the time of the investigations it
was down to pasture and had been used for grazing.
Geophysical survey of the fields around the Car Park 4 site (Archaeological
Surveys 2008) suggested that archaeological potential was high in this area,
identifying both Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2. As a consequence, controlled topsoil
stripping was undertaken in 2011. This revealed a large number of generally wellpreserved buried archaeological features of later prehistoric date.
background to the investigations
25
Chapter 2
Results from the excavations
James Gossip
This section focuses on the stratigraphical results from the excavated features.
These are presented by site, that is to say the PAC building, AIR building and Car
Park 4, and by period, from the Early Neolithic through to the Late Bronze Age.
Finally, the results from the 2008 evaluation trenching of a multi-circuit enclosure
dating to the later prehistoric period are presented.
PAC building
Topsoil and subsoil together averaged 0.8m in depth, but were up to 1.5m
deep in places. These layers were mechanically stripped to the level of natural
which comprised grey or yellow degraded granite and clay known locally as ‘rab’,
becoming more orange in colour upslope. Large quantities of modern debris were
found in both topsoil and subsoil indicating that the natural ground profile had at
some point been cut away and backfilled with material before being sealed with a
layer of topsoil.
Pit [102]
Disturbed area
Tree-throw (107)
Tree-throw (108)
[111]
Pit [105]
Figure 2.1 Plan
showing Early
Neolithic features
in the PAC area.
0
20
metres
This map is based upon the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office
© Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Cornwall Council (100049047) 2014
results from the excavations
27
The PAC pits had a discrete set of context numbers and these overlap with
those issued in the 2011 excavations.
Early Neolithic pits
Two pits (Figures 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3), largely undisturbed by modern activity, were
revealed beneath the topsoil (110), cutting into the natural.
Pit [102] was a raggedly circular bowl-shaped pit cut into the natural (109),
1.1m in diameter and a maximum of 0.3m deep. The pit was filled with densely
packed granite and killas stone much of which showed evidence of burning. The
fill (100) surrounding these stones was a dark reddish-brown silty clay containing
a large proportion of charcoal made up of oak, small hazel roundwood, hazelnut
PIT [102]
[102]
[102]
(100)
Post-excavation plan
W
E
(100)
[102]
Pre-excavation plan
Section
[111]
PIT [105]
[105]
[105]
(106)
(106)
(103)
(103)
(104)
(104)
Post-excavation plan
Pre-excavation plan
S
N
(104)
stone
(103)
burnt stone
0
2
[105]
Section
m
Figure 2.2 Plans and section drawings of pits [102] (top) and [105]
(bottom).
28
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 2.3 Photograph of pit [102] showing stones within and beside it.
shell and hawthorn. A radiocarbon determination of 4750±40 BP, 3640-3378 cal
BC (SUERC-29387) was obtained from a charred hazelnut from this feature. A
total of 53 sherds of Early Neolithic pottery, from six vessels (PP1-PP6) (Quinnell,
chapter 3) and three flint pieces were recovered from this fill. The flints comprised
pebble waste, an arrowhead and a broken but used tool (L1 and L2) (Lawson-Jones,
below). A group of large granite rocks found above the natural subsoil nearby to
the south may have been placed, possibly acting as markers for the backfilled pit.
Pit [105] was located close to two tree-throws on the south side of the
development area. This was less regular than pit [102] but generally oval in shape,
measuring 2.5m long and 1.6m wide, with a concave profile up to 0.25m deep. It
was cut into natural subsoil (106). The primary pit fill was a black-grey charcoalrich silty clay (103) 0.1m deep containing three pieces of flint – a piece of waste,
a core tool and a probable broken leaf-shaped arrowhead L3 – together with a
sherd of Early Neolithic pottery (PP1). The charcoal was dominated by hazel,
including hazelnut shell, which gave a radiocarbon determination of 4750±40 BP,
3640-3378 cal BC (SUERC-29383). Within this deposit were large numbers of
granite, killas and quartz stones up to 0.3m in length, many of which had either
been burnt or showed evidence of heat fracture. Above this deposit was (104), a
compact greyish-brown silty clay containing burnt stone and three sherds of Early
Neolithic gabbroic pottery, including one from vessel PP8.
results from the excavations
29
[47]
[45]
1450 grains hulled wheat, barley,
wild oat, and very diverse charcoal taxa
1690 ± 35 BP 253-419 cal AD (95.4%) (SUERC-53786)
1690 ± 35 BP 254-425 cal AD (95.4%) (SUERC-53783)
[37]
[53] / [22]
AIR Structure 1
[60]
50
0
metres
[47]
[15]
0
[66]
Air Structure 1
[45]
0
2
[25]
2
metres
[23]
metres
[64]/[21]
3623 ± 27 BP 2116-1900 cal BC
(95.4%) (SUERC-47281)
[53]/[22]
[8]
[6]
[17]
P1
[60]
[49]
[51]
P2
[19]/[54]
[15]
[66]
[58]
3623 ± 27 BP 1608- 435 cal BC
(95%) (SUERC-48150)
[23]
[56]
(54)
[25]
Cassiterite
pebble
2989 ± 29 BP 1316-1346 cal BC
(95.4%) (SUERC-47282)
[30]
[62]
[27]
Stone
Pot
0
2
metres
Figure 2.4 Plan showing Structure 1 and adjacent features.
30
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
A loosely-filled hollow [111] 0.2m deep and 0.3m in diameter immediately to
the north of the pit represents a possible posthole and contained stones that may
have been packing material.
The grey clay subsoil (106) was locally very pale and gritty and was thought
either to be a natural variation or to have been affected by activity around the pit,
perhaps the result of intense heat.
Prehistoric ‘tree-throws’
Two other features, (107) and (108) (Figure 2.1), were recorded close to the
southern extent of the development area. These were both irregular oval hollows
between 0.2m and 0.3m deep, measuring 3m by 2.2m and 1.15m by 0.8m
respectively, with irregular profiles, each filled with a dark grey or black charcoalrich silty clay and frequent stone, including burnt granite and killas. The edges of
the hollows in the natural rab were disturbed in several places by root runs. Hollow
(107) also appeared to have suffered animal disturbance. Both features have been
interpreted as the hollows left by tree-throws. A single piece of flint debitage was
retrieved from tree-throw (108).
AIR building
The AIR building and associated car parking cover an area of just over 1 hectare, all
of which was monitored during topsoil stripping. Features exposed in the natural
(approximately 0.3m below surface) included some relating to an Early Bronze Age
structure, a Romano-British hearth and isolated pits of unknown date.
Structure 1
The principal area of interest was an arrangement of 11 features, mostly postholes,
forming a slightly elongated sub-circular shape measuring approximately 7m in
diameter (Figure 2.4). It partially cut through a buried soil of brown stony clay
(54)/(28) which covered an area of approximately 4.5m by 1.5m overlying the
natural. This deposit was located in part of the eastern half of the structure and
was cut by pit [56] and posthole [19]/[58]. Within the buried soil were 23 sherds
of Bronze Age pottery, including vessel P2, suggestive of small storage or cooking
vessels or those used for eating and drinking (see Quinnell, chapter 3).
The postholes had been cut into the natural stony subsoil to varying depths,
with most 0.4-0.6m deep, and were largely circular in plan. Generally, fills were
homogenous friable mid-brown silty clays, often with charcoal flecks present.
The majority had near vertical edges and flat bases, with in situ stone packing
evident in [6], [17], [15], [19], [25], [30] and [62]. This might suggest the gradual
rotting of posts, leaving the post-pipes intact; however, several contained sherds
of unabraded pottery (chapter 3), which probably entered the postholes after the
posts had been removed (chapter 11). In other postholes, packing stones were
present but had collapsed into the fill, and only two [53]/[22] and [27] were
devoid of stones.
results from the excavations
31
Figure 2.5 Photograph of Structure 1 taken from the south-east, with stakes marking the
positions of posts.
Posthole [6] had been cut by adjacent posthole [8] and the fill (7) contained
two sherds of Bronze Age pottery, fragments of a greenstone cobble and a saddle
quern. Postholes [17] and [19]/[54] were set within wider, shallower, more concave
cuts [49] and [58]. Deposit (48), the fill of [49], contained two sherds of Bronze
Age pottery and charcoal which gave a radiocarbon determination of 3623±27 BP,
2116-1900 cal BC (SUERC-47281).
Postholes [22]/[53] and pit [23] (located just to the west of the structure)
contained joining sherds of Bronze Age pottery from vessel P1, although the
features were not adjacent. Pit [23] also contained a beach cobble rubbing stone,
re-used as a hammerstone. It was a shallow concave cut 1m in diameter and 0.15m
deep, filled with stone (10) in a reddish clay and brown clayish silt matrix (11)
with occasional charcoal. Deposit (11) contained a total of 39 sherds of pottery,
including the joining sherd.
Posthole [21]/[64] produced a possible Bronze Age sherd and a possible
beach cobble pestle, and posthole [25] a pebble utilised as a rubbing stone and a
cassiterite pebble. Cereal grain from fill (24) in posthole [25] gave the radiocarbon
date 3237±30 BP, 1608-1435 cal BC (SUERC-48150).
Posthole [27] produced a charcoal assemblage almost entirely of oak, and
charcoal from internal posthole [66] was also dominated by oak with some hazel.
Pottery was also found within postholes [27] and [30] (chapters 3 and 9).
Postholes were fairly evenly spaced, around 1m apart, with a far wider gap of 3m
on the south-eastern side between postholes [19] and [62]. The location centrally
within this gap of shallow pit [56], a possible hearth or burnt hollow, suggests it
may have been deliberately placed within the area of the entrance. The pit was
0.9m in diameter and only 0.18m deep, concave and bowl-shaped, containing
32
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
deposit (55), a mid-brown silty clay with frequent charcoal lumps and flecks and
tightly packed angular granite stones, some of which showed signs of having been
burnt. The charcoal-rich fill included oak charcoal which produced a radiocarbon
date of 2989+29 BP, 1371-1126 cal BC (SUERC-47282). However, this posthole
was located in an area which had been disturbed and the charcoal may have been
from intrusive material. Within the structure, internal posthole [51] contained a
whetstone with evidence of secondary use as a hammerstone.
Additional features
Pit [37], 5m to the west of Structure 1, produced the most diverse charcoal
assemblage from this site, comprising oak, hazel, poplar / willow, hawthorn and
holly. This was a shallow concave feature, 0.1m deep and 0.9m in diameter, filled
with very dark, greyish-brown charcoal-rich silty clay. The edges cut into the natural
subsoil were coloured red, presumably a result of in situ burning, suggesting that
the feature was a hearth. Fill (106) also produced a rich charred cereal assemblage
totalling 1450 grains, much of which was hulled wheat with less common barley,
including some hulled barley. Oat grains were also abundant, together with weeds
typically associated with arable habitats. However, radiocarbon dating of oat grains
and wild radish returned near identical determinations: 1690±35 BP, cal AD 253-419
(SUERC-53786) and 1680±35 BP, cal AD 254-425 (SUERC-53783). The pit was
therefore of later Romano-British date and considerably post-dated Structure 1.
It was possibly related to settlement activity of this period revealed during earlier
work in the vicinity (Gossip and Jones 2007, 40-41).
A group of pits and postholes were revealed some 80m to the north east of
Structure 1. These included circular concave pits filled with dark clays and burnt
granite, close to which were three possible postholes or small pits which formed a
slight arc about 4m long. Surface pottery finds were undiagnostic and therefore the
features cannot be assigned to any particular phase.
Car Park 4
Topsoil stripping in the Car Park 4 area extended over a total of 0.72 hectares.
Recording work in the north-west corner of the stripped zone revealed a curvilinear
enclosure ditch with pit and posthole structures of Late Bronze Age date within the
enclosed area (Figure 1.2). Features were cut into the natural, below the topsoil,
which was some 0.3-0.4m thick. Pit fills often contained large quantities of burnt
stone and at least two rectangular post-built structures were identified, where
deep postholes contained intact stone-packing. A pit filled with burnt stone also
contained fragments of metalworking moulds.
Close to the south-eastern extent of the stripped area were the remains of two
hollow-set roundhouses. Roundhouse 1 was excavated and found to contain a wellstratified collection of stone moulds for casting metal tools and pins (chapter 5),
dated to the Middle Bronze Age. An adjacent structure, Roundhouse 2, which
had perhaps been dumped over during the Late Bronze Age, was hand-cleaned,
planned and then preserved in situ.
results from the excavations
33
Roundhouse 1
[292]
[789]
[737]
[791]
[783]
P10, P10a, P11
Roundhouse 2
(109) / (110)
2820 ± 29 BP 1053-901 BC
(95%) (SUERC 47299)
(106)
(105)
Pottery
Stone spread bank
Unexcavated
10
0
metres
Figure 2.6 Plan showing Middle Bronze Age Roundhouse 1, Roundhouse 2 and adjacent
features.
Roundhouse 1
Topsoil stripping revealed a circular area of dark brown silt approximately 9m in
diameter, visible against the reddish-brown clay of the natural. Pottery recovered
from the brown deposit suggested the presence of a hollow-set Bronze Age
roundhouse. The area was cleaned by hand and various finds were recovered. It
was then divided into four quadrants for excavation. Initially 0.25m wide baulks
were left in place to create longitudinal sections through the roundhouse deposits.
Excavation of the north-west and north-east quadrants (1 and 2) revealed
that the roundhouse was set within a concave hollow [796] cut to a depth of
approximately 0.3m, into the base of which postholes and other features had been
cut. The southern half of the structure, quadrants 3 and 4, was less well-preserved,
having been truncated by later agricultural activity. Within the quadrant 1 cut of
34
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Quadrant 1
Overlying deposit (273)
Quadrant 2
Overlying deposit (274)
[796]
[752]
[756]
(278)
[754]
[779]
[742]
[758]
[785]
[793]
[282]
[740]
[783]
[288]
[748]/[774]
[286]
(799)
[770]
[781]
[772]
[760]
[296]
[713]
[709]
(283)
[795]
[762]
[277]
[787]
[707]
[717]
[715]
[727]
[776]
[750]
[719]
[705] / [725]
[711] / [731]
[768]
[703]
[746]
[701]
[766]
[733]
[764]
Quadrant 4
Overlying deposit (275)
Quadrant 3
Overlying deposit (280)
0
5
metres
Later linear gulley
stone
Areas of burning/scorched clay
Stakeholes
Figure 2.7 Plan showing features within Roundhouse 1.
the roundhouse was a ‘gully’ 0.05m deep filled by a mid-brown silty clay (278).
Several angular granite stones (283) sat along the base of the south end of the gully,
and it is possible that these were the last remnants of a wall which had lined the
inside of the house hollow.
A number of artefacts were recovered from the gully fill (278). These included
a relatively small assemblage of Trevisker pottery and four beach cobbles which
had been used as pestles or hammerstones, most notably a cobble derived from the
Budleigh Salterton area in south-east Devon and the pestle or hammerstone S4
(chapter 4). In addition there was one metalwork find, SF400, a curved fragment
from a copper-alloy artefact with a rib on one side.
A circle of ten outer postholes with a diameter of approximately 6.7m was set
within the roundhouse hollow (Figures 2.7 and 2.8). They were generally regularly
spaced about 1.25m apart, with the exception of postholes [768] and [733] (southwest quadrant 4,) and [756] and [760] (south-east quadrant 3), which at 2m were
slightly further apart. Additional postholes had been cut adjacent to some of those
in the main ring: posthole [746] next to [768], [758] and [742] either side of
[756], [715] and [717] (possibly part of the main post-ring) next to [719], [764]
close to [701] and [709] immediately adjacent to [760]. These postholes may have
results from the excavations
35
Figure 2.8 Photograph of Roundhouse 1 taken from the south.
been added to the principal post-ring as a means of strengthening or renewing the
structure. Charcoal from postholes [701] and [705], both on the southern arc of
the principal ring, returned radiocarbon dates of 3109±29 BP, 1441-1407 cal BC
(SUERC-47293) and 3065±31 BP, 1415-1252 cal BC (SUERC-47297).
Postholes [770] and [779] were both cut through the edge of the surviving
inner gully represented by fill (278) in quadrant 1, although the significance of
this in terms of phasing is uncertain. Postholes ranged in depth from 0.2-0.45m
and were 0.1-0.55m in diameter; many contained the remains of stone packing.
A group of small postholes or stakeholes was recorded close to the main post-ring
in quadrant 1, comprising [750], [781], [783] and [785]. Postholes also occurred
immediately outside the main post-ring in the south-east ([707] and [703] in
quadrant 3), and it is possible that these were associated with an entrance to the
roundhouse. Posthole [750] produced S1, a composite tool made on a cobble from
Budleigh Salterton, Devon (chapter 5).
Internal features were concentrated in the northern half of the roundhouse in
quadrants 1 and 2, but this may reflect better preservation in this area. Features
comprised stakeholes, pits and postholes. There was little coherent pattern to the
rather jumbled group of stakeholes in quadrants 1 and 2, although there was clearly
a concentration around the hearth [748]/[774]. These had been cut through a
baked clay floor surface (799), and they are therefore likely to have been linked to
hearth activity, perhaps metalworking (chapters 5 and 11). Stakeholes tended to
be 0.08m or less in diameter and 0.1-0.2m deep, usually vertical but occasionally
driven into the subsoil at angles of up to 30 degrees.
Hearth [748]/[774] was a concave bowl-shaped cut measuring 0.8m in diameter
and 0.15m deep, filled with a dark brown silty clay (747)/(773) with some charcoal
flecks. Adjacent to the west was a similar possible hearth pit [772] filled with a
36
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
charcoal-rich silty clay with patches of burnt clay. Both hearths showed extensive
scorching on the base where they had been cut into the natural subsoil.
To the north west of the hearths was the baked clay floor surface (799), which
had perhaps become a hardened surface as a result of prolonged proximity to the
hearths. The surface consisted of a layer of clay no more than 0.06m thick above
the natural subsoil, its surviving extents measuring approximately 2m long and 1m
wide. It is possible that it had originally spread further but had been worn away.
An arrangement of postholes predominantly in the northern part of the
structure comprised postholes [776], [277], [282], [754], [740], [286], [288],
[296], [762], [795] and [727] may have formed a division within the roundhouse.
These were generally smaller features than those of the outer post-ring, with
diameters ranging between 0.15m and 0.35m (except [776], 0.44m in diameter)
and up to 0.4m deep. Post-packing was largely absent, with the exceptions of [286]
and [740], and they were filled with homogenous grey or reddish-brown silty clays.
This group of postholes may indicate an internal structure or subdivision within
the roundhouse. Posthole [286] gave the determination 3169±29 BP, 1501-1400
cal BC (SUERC-47292).
Copper-alloy artefacts recovered from the postholes comprised two lengths from
a possible pin shaft (SF413) from the fill of posthole [785] (quadrant 1) and a spiral
finger ring (SF403) found within posthole [705] in quadrant 3 (chapters 5 and 11).
The roundhouse hollow had been infilled by a single deposit of mid brown
silty clay-loam soil. This was numbered (104)/(273) in quadrant 1, (274) in
quadrant 2, (280) in quadrant 3, and (275) in quadrant 4. The infilling contained
numerous finds. In quadrant 1 (104)/(273) contained pottery including sherds
from P4, P6, and P7, (274) over quadrant 2 contained a sherd from vessel P8 and
(275) over quadrant 4 contained sherds from P3 and P5. Stone finds included
S2, a whetstone, and S3, a pestle or hammerstone, from deposit (273) (chapters 3
and 4). Vessel P9 was also recovered from quadrant 1 (104)/(273). This is of Late
Bronze Age date (chapter 3, below) and is indicative of later activity over the site.
The most significant artefacts from the floor of the roundhouse were the
remains of nine stone mould fragments for casting metalwork, including ringheaded pins, a socketed axe and a chisel (chapter 5). The moulds were retrieved
from quadrants 1 and 2 at the bottom of infill layers (273) and (274), directly on
the floor of the roundhouse, with a clear concentration around the area of hearth
[748]/[774] and baked clay floor surface (799).
Charcoal from deposit (280) in quadrant 3 gave a radiocarbon determination
of 3091±27 BP, 1429-1297 cal BC (SUERC-47298).
Outer ring posthole [760] and the house hollow had been cut by a later
linear gully, [292], which ran north east – south west across the roundhouse. The
gully was 40m long, running from the eastern extent of the excavated area and
terminating 15m south-west of the roundhouse. The date of the gully is uncertain,
although clearly later than the roundhouse.
results from the excavations
37
Roundhouse 2
Removal of topsoil immediately south-west of Roundhouse 1 revealed a second
circular spread of darker brown silty clay measuring 7m in diameter, suggesting the
presence of another hollow-set roundhouse (Figure 2.6). Preliminary hand cleaning
of this deposit produced sherds of Late Bronze Age Plain Ware pottery from layer
(109)/(110), including P10, P10a and P11 and other sherds that may all belong
to these vessels (chapter 3). Radiocarbon determination 2820±29 BP, 1053-901
cal BC (SUERC-47299), was obtained from residue on pottery, noticeably later
than dates from the adjacent Roundhouse 1. This may indicate that the site of
Roundhouse 2 had been used as a midden dump during the Late Bronze Age, the
activity broadly contemporary with Enclosure 1.
Following initial cleaning, the decision was made to bury the roundhouse
without further excavation below layers of geotextile membrane, fine excavated
subsoil and sand (Gossip 2011).
Stone spread/bank and buried soil/old land surface
To the south east of Roundhouse 1 was a stony spread, or bank (105) aligned
north east – south west (Figure 2.6). This spread comprised a mass of tightlypacked granite stones, measuring 5.5m wide and 9m long. The feature is thought
to represent an eroded, ploughed down boundary which had marked the edge of
a field system.
To its east was a linear band of dark clayey soil (106), 30m long and 2m wide,
perhaps representing a buried soil or possibly a shallow ditch associated with (105)
(Figure 2.6). More than 100 sherds of pottery were recovered from both deposits.
These were generally of Trevisker type and the assemblage included decorated rims
and body sherds from incised and cord-impressed vessels (chapter 3). The material
is probably broadly contemporary with that from Roundhouse 1.
Enclosure 1
Enclosure 1 comprised a substantial length of ditch which, if projected beyond
the investigated area, is likely to have enclosed an area roughly 60-65m in
diameter (Figure 2.9). Approximately one-third to half of the probable interior
was uncovered, and numerous pits and posthole structures were identified within
this space.
The enclosure ditch [160]/[170]
A curvilinear enclosure ditch [160]/[170] ran from the western extent of the
stripped area in an arc towards the north. The ditch was up to 1.7m wide and up
to 1.35m deep, with very steep sides and a slightly rounded base throughout its
visible extent (Figure 2.10). The ditch circuit was broken on its eastern side by a
5.5m wide entrance into the enclosure. The ditch terminals on either side of this
were almost square-ended in plan, with vertical sides. The ditch was sampled by
the excavation of six sections totalling 40 per cent of the exposed length. Although
38
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Enclosure ditch 1
[160] (north)
[209]
on see
For secti
2.10
Figure
Possible post
(224)
structure
[213]
S5
(159)
(272)
For se
see F ction
igure
2.10
Enclosure ditch 1
[170] (south)
Structure 205
P14, P15
2808 ± 29 BP 1048-896 cal BC
(95%) (SUERC-47289)
[185]
Pit [124]
P17, P18a, P18b, S7, S8, M10
Pit / posthole group1
Pit alignment 2
2747 ± 26 BP 972-827 cal BC
(95.4%) (SUERC-42787)
Post structure 3
Post structure 4
Stone
Enclosure ditches
Pottery
0
10
Mould
metres
Figure 2.9 Plan showing Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1 and internal features.
it is likely that there was a bank and there was space for one within the enclosure,
there was no indication of the position of one, either on the inside or the outside of
the enclosure ditch, and the tip-lines in the ditch fills were inconclusive. However,
the quantity of large granite stones recovered from the ditch filling might have
derived from a stone revetment facing such a bank.
The basal fill (267)/(798) along the southern arc of the ditch comprised a dark
greyish-brown silty clay with flecks and fragments of charcoal. This was overlain
by a succession of dumped or eroded silty clay deposits, (266), (265) and (264),
SSE
Southern ditch terminal
NNW
Northern ditch terminal
W
(259)
E
(262)
(117)
(264)
(265)
Recut
[263]
(260)
(266)
337
(267)
[170]
0
1
(261)
[160]
metre
Figure 2.10 Sections across Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1 ditch [160].
results from the excavations
39
containing a moderate amount of granite stones. Uppermost deposit (159)/(107)/
(259)/(165), forming the top 0.4-0.55m of ditch fill in all excavated sections,
was a dark brown silty clay containing large quantities of angular granite stones
(mostly fist-sized and larger) and occasional flecks of charcoal. South terminal fill
(159) contained a fragment of carinated bowl. Deposit (272), also in the southern
arc of the ditch and located near to the base, contained two small fragments of
burnt bone and produced a rim from a shouldered jar and a flat-topped bowl rim.
Both of these ceramic forms belong to Late Bronze Age Plain Ware (chapter 3)
and are consistent with a radiocarbon date from (798), a basal fill in the southern
length of the enclosure ditch, of 2782±29 BP, 1006-843 cal BC (SUERC-47283).
The northern terminal of the ditch revealed a similar sequence of deposits to
that found in the southern terminal. The ditch had been hewn from the bedrock
with vertical sides (in contrast to the southern section which was less rocky), with
a basal fill (261) comprising gritty silty clay probably derived from erosion of the
sides and base soon after excavation. Above this was (260), a friable light brown
clay with frequent large granite stones. A re-cutting of the ditch [263] was also
evident, cut through the earlier deposits. This recut was filled with a dark clay
deposit (117) containing very frequent granite stones 0.1m to 0.25m in length
(Figure 2.10).
Pit / Posthole Group 1
A dense cluster of features, which have been grouped together as Pit / Posthole
Group 1, was revealed in the northern part of the enclosure. Initially appearing
rather random, it is very possible that these features, comprising mainly postholes
but also pits containing burnt stone, represent a structure or perhaps a series of
structures, probably rectangular, built successively in this area over time. Within
this group of features were several components, including an ‘L-shaped’ setting, an
amorphous group of pits and two shallow linear depressions.
Possible L-shaped structure
Two linear arrangements of features – postholes [244], [240], [158] and [144]
and pit [114] on a north-west – south-east alignment and postholes [255], [177]
and [211] aligned south west – north east – seem to form an L-shaped structure
or two sides of a sub-rectangular structure measuring approximately 6m by
7m (Figure 2.11). Pottery from pit [114] had internal residue which produced
a radiocarbon date of 2822±30 BP, 1071-899 cal BC (SUERC-47288). This
determination was the earliest to be obtained from a feature inside the enclosure.
Pits [164], [249] and posthole [171] lay on or close to the south-west - north-east
alignment and may have been associated with it, or could possibly have been part
of a structure described below. The fill (170) of posthole [171] contained two
stone mullers, S5 of quartz greisen and S6 of granite. All of the pits contained
burnt stones and moderate to frequent amounts of charcoal in their fills, [249]
producing the richest charcoal sample of the group with taxa comprising oak,
40
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
[242]
[209]
[189]
[208]
[253]
[244]
S6
[211]
[251]
[240]
[238]
[214]
[171]
[234]
[217]
[114]
[156]
[249]
[236]
[154]
[158]
[177]
2822 ± 30 BP 1056-899 BC
(95%) (SUERC-47288)
2766 ± 30 BP 997-835 cal BC
(95.4%) (SUERC-47291)
[258]
[255]
[164]
[152]
[173]
[213]
[144]
[150]
[193]
2
0
[132]
P12
metres
[130]
Figure 2.11 Plan showing Pit / Posthole Group 1.
hazel, blackthorn, hawthorn and broom or gorse (chapters 8 and 9). Of particular
note is posthole [144], the fill of which contained clay metalworking mould
fragments A-D, which are similar to those from pit [124] (below and chapter 5).
Parallel to the south-west – north-east alignment was a line of three small
postholes, [236], [234], [238], which may have formed a structural subdivision
within a building. Three larger postholes, [251], [253] and [189], were offset to
the north of the line of small posts and may represent a separate structure.
A further posthole [242] was revealed containing fill (241), a dark brown silty
clay. The posthole was 0.5m in diameter and 0.3m deep with steeply sloping sides
and a flat base. A stakehole 0.4m deep was evident in its southern edge. Posthole
[208] measuring 0.3m in diameter and 0.26m deep was recorded between [242]
and [251]. The fill (207) comprised dark brown silty clay with a moderate amount
of charcoal.
The majority of cut features were circular in plan with steep sides and flat bases;
burnt stones were often present but did not form intact post-packing. Posthole
size varied, with the outside edge postholes 0.16-0.4m in diameter; depths were
more consistent, in the range 0.2-0.3m. The small inner post alignment ([236],
[234] and [238]) comprised small postholes 0.1m in diameter and between 0.1m
to 0.2m deep. The north-easternmost posthole [189] was notable as it was larger,
measuring 0.3m in diameter and 0.8m deep.
results from the excavations
41
A separate structure?
A further group of pits and postholes lay immediately to the south of the L-shaped
structure. It is unclear whether these formed part of the same structure or were part
of a separate phase. The group was made up of postholes [173], [258] (in pit [193]),
[130], [132], [150], [152], [154] and [156], and possibly pit [164] (Figure 2.11).
These features formed a rough triangle approximately 3m in size. Postholes [171]
and [177] were also possibly associated with this group and produced oak, hazel,
blackthorn, hawthorn and broom or gorse charcoal (chapter 9).
Most of these features also had vertical or near vertical profiles with flat bases
and are likely to have been structural, measuring 0.15-0.25m in diameter and
0.25-0.4m in depth. Postholes [173], [258], [132], [154] and [156] all contained
burnt stone, possibly representing collapsed post-packings, although the reason for
the burning is unknown. In [154] a distinct post-pipe was revealed in the centre
of fill (153), while pit [193] had a 0.05m deep layer of charcoal lining the base,
with taxa comparable to those from [249]. A posthole, [258], was cut through the
northern edge of the pit. Pit [164], 0.9m in diameter, 0.5m deep and sub-circular
in plan, contained a dark brown compact silty clay containing large quantities of
angular granite stones, many of which had been burnt.
Direct dating evidence was limited. Residue on pottery from posthole [156] gave
a radiocarbon determination of 2766±29 BP, 997-835 cal BC (SUERC-47291),
which is a little later than that from the L-shaped post-setting described above.
Vessel P12 was recovered from feature [132].
A wind-break or screen?
Shallow cut / deposits [209] immediately to the north and [213] to the east are
likely to have been associated with the groups of pits and postholes described
above. Measuring only 0.05m deep, it is possible that they represent the shallow
remnants of buried soil deposits. However, it is also possible that the depressions
were formed by linear structures, such as screens or windbreaks; features such
as stakeholes may have been located in the unexcavated portions. Comparable
features have been found within other Late Bronze Age enclosures, as, for example,
at Mucking North Ring, where during the first phase a screen was erected between
the roundhouses and the entranceway (Bond 1988, 14-19).
Pit Alignment 2
An alignment of features was recorded on a 10m long east-west axis in the central
area of the enclosure (Figure 2.12). This comprised pits [202], [200], [126], [136],
[123], [138], and postholes [140] and [142]. The pits were more or less circular
with steep sides and flat bases or more bowl-shaped profiles. They were shallow,
none of them exceeding 0.3m in depth. Diameters ranged from 0.4m to 1.8m.
Pits [134] and [128] lay to the north of the alignment at its western end, angled
towards the north-west. Pits generally contained single deposits of mostly dark
greyish-brown silty clays, with some containing burnt stones; notable examples
were [128], [134] and [140]. Charcoal was limited to oak from pits [126], [134]
42
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
[128]
P13
[142]
[140]
[138]
[134]
[116]
[123]
[126]
[136]
[119]
[200]
Structure 205
[202]
2808 ± 29 BP 1048 - 896 cal BC
(95%) (SUERC 47289)
2
0
metres
Figure 2.12 Plan showing Pit Alignment 2.
and [136], with [128] also containing traces of hazel (chapter 9). Pits [202],
[126] and [123] incorporated some charred plant remains, including occasional
wheat grains and glume bases, an oat / grass grain, occasional weeds, a charred
hazelnut fragment and an oak bud, while pit [128] produced a larger assemblage
of macrofossils including 22 hulled wheat grains (chapters 8 and 11).
The artefactual assemblage from this group included sherds from a thin-walled
biconical vessel P13 found in pit [134].
Postholes [140] and [142] at the eastern end of the alignment were clearly
different to the other features and more evidently functioned as postholes, with
vertical sides, flat bases (0.4m and 0.35m deep, 0.25m and 0.3m in diameter)
and with the lower edges of their cuts lined with granite packing stones. The two
postholes perhaps represented a stand-alone structure. Some maintenance or re-use
of the structure was suggested as posthole [140] was cut through (137), the fill of
pit [138].
Structure 205 and pit [119]
At the western end of Pit Alignment 2 was a large circular pit [119] measuring
1.25m in diameter and 0.3mm deep (Figure 2.12). The inside edge of the cut had
a groove cut into its base within which was deposit (203), a light brown silty clay
0.05m thick, sealed by (118), a dark greyish-brown silty clay containing frequent
pieces of charcoal, 0.25m deep.
To the west was a shallow depression or hollow cut [116], over which was stone
Structure 205, comprising a carefully built cairn of granite stones, circular in plan,
with an overall diameter of 1.6m and a height above the base of [116] of 0.5m
(Figure 2.13). Many of the stones were cracked or scorched, indicating that they
had been burnt. The structure was built within a shallow circular, concave cut into
the natural subsoil 0.25m deep. Above the stones lay a large flat sub-rectangular
stone approximately 0.5m wide, 1m long and 0.25m thick. This large stone was
results from the excavations
43
Figure 2.13 Photograph showing Structure 205, from the east. Note its careful construction
and the flat-laid stone on top.
lifted to reveal a mid brown silty clay filled core, the outer visible stones of the
‘cairn’ forming a coarsely constructed circular ‘wall’ 0.25m wide and 0.5m high on
which the slab had been laid. The clay fill (115)/(103) contained sherds of pottery
from Late Bronze Age vessels P14 and P15, a large stone muller and a muller
fragment (chapter 3). Residue on pottery from (115)/(103) returned a radiocarbon
date of 2808±29 BP, 1048-896 cal BC (SUERC-47289). Plant macrofossils
recovered from (115)/(103) included wheat and barley, a hazelnut fragment and a
small arable weed assemblage (chapter 8). The charcoal was dominated by oak with
a small collection of birch, blackthorn and gorse.
Deposit (270)/(271) from below the stones had a greasy texture and contained
small oak fragments and a single hulled wheat grain. The finds from this area are
problematic as they purportedly included a sherd from Late Iron Age imported
vessel P19 and a sherd of glazed post-medieval pottery (chapter 3). There was,
however, no sign of disturbance to the stones of the cairn and the remaining
ceramic assemblage associated with Structure 205 was all of Late Bronze Age date.
It is therefore probable that the sherd from vessel P19 and the post-medieval
glazed sherd are both from adjacent layers (perhaps the topsoil), as layer (270)/
(271) was first exposed during machine stripping and its extent not recognised
at the time. The finds are therefore likely to have been wrongly assigned to this
context number.
It is probable that Structure 205 represents burnt mound material which had
been carefully arranged after use, with the adjacent pit [119] used as a cooking
pit which may have been lined, hence the groove. The possible function(s) of this
feature are discussed in chapter 11.
44
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
[148]
[162]
[146]
[221]
Figure 2.14
Plan of Post
Structure 3.
2
0
metres
[219]
Post Structure 3
In the eastern area of Enclosure 1 was a group of five postholes apparently forming
a rectangular structure 4.2m long (north west – south east) and 2m wide (north east
– south west) (Figure 2.14). The postholes forming the structure had consistently
vertical sides and almost flat bases, were regular in diameter, ranging from 0.12m
to 0.15m, and varied in depth between 0.2m and 0.45m. The deepest postholes
were at the northern end of the structure.
Fills comprised dark greyish-brown silty clays, with postholes [221], [162] and
[148] containing post-packing stones. Those in posthole [148] were particularly
well-preserved, with stones lining the vertical cut of the feature. The intact nature
of the postholes suggests that posts rotted in situ.
No artefacts were recovered from this structure, and none of the constituent
postholes produced any charred plant macrofossils. Only a few flecks of charcoal
were present and it was not possible to date this building. It is, however, likely,
given its size and form, that it was broadly contemporary with Post Structure 4
(below).
Post Structure 4
Lying south of Pit Alignment 2 was a group of postholes forming a rectangular
structure measuring 4.5m long and 3.5m wide aligned south west – north east
along its long axis (Figure 2.15). Each long side comprised three postholes, ([181],
[187], [169] on the north-west side, [179], [198] and [269] on the south-east
side), with two additional postholes slightly off-set from these lines: [175] on the
results from the excavations
45
north-west side and [191] (with adjacent [247]) on the south-east side. The southwestern shorter edge also had posthole [183], a deep vertical-sided stone-lined
posthole immediately adjacent to [179]. A shallow elongated pit [167] measuring
2m by 0.8m was positioned inside the structure close to its northernmost corner,
filled with a large quantity of burnt granite stones in a dark greyish-brown silty clay.
Postholes [179], [183], [181] and [198]/[121] on the south and eastern sides
of the structure had intact stone-packing lining vertical cuts into the solid natural
subsoil. The postholes contained single deposits of greyish or reddish-brown silty
clays; all were circular with flat or slightly rounded bases. Some were particularly
deep: [181], [175] and [198]/[121] were 0.7m, 0.8m and 0.9m deep respectively.
The remaining postholes (with the exception of shallow posthole [196]) ranged
in depth between 0.4m and 0.6m with a mean depth of 0.5m. Diameters were
remarkably consistent and had a range of 0.15-0.25m. North-eastern corner
posthole [269] appeared to have been maintained as it was part of a double posthole
with [136] (probably the later re-cut); posthole [191] also had another, [247],
immediately adjacent, perhaps to provide additional support. The south-eastern
corner post [179] may also have been strengthened by the addition of posthole
[183] along the southern edge. Beyond the south-west corner of the structure
2791± 27 cal BP 1011-846
(95.4%) (SUERC-47290)
P14, P16
[169]
[269]
[136]
[198]/[121]
[175]
[167]
[187]
[191]
[247]
[196]
[181]
[183]
[179]
2
0
metres
Figure 2.15 Plan of Post Structure 4.
46
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
posthole [185] was another steep-sided posthole with intact stone packing but this
appears to be an isolated feature or was possibly associated with pit [124].
Many of the features produced fragments of pottery, with posthole [169], (fill
(168), containing P16, and pit [167], (fill (166), containing 72 sherds of pottery,
including a sherd similar to P14 (Structure 205). Residue from pottery from
(166) gave the radiocarbon date 2791±27 BP, 1011-846 cal BC (SUERC-47290).
Postholes [191] and [198]/[121] contained stone mullers and [198]/[121] and
posthole [185] part of a saddle quern (chapter 3). Posthole [181] contained a few
tiny fragments of burnt bone.
Plant macrofossils included barley and wheat, with a single oat awn from [167]
(chapter 8). Postholes [198]/[121], [175], [179], [181] and pit [167] produced
large quantities of oak charcoal (chapter 9). Posthole [187] presented only a few
fragments of oak charcoal, but a larger quantity of hazel. Overall, the structure
produced a diverse range of species including birch, alder, hazel, blackthorn,
hawthorn, broom or gorse, holly and ivy.
Pit [124]
Approximately 3m to the south of Post Structure 4 was circular pit [124], 2m in
diameter and 0.55m deep with steep concave sides and a flat base. There was a
single fill (112)/(108) of mid-brown silty clay rich in charcoal fragments, which
formed the matrix for a densely packed deposit of largely fist-sized angular granite
stones, amounting to approximately 75 per cent of the total deposit (Figure 2.16).
All the stones were cracked or scorched, indicating that they had been heated.
Stones were also seen above the level of the natural subsoil during the topsoil
Figure 2.16 Photograph showing pit [124], half excavated. Note the burnt stones
in its fill.
results from the excavations
47
stripping stage in the area of pit [124] and these may have been part of a stone
cairn. As with Structure 205, it is possible that the pit was associated with a mound
of burnt stone, or with activity linked with one (chapter 11).
Charred plant macrofossils were limited to only single examples of a wheat
glume base and spikelet fork, with a ribwort plantain and grass caryopsis. A tiny
amount of burnt bone was noted. The artefactual assemblage from pit [124]
comprised more than 50 sherds of pottery, including vessels P17, P18a and P18b,
slate lid S8, a fragmented muller and a rubber. Interestingly, a cushion or finishing
stone S7, was recovered which may have been associated with metalworking. It
was one of only two from the site, the other S9 being unstratified. Also within
fill (112) was Mould 10, the tip of a clay mould for a leaf-shaped sword, with 13
other small fragments of moulds. These included fragment C, possibly part of a
ribbed socketed axe mould, D, part of a possible chisel mould and other socketed
axe mould fragments G, H and J. Residue on pottery gave the radiocarbon
determination 2747±26 BP, 972-827 BC cal BC (SUERC-47287). This deposit
is likely to have been associated with an episode of structured deposition
(chapters 5 and 11).
Possible post structure
An irregular group of four postholes 8m to the west of the entrance to Enclosure 1
may represent a small structure 3.6m long and 2.7m wide (Figure 2.9). Three of the
postholes were sub-circular and steep-sided, between 0.25m and 0.35m deep and
0.4m in diameter. The exception was [226], which was an oval cut 0.7m by 0.5m,
with a circular posthole cut on its southern edge. Fills comprised homogenous
brown silty clays with occasional charcoal flecks. The two easternmost cut features
([230] and [232]) both contained packing stones, indicating that the postholes had
a structural function. There were, however, no artefacts from any of the features
associated with this possible structure.
Spread (224)
A very shallow linear spread (224), measuring 0.05m deep by 5m long and 0.4m
wide extended towards the enclosure entrance to the south east of the possible post
structure. It comprised a mid reddish-brown silty clay with no inclusions and may
represent a remnant of buried soil. There were, however, no associated artefacts,
and its date and origin are uncertain.
For section see Figure 2.18
[709]
(705)
(701)
[700]
[713]
[703]
(707)
(704)
[706]
Collapsed
stone-revetted bank
[715]
(714)
[726]
stone
10
0
metres
Figure 2.17 Plan showing evaluation trench across Enclosure 2.
48
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Area south of Car Park 4: Enclosure 2
Located approximately 175m to the south of the Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1
was a multi-circuit ditched site, Enclosure 2, which is largely known from the
results of a geophysical survey (Archaeological Surveys Ltd 2008), although an
evaluative trench was excavated across it (Figure 11.24). It is discussed both here
and in chapter 11 because of its proximity to the excavated remains in Car Park 4,
and particularly because of its potential relationship with the Late Bronze Age
Enclosure 1, described above.
In 2008 a programme of evaluation investigations included trenching to the
south of Car Park 4 (Gossip 2008a). A single 38m long by 1.5m wide, east-west
aligned trench was excavated to evaluate four concentric curvilinear ditched
anomalies occurring to the east of a large linear magnetic anomaly indicating the
position of a large service trench.
The excavation revealed a series of ditches, a pit and a posthole, sealed beneath
topsoil (721) up to 0.1-0.15m deep) and its underlying colluvial subsoil (722) up
to approximately 0.45m deep (deeper towards the eastern end of the trench). All the
features clearly cut the natural rab subsoil (723). These features are described below,
starting at the western end of the trench, within the interior of the enclosed area.
The evaluation on the multi-circuit feature had a discrete set of context numbers
and these overlap with those issued in the 2011 excavations.
Cut [703], fill (702), was a circular posthole 0.2m in diameter and 0.1m deep.
The top of the cut was overlaid by a deposit of very compact redeposited natural,
thought to be derived from the excavation of the large adjacent service trench. A
large sherd of pottery from a Late Iron Age or Romano-British Cordoned Ware
storage jar was recovered from fill (702).
Cut [709], a large oval pit 1.7m to the east of [703]. It measured 1.45m long by
1.3m wide and 0.95m deep (Figure 2.17). The pit had near vertical edges and a flat
base. Top fill (708) comprised mid brown friable silty clay 0.8m thick containing
large quantities of granite stones up to 0.3m in length and a decorated sherd of
Iron Age or Romano-British pottery. This sealed primary fill (717), a dark brown,
compact silty clay, with occasional granite stones up to 0.15m long.
W
E
(721)
(722)
(711)
(704)
(710)
(716)
Ditch [713]
Projected external
edge of [713]
(720)
(712)
0
1
metre
Figure 2.18 Section across Enclosure 2 ditch [713].
results from the excavations
49
To the east of [709] was a curvilinear gully [706] measuring 0.55m wide by
0.2m deep. The profile was concave with a gently rounded base. The fill comprised
(705), a mid greyish-brown silty clay.
Situated 0.9m to the east of [706] was concentric curvilinear ditch [700], 1.5m
wide and 0.55 deep. This had a very steep north-eastern edge, a more concave
south-western edge and a flat base. Stones found on edge at the base of the southwestern edge may have been deliberately set. The top fill (701) comprising mid
greyish-brown silty clay contained two sherds of Late Iron Age or Romano-British
pottery. Below this was primary fill (724), a gritty, light brown silty clay with stony
inclusions on the eastern side.
Located 3.6m to the east of [700] was [713], the cut of a large curvilinear
ditch (Figures 2.18 and 2.19). The inner, west side of the ditch had a 45-degree
concave edge cut through natural subsoil / bedrock, with a break of slope visible
0.9m below the top of the cut. The ditch was excavated to a depth of 0.95m below
topsoil and subsoil but working constraints on the trench meant that it could not
be fully excavated. The uppermost fill (704) comprised a compact mid reddishbrown silty clay, containing frequent stone on the eastern side and including a layer
of rubble (710). Layer (710) included a large boulder and a dense layer of smaller
stones within the eastern side of the ditch cut, presumed to have collapsed from a
stone-revetted bank on the eastern, external side. Finds recovered from the upper
fill (704) included eight sherds of Late Iron Age or Romano-British pottery. Below
this were a series of deposits: (720) was a gritty, light brown silty clay with stony
Figure 2.19 Photograph showing Ditch [713] and outer stone bank, taken from west.
50
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
inclusions on the eastern side; below this was (711), a friable light reddish-brown
silty clay with occasional charcoal and a sherd of Iron Age or Romano-British
pottery; this overlay (716), a dark reddish-brown silty clay and basal fill (712), a
gritty light yellowish-brown silty clay, with moderate small stone inclusions. All
of these deposits beneath (704)/(710) were clearly deposited or infilled from the
western side of the ditch.
Cut [715] was a curvilinear ditch 3m to the east of [713], occurring 0.6m
below present ground level. The ditch had steep concave sides and a flat bottom.
It was 0.7m deep, 1.8m wide at the top and 0.6m wide at the base. The top fill
(714) was a light brown compact silty clay, with occasional granite fragments and
occasional charcoal flecks; a small rim sherd of Late Iron Age pottery was also
recovered from this layer. Below (714) was layer (718), a mid reddish-brown silty
clay with occasional degraded granite and occasional charcoal flecks and, beneath
this, primary fill (719), a light yellowish-brown friable and gritty silty clay.
Close to the eastern end of the trench and sealed beneath 0.6m of topsoil (721)
and colluvium (722) was [726], a sub-circular pit approximately 1m in diameter
and 0.25m deep with a concave profile and rounded base. The fill (725) comprised
light brown silty clay with stony inclusions on the eastern side. Large stones were
recorded on the adjacent subsoil surface.
The gully and the three concentric ditches ([706], [700], [713] and [715],
which were revealed in the evaluation trench corresponded with the anomalies
that were indicated by the geophysical survey (Archaeological Surveys 2008). The
conjectured overall diameter of the outer circuit of the enclosure is approximately
50m, enclosing a space with an area of 1900 square metres. The innermost ditch
[706] would have a diameter of approximately 22m and enclose an area of 380
square metres. The size of ditch [713] and the associated external stone-faced bank
are particularly interesting and suggest a site of some significance (chapter 11).
The multi-circuited ditched form of the enclosure is very unusual in Cornwall
and it may represent a ceremonial monument. Unfortunately, the primary phase
of the moment could not be dated, and diagnostic pottery from the enclosure is
limited to a few sherds of Late Iron Age or Romano-British pottery from the upper
layers of the ditches. This indicates that the latest phase of use dates to the latter
prehistoric period. However, given the proximity of Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1
it is possible that its origins were earlier. The possible character and date of this site
are discussed below (chapter 11).
results from the excavations
51
Chapter 3
The prehistoric ceramics
Henrietta Quinnell, with petrological comment by Roger Taylor
Introduction
This report covers the pottery recovered from the 2009 and 2011 excavations. In
2009 two small pits were identified as being of Early Neolithic date, and these
produced the first substantive assemblage of pottery of this date to be recovered
from Tremough.
The 2011 excavations of an earlier Bronze Age structure, a Middle Bronze Age
roundhouse and a Late Bronze Age enclosure led to the recovery of a significant
ceramic assemblage spanning much of the second millennium cal BC.
Early Neolithic pottery from the PAC building
Details of the assemblage
The assemblage consisted of 59 sherds, weighing 346g, representing a minimum
of eight vessels. None of the vessels give sufficient indication of form to merit
illustration. Sherds of all the vessels have been examined microscopically by Roger
Taylor (below). Twenty-five sherds (135g) were of gabbroic fabrics, 34 sherds
(211g) of granitic fabrics. On sherd numbers, therefore, 42 per cent of this small
assemblage is composed of gabbroic fabrics, 39 per cent by weight; the percentages
for granitic fabrics are 58 per cent on sherds and 61 per cent on weight.
All sherds, except those that were unstratified, appear to have been deposited
in a fresh condition with areas of abrasion due to ground water and bioturbation.
Context (100), pit [102]
Context (100), the fill of pit [102], contained 19 sherds of gabbroic fabric weighing
69g 34 of granitic fabric (211g), and included vessels PP1-PP6. Vessels PP4-6
show clear overlap of coils used to build vessels. All sherds from this feature may
come from the six vessels described below.
PP1 Two joining sherds (6g) from small bowl or cup, smoothed surface, fabric
4-5mm thick, oxidised 5YR 4/6 yellowish-red; simple pointed rim with diameter
approximately 160mm. Compare P115 and similar vessels from Carn Brea (Smith
1981, fig 71).
the prehistoric ceramics
53
Petrology: Gabbroic. Feldspar – soft white altered angular grains, 0.05-2mm,
but mainly less than 1mm, also a few less altered translucent cleaved grains,
0.5mm. Mica – a scatter of muscovite cleavage flakes, 0.1-1.2mm, sparse biotite,
medium to pale brown cleavage flakes, 0.3-0.6mm. Amphibole – sparse white,
fibrous, elongated grains, 0.2-1.1mm, and a fibrous aggregate, 2mm. Magnetite
– black sub-angular magnetic grains, 0.1-0.4mm. Quartz – sparse transparent to
translucent colourless angular grains, 0.5-0.6mm and one opaque rounded grain,
3.2mm. Composite – feldspar/biotite mica fragment, 0.5mm. Matrix – silty/finely
sandy with fine feldspar, quartz and mica.
Comment: A relatively fine-grained gabbroic fabric with sparse inclusions
and a silty sandy matrix, with a scatter of included larger mica flakes. These are
unusual but not impossible in Lizard-sourced gabbroic clays, with granitic gneisses
occurring on the flanks of the gabbro. However, the matrix and low quartz content
is similar to PP4 and PP5 and the mica could have come from a source local to the
site. This would indicate that the gabbroic component had been transported to the
area of the site and mixed there with other materials.
PP2 Two joining sherds (10g) from small bowl or cup, smoothed surface partly
burnished, fabric 5-6mm thick, 5YR 4/1 reduced dark grey on exterior, as PP1
otherwise; simple pointed rim with diameter approximately 140mm, slightly
inturned. Compare P113 from Carn Brea (Smith 1981, fig 71).
Petrology: Fine-grained gabbroic fabric with sparse inclusions, but no component
indicates movement of clay.
PP3 Rim (4g) from straight-sided vessel, smoothed surface, fabric 5-6mm thick,
reduced grey 5YR 5/1; rim rounded with slight external beading but diameter not
determinable.
Petrology: Fine-grained gabbroic fabric with sparse inclusions, but no component
indicates movement of clay.
PP4 Two joining sherds (43g) from thick base of bowl, exterior surface smoothed
and oxidised 5YR 5/6 yellowish-red, interior burnished and reduced 5YR 5/1 grey.
A further 30 sherds (119g) appear to be from this vessel on fabric. Thick-walled,
11-15mm.
Petrology: Granitic with sparse inclusions. Rock fragments – granitic, quartz
feldspar and biotite mica, internal grain size up to 1.2mm, as fresh angular
fragments, 1-7mm; quartz/muscovite aggregates, angular fragments, 1-2mm;
doleritic greenstone, slightly foliated feldspar and dark green amphibole, a cluster
of sub-angular fragments, 4.5, 5 and >10.6mm. Quartz – a scatter of translucent
colourless angular and abraded sub-angular grains, 1-2.5mm. Mica – sparse biotite
cleavage flakes, up to 0.5mm. Feldspar – sparse soft white angular grains dispersed
in the matrix, 0.1-0.2mm, rarely 3mm. Limonite – a scatter of soft dark reddishbrown rounded grains, 0.2-3mm. Matrix – abundantly finely sandy/silty and
micaceous.
Comment: Vessels PP4 and PP5 have a very similar granitic fabric with
fragments obtained by crushing granite rock. The thickness and finish are also
similar, suggesting that the sherds could be from vessels potted at the same time
from the same clay source. The clay appears to be an alluvial clay deriving some
54
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
mineral content from granite weathering. The greenstone fragments are sub-angular
to sub-rounded and abraded and also appear to be an incidental component of the
clay. Greenstones are mapped close to the margin of the Carnmenellis granite to
the north of Penryn, pointing to potential source areas for the clay.
PP5 Two joining sherds (48g) from angle of carinated bowl, both surfaces burnished,
interior reduced dark grey 5YR 5/4, exterior oxidised 5YR 5/6 yellowish-red. Thick
walled approximately 15-18mm. Very much at the thick end of fabrics used for
Neolithic bowls; compare Carn Brea P54 (Smith 1981, fig 68).
Petrology: Granitic with sparse inclusions, same as PP4.
PP6 Two joining sherds (65g) from bowl, both surfaces smoothed and oxidised,
5YR 5/6 yellowish-red. Approximately 8mm thick.
Petrology: Gabbroic fabric with moderate inclusions.
Context (103), the lower fill of pit [105]
This fill contained a single vessel, PP7.
PP7 a bowl sherd weighing 32g, both surfaces smoothed and oxidised, 5YR 5/6
yellowish-red. Approximately 10mm thick.
Petrology: Gabbroic with approximately 10 per cent added granitic-derived
sand. Feldspar – abundant off-white altered angular to sub-angular grains, 0.051.5mm, translucent greyish and white cleaved unaltered sub-rounded grains, 3.2,
4.1 and 5mm; simple twinning suggests these grains are orthoclase feldspar from
granite. Quartz – colourless to pale grey translucent, angular to sub-angular grains,
1-7mm. Rock fragments – granitic, quartz/feldspar biotite an angular fragment,
8mm; quartz/biotite 0.8 and 8mm, quartz/muscovite, 0.8mm. Mica – biotite
cleavage flake, 0.8mm. Magnetite – sparse black sub-angular, magnetic grains,
0.15-1mm. Tourmaline – black glossy vitreous sub angular grain, 0.5mm. Plant –
impressions on the interior surface up to 13mm long. Matrix – much fine-grained
feldspar and some quartz less than 0.5mm.
Comment: A gabbroic fabric with a gabbroic clay to which a coarse, mainly
water-worn granite-derived sand has been added. The inclusions differ from those
in PP4 and PP5 as the granitic content has not been prepared by crushing.
Context (104) upper fill of pit [105]
This fill contained vessel PP8 and two other sherds.
PP8 Bowl sherd (26g), both surfaces smoothed and oxidised 5YR 5/4 reddishbrown. The overlap between two coils extends across the sherd and has resulted in
a zone of reduction, almost sooty, 5YR 3/4 very dark grey, which extends across the
sherd. Approximately 6-10mm thick.
Petrology: Gabbroic fabric with moderate inclusions.
Unstratified
Four unstratified sherds weighing 8g were of a gabbroic fabric with no distinguishing
features.
the prehistoric ceramics
55
Comment on the PAC assemblage
Fills (100) in pit [102] and (103) in pit [105] produced identical radiocarbon
determinations. Both dates calibrated to 4750±40 BP, 3640-3378 cal BC
(SUERC-29383; SUERC-29387). These determinations confirm the identity of
the pottery as Early Neolithic and are very similar to those obtained from a pit
group at Portscatho, Gerrans (Jones and Reed 2006), and to those from the later
pits in the group at Tregarrick Farm, Roche (Cole and Jones 2002-3). The only
Early Neolithic sherd previously found at Tremough was an abraded gabbroic
scrap from ditch [76] associated with a radiocarbon determination of 3944-3662
cal BC (AA-44604) (Quinnell 2007, 51), while the pit group with radiocarbon
determinations from the earlier Neolithic produced no ceramics (Gossip and Jones
2007, 28).
The mean sherd size is 6g, much smaller than the 11.3g at Portscatho (Quinnell
2006) and 18g at Tregarrick Farm (Quinnell 2002-3). This small size argues
against any special selection for deposition. The large wide-mouthed bowls which
were very much a feature of Portscatho and Tregarrick Farm, and also of the pit
assemblage from Wayland’s, Tiverton (Leverett and Quinnell 2010) do not appear
to be represented. There is also, in comparison to Portscatho and Tregarrick Farm
(Quinnell 2006; Quinnell 2002-3), no evidence for the special selection of sherds
such as rims, and nothing, except for the freshness of the material, indicates an act
of deliberate deposition. There are several different forms represented at Tremough
PAC, the range replicated at both Portscatho and Tregarrick Farm.
The pottery is important, however, for the complexity of its fabrics. Vessels
PP2, PP3, PP6 and PP8 are made only of gabbroic materials; the latter two are
coarser than the first two and the two pairs may be compared respectively to the
fine and medium gabbroic fabrics identified at Carn Brea (Smith 1981, 162).
However, PP1 is made of gabbroic clay apparently transported to the area of the
site and mixed with clay containing material deriving from the Carnmenellis
granite. Vessel PP1 may well have been potted close to the site of its deposition.
Vessel PP7 is made of gabbroic clay mixed with coarse, mainly water-worn sand
from the Carnmenellis granite and again is likely to have been made on or near the
site. While gabbro clay has now been demonstrated to have been moved and then
mixed with other components from elsewhere during the Bronze Age, indeed at
Tremough (Quinnell 2007, 59), there has been little evidence so far for this practice
during the Neolithic. However, over 80 per cent of the Portscatho assemblage was
made of gabbroic clay mixed with material found some 6 kilometres away from the
gabbro zone in the Meneage area (Quinnell 2006, 7). Roger Taylor (pers comm.)
considers that he is now (2010) picking up finer details of petrography than he did
a decade ago, a comment, which in itself makes a case for a review of all gabbroic
collections previously published. The granitic fabrics of PP4 and PP5 contain
a mix of granitic and greenstone material which suggests a clay source located
1-2 kilometres to the north of the Tremough site. The overall picture is of the
components for potting being brought together somewhere near the deposition
site both from the gabbro some 15 kilometres to the south and more locally from
the fringe of the Carnmenellis granite.
56
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Finally, the suggestion has been made that vessels PP4 and PP5 are so similar
in fabric and finish that they are likely to have been potted at the same time.
Certainly neither of the pits contained ceramics that are likely to have been curated.
The deposit of sherds from two pots made at the same time in one pit reinforces
the impression of a very short time span for the material in the pits, enhanced by
the similarity of the two radiocarbon determinations.
The pottery from the AIR building and Car Park 4
Introductory comments
Colour and oxidisation of fabrics
All of the ceramic assemblage is in gabbroic or gabbroic admixture fabrics, the
second millennium BC Trevisker sherds being in both fabrics and the Late Bronze
Age assemblage in gabbroic fabric without additional material. Sherds from a
number of vessels have been examined under the petrological microscope by Roger
Taylor and the identifications are included below under vessel descriptions. A small
number of sherds were initially considered to be non-gabbroic but a comment that
this was incorrect is included in Dr Taylor’s archive report.
The sherds from the whole assemblage are generally oxidised, with surfaces,
especially exteriors, generally reddish-yellow in shades centring on 5YR 6/6.
Oxidisation, however, is sometimes patchy and frequently the centres of thicker
sherds are reduced and sometimes the interiors. This reddish-yellow oxidised
appearance is standard for gabbroic Trevisker Ware assemblages and appears also
to be so in the limited number of Late Bronze Age assemblages that have become
available for study. Surfaces, again as is usual in local assemblages of these dates,
have smoothed rather than burnished surfaces.
Abrasion
Abrasion is based on the system devised by Sorenson (1996) for Bronze Age midden
material at Runnymede with some modifications.
Very fresh
1; Sorenson Grade 1, hardly ever applicable.
Fresh
1/2; colour of core slightly patinated but unaltered
surfaces with sharp corners and edges.
Moderate abrasion
2; core colour patinated, some definition in the
sharpness of corners lost.
Abraded
2/3; core colour patinated, slight rounding of corners
and slight erosion of surfaces.
High abrasion
3; core colour patinated, rounding of corners and of
sherd outline, surfaces somewhat eroded.
the prehistoric ceramics
57
Context
Description
Gabbroic
(18)/(54)
Fill of posthole [19]
23/190 P2
(13)
Fill of posthole [21]
1/5
(7)
Fill of posthole [6]
2/13
(48)
Fill of posthole [49]
2/3
(26)
Fill of posthole [27]
2/14
(29)
Fill of posthole [30]
2/5
(11)
Fill of pit [23]
39/635 P1
(12)
Fill of posthole [22]
1/13 P1
U/S
Unstratified
1/10
Totals
73/888
Table 3.1: Details of pottery from
Structure 1 by sherd numbers and
weight (g).
Structure 1
Description of the assemblage
Sherds in Structure 1 were in general fairly fresh or moderately abraded (Table 3.1).
P1 (Figure 3.1) Mostly from fill (11) of pit [23] and joining sherd from fill (12) of
posthole [22]. A thin gabbroic fabric with sparse coarse – very coarse inclusions.
Vessel rather irregular with slight neck below fairly upright rim with flattened
top. Internal rim diameter approximately 150mm. Upper part of vessel untidily
decorated with irregular horizontal lines impressed by cord in two parallel twists;
the decoration is extremely untidy and the impressions overlap in places or form
curves rather than lines. Most of the sherds join in groups of four, suggesting
larger sherds were deposited and subsequently became fractured. Note that the two
contexts containing sherds of P1 were not adjacent to one another.
Petrology: Feldspar – altered soft white to pale grey angular to sub-angular
grains, 0.1-2.5mm, rarely 5mm, some less altered translucent cleaved grains,
0.5mm. Amphibole – light-grey cleaved and bladed grains, 0.3-1.2mm. Quartz
– sparse translucent colourless sub-rounded grains, 0.1-0.2mm. Magnetite – rare
black glossy magnetic sub-angular grains, 0.2-0.5mm. Matrix – finely micaceous
silty clay.
Comment: A standard gabbroic fabric.
P1 belongs with Parker Pearson’s Group 5 of Trevisker Ware (1990, 10), small
vessels suitable for eating and drinking but decorated with impressed cord. No
close parallel is known for the untidy and unstructured cord-impressed decoration
which may have extended well down below the girth; decoration appears to survive
right down vessel P1 as illustrated (Figure 3.1). The general shape of the vessel,
thin-walled with a slightly curved shoulder, is also without close parallel.
P2 (Figure 3.1) Fill (18) within posthole [19]/[54]. Gabbroic fabric with moderate
very coarse inclusions. Flattened, everted rim with internal rim bevel. Internal rim
diameter approximately 170mm. Band of untidy deeply incised criss-cross lines
58
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
beneath rim partly survives; a second non-joining sherd (not illus) from further
down the vessel suggests a possible second criss-cross band. Many of the other
sherds from layer (54) could come from this vessel.
Petrology: A standard gabbroic fabric (detailed petrology with the project
archive).
P2 is best described as a small version of Parker Pearson’s Group 3/4, either
small storage or cooking vessels or wares for eating and drinking, decorated with
incised lines. There appears to be no parallel for the suggested double band of
criss-cross decoration (if this interpretation is correct).
Comment on other, non-illustrated, sherds
All the sherds appear to be gabbroic without admixture and represent at least
another four vessels. Posthole fill (7) has two non-joining rim sherds, with a slightly
smoother profile than P1; both have a line of double parallel twist cord beneath
the rim and one has additionally two long fingernail slashes: both of these belong
in size and decoration with Parker Pearson’s Group 5 (1990). Posthole fill (29) has
two different rim sherds from separate vessels; size is appropriate again for Group
5. Sherds from posthole or pit fill (11) are thick, approximately 17mm, and come
from a large vessel of wide diameter with two cord-impressed lines running round
the girth; each line is made by a double cord with opposed twist. This vessel had
a diameter of approximately 340mm and belongs with Parker Pearson’s Group 1
vessels (1990) with cord-impressed decoration, best interpreted as storage jars.
Comment on the Structure 1 assemblage
The distribution of pottery across Structure 1 shows no patterning. It is difficult
to assess the significance of the presence of sherds of P1 in two non-adjacent
postholes. It is not known whether the sherds relate to initial post-packing or
to tidying of the site after Structure 1 was no longer an upstanding building.
Their generally fresh condition, might, however, suggest the latter (see discussion
in chapter 11).
The radiocarbon dating from Structure 1 is rather broad. Fill (48) of
posthole [49] produced a date of 3623±27 BP, calibrating to 2116-1900 cal BC
(SUERC-47281), fill (55) of posthole [56] 2989+29 BP, calibrating to 1371-1126
cal BC (SUERC-47282), and context (24) from posthole [25] 3237±30 BP,
calibrating to 1608-1435 cal BC (SUERC-48150). The problems these dates
present are discussed in the section on dating (chapter 10), where it is concluded
that the likelihood is that the earlier part of the time span indicated by the dates is
more likely. If so, the structure is earlier, maybe by some considerable span, than
the majority of circular houses which produce Trevisker assemblages (for example,
ApSimon and Greenfield 1972; Nowakowski 1991; Jones and Taylor 2010).
While the dating can only be broadly assigned to the first half of the second
millennium cal BC, the assemblage may be earlier than those known from Trevisker
domestic sites that have been excavated across Cornwall (for example, Woodward
and Cane 1991; Quinnell 2012). Trevisker ceramics appear in broadly funerary
the prehistoric ceramics
59
Figure 3.1 Earlier and Middle Bronze Age pottery. Vessels P1-2, Structure 1, AIR building.
Vessels P3-9 Roundhouse 1 (Drawing by Jane Read).
contexts from around 2000 cal BC (Quinnell 2012, table 2) and about half of the
vessels of which the petrology has been studied and shown to be of gabbroic fabric
are of admixture (Parker Pearson 1990, 15). Gabbroic admixture fabrics were
therefore in use in the earlier second millennium BC and the presence of gabbroic
fabrics without admixture in Structure 1 contexts is not related to chronology.
The presence of gabbroic fabrics only may be a matter of chance, particularly as so
60
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
few (only six vessels) need be represented, or may have been specially chosen for
reasons which cannot now be ascertained.
Four of the six vessels, including P1, are Group 5 (Parker Pearson 1990). The
other vessels present belong to Groups 1 and 3/4 respectively. Woodward and Cane
(1991, 126, fig 53) have shown that these small cord-impressed vessels appropriate
for eating were rare on Middle Bronze Age sites, and totally absent from the large
assemblage from Trethellan Farm, Newquay, but form around 10 per cent of
those from Early Bronze Age funerary / ceremonial contexts. A distinctive small
assemblage of Group 5 vessels with cord-impressed decoration came from activity
from the seventeenth to fifteenth centuries cal BC over the site 2 cairn at Stannon
Down, on Bodmin Moor (Quinnell 2004-5, 74-5); there the assemblage consisted
only of Group 5 vessels. The Stannon data reinforced the suggestion that vessels for
eating and drinking were considered appropriate for impressed cord decoration in
funerary / ceremonial contexts in the Early Bronze Age; their place in the domestic
assemblages of the Middle Bronze Age are taken by vessels of similar size but which
either lack decoration or have fingernail or tip designs.
The presence of P1 and the other Group 5 vessels indicates that Structure 1 is
likely to belong in the earlier rather than the later part of the second millennium
BC, and the unusual shape and decoration of P1 may be related to this earlier
date, for which there are so few comparanda. There is currently no evidence for
the continuance of Group 5 cord-impressed vessels after circa 1400 cal BC. The
pottery data, limited in extent though it is, supports a date earlier rather than later
in the second millennium BC.
Roundhouse 1
Sherds from features in Roundhouse 1 (Table 3.2) are generally in a fresh condition
but most of those from the infill layers have varying degrees of abrasion, suggesting
that they were fresh when deposited but had suffered the effects of groundwater
and bioturbation.
Sherds with illustration and / or petrology
P3 (Figure 3.1) Deposit (724), fill of posthole [725]. About 20 sherds, including a
joining sherd from fill (745) in posthole [746] and decorated body sherd in infill
layer (275). Large storage vessel, gabbroic admixture, sparse very coarse inclusions,
flat-topped everted rim with internal bevel, untidy incised chevron pattern, with a
single horizontal line above and three below. Internal rim diameter approximately
300mm. A row of slight fingertip impressions is present beneath the top of the
decorated zone. Two rim sherds form conjoins, as do a separate group of four incised
sherds from the girth, including the sherd from layer (745) in posthole [746].
The vessel forms a large example of Parker Pearson’s Group 3/4 (1990). Untidy
incised chevron designs occur on large vessels in the assemblages both at Trethellan
Farm (Woodward and Cane 1991, fig 50) and Trevisker (ApSimon and Greenfield
1972, fig 15) but no exact matches appear to have been published.
the prehistoric ceramics
61
Context
Description
Gabbro admixture
(281)
Fill of posthole [282]
1/21
1/21
(297)
Fill of posthole [298]
1/9
1/9
(700)
Fill of posthole [701]
3/23
3/23
(730)
Fill of posthole [711], includes [704]
23/623 P3
23/623
(732)
Fill of posthole [733]
6/54
6/54
(745)
Fill of posthole [746]
3/22 P3
3/2
(747)
Fill of hearth [748]/[774]
13/812 P4
13/812
(775)
Fill of posthole [776]
2/4
2/4
(761)
Fill of posthole [762]
1/6
1/6
(784)
Fill of posthole [785]
2/23
(291)
Fill of gully [292]
6/39
(797)
Terminal fill of gully [292]
(104)/(273)
Infill layer in quadrant 1
507/10770 P4, P6
(278)
Gully infill in quadrant 1
38/1257
(274)
Infill layer in quadrant 2
10/332
(279)/(280)
Infill layer in quadrant 3
18/130
(275)
Infill layer in quadrant 4
14/150 P3
Removing baulks
Gabbro
Total
2/23
1/5
7/44
1/6
1/6
2/112 P7, 9
509/10882
38/1257
1/13 P8
11/345
18/130
1/49 P5
10/106
15/199
10/106
Cleaning over Roundhouse 1
82/1577
Unstratified
107/2484 P4
25/146
132/2630
82/1577
Totals
847/18442
31/331
878/18773
Table 3.2: Details of pottery from Roundhouse 1 by sherd number and weight (g).
Petrology: Feldspar – soft white altered sub-rounded to sub-rounded-grains,
0.5-1mm, rarely 2mm, some less altered cleaved grains, 0.2mm. Quartz – a scatter
of colourless to pale yellow stained, transparent to translucent angular to subangular grains, larger grains heat cracked, 0.3-3.5mm. Amphibole – a scatter of
translucent pale, grey to light brown cleaved and fibrous grains, 0.2-0.5mm. Rock
fragments – a scatter of black and black and white flecked, foliated amphibole/
feldspar ‘greenstone’ as angular fragments, 0.8-4.5mm, soft micaceous siltstone
sub-rounded fragment 2.8mm. Magnetite – sparse black glossy sub-rounded and
crystalline magnetic grains, 0.15-1mm. Matrix – finely micaceous with muscovite
flakes and feldspar grains less than 0.05mm.
Comment: A fine-grained gabbroic admixture fabric with probable greenstone
fragments.
P4 (Figure 3.1) About 600 sherds, mostly from the infill layers, but (747) the fill
of hearth [748]/[774], contained two conjoining rim sherds and at least four body
sherds. Large cord-impressed storage jar, gabbroic admixture, common very coarse
inclusions. Rim, rounded and slightly expanded and everted, internal rim diameter
approximately 400mm. Below rim four horizontal lines formed by single very
thick twisted cord, overlapping in places; below this, a chevron cord-impression
pattern made by much finer cord, ‘plaited’ with opposed twist, the lines impressed
over each other so that a muddled impression of three-four lines of impression is
62
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
produced. Triple lines of this ‘plaited’ cord border the base of the design. A possible
sherd from the front of a perforated lug has impressions made by the same cord
as below the rim. The vessel probably had two opposed large perforated lugs on
its girth. While a large number of plain body sherds are present, there are no base
angle sherds and no definite base sherds. About 80 per cent of the rim is present.
About a third of the sherds have decoration but there are few that conjoin and
sherds from the base of the decorated zone do not join sherds from the upper part.
The small number of joins may be due to the very large vessel size, but it is possible
that separate clumps of sherds were selected for deposition.
The vessel belongs to Parker Pearson’s Group 1 storage jars (1990) on which
plaited impressed cord decoration is usual. Chevrons are one of the common
patterns on such vessels; the closest parallel to the nine untidy lines of chevrons on
P4 is the rather smaller Group 1 vessel found with a cremation at Largin Wood,
Broadoak, in east Cornwall (Trudgian and ApSimon 1976). As usual with Trevisker
ceramics, very close parallels for decoration are impossible to locate.
Petrology: Feldspar – white angular altered and some translucent cleaved grains
0.4-2.5mm. Amphibole – light brown to greyish angular cleaved grains, 0.3-1.2mm,
some larger dark amphibole grains derived from the included rock fragments up
to 5mm. Magnetite – sparse black glossy angular to sub-angular magnetic grains,
0.1-0.8mm. Quartz – a scatter of colourless transparent to translucent angular to
sub-rounded grains, 0.1-1mm. Rock fragments – micaceous biotite hornfels finegrained slightly foliated sub-rounded fragment 7mm, coarser granular angular
fragment with distinct biotite flakes, 3mm, silvery muscovite schist, tabular and
sub-angular fragments with rounded and sub-angular margins, 0.7, 1.1 and 4mm,
amphibole/feldspar (‘greenstone’), black and white altered feldspar/amphibole as
angular fragments, 2-8mm. Mica – muscovite cleavage flakes mainly in the matrix
but up to 0.1mm. Matrix – silty finely micaceous clay with grains of the main
tempering minerals less than 0.05mm.
Comment: A gabbroic admixture fabric with fragments of contact metamorphic
rocks from close to the granite margin, but with no evidence of granite-derived
minerals. The composite amphibole/feldspar fragments are unlike most gabbroic
composite fragments and may also be added components.
P5 (not illus), layer (275) infill within quadrant 4. Gabbroic fabric with very
common coarse inclusions. A similar vessel to P3 in form and decoration, but
with a smaller internal rim diameter, approximately 270mm. The untidy incised
chevron decoration, of which only that below the rim is present, has no bordering
horizontal line. Parker Pearson Group 3/4 (1990).
Petrology: Feldspar – soft white altered sub-angular grains, 5.5mm, rarely
12.5mm. Quartz – a scatter of colourless transparent to translucent angular to subangular grains, 0.1-1.3mm. Magnetite – sparse black glossy sub-angular magnetic
grains, 0.1-0.8mm. Amphibole – sparse medium grey angular cleaved grains and
fibrous aggregates, 0.2-0.8mm. Rock fragments – incidental inclusions of dark, finegrained, angular amphibole/feldspar fragments, 2.5mm. Matrix – finely micaceous
slightly silty clay with some feldspar grains less than 0.05mm.
Comment: A gabbroic fabric.
the prehistoric ceramics
63
P6 (Figure 3.2) infill layer (273) in quadrant 1. Gabbroic admixture fabric,
common inclusions, some very coarse, fired in more reducing conditions than
most of the other ceramics from Roundhouse 1. Exterior generally 5YR 5/2
reddish-grey, interior 5YR 5/3 reddish-brown. About 140 sherds (1390g), mostly
approximately 9mm thick. Sherds present indicate a large vessel with a simple
flat-topped out-turned rim and two simple vertical lugs with worn horizontal
perforations, and decoration composed of cord-impressed lines which form a
chevron design. Internal rim diameter approximately 200mm. The lines are made
of three close-set parallel twist threads, unusually fine. Although so many sherds
are present they represent only a small part of the vessel and the base is not present.
The scrappy nature of the sherds prevents adequate illustration. Parker Pearson
Group 2 (1990). A close parallel for this vessel, especially the fine cord impressions,
cannot be located.
Petrology: Feldspar – soft white altered sub-angular to sub-rounded grains,
0.05-0.1mm. Amphibole – brown cleaved grains, 0.5-1mm. Rock fragments –
amphibole/feldspar with dark green amphibole tending to form elongated crystals
in a granular translucent to white feldspar matrix, unaltered angular elongated
fragments 12.1mm and 0.5-6mm. Quartz – a scatter of colourless translucent subrounded grains, 0.3-0.8mm, a composite (sandstone) grain 2mm. Magnetite – a
scatter of black glossy magnetic sub-angular grains, 0.1-1mm. Matrix – silty clay
with grains of feldspar and sparse muscovite flakes less than 0.05mm.
Comment: A gabbroic admixture fabric with a relatively fine-grained (less than
0.5mm) and sparse original mineral content and with added feldspar/amphibole
rock (‘greenstone’) fragments which resemble those in P4.
Figure 3.2 Middle Bronze Age pottery. Fine cord-impressed sherds from vessel P6
found within Roundhouse 1.
64
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
P7 (Figure 3.1) infill layer (104). Gabbroic fabric, moderately coarse inclusions.
Poorly made vessel, flat-topped rim with slight expansion, poorly executed vertical
and diagonal incised lines bordered on the top by a double line. Internal rim
diameter approximately 190mm. Parker Pearson Group 3/4 (1990). Petrology as
P5 (in project archive).
P8 (Figure 3.1) infill layer (274). Gabbroic fabric, common coarse inclusions.
Small thin walled vessel with everted rim with a concave internal bevel. Internal
rim diameter approximately 110mm. Probably undecorated. Parker Pearson Group
6 (1990), in which the concave rim bevel and pronounced neck are unusual,
although occurring in larger, decorated vessels. The petrology is similar to P5 and
P7 (detailed petrology in project archive).
P9 (Figure 3.1) infill layer (104). Gabbroic, fine fabric with common coarse
inclusions. Simple smoothed surface, fired in less oxidising conditions than
Trevisker vessels, 5YR 6/6 reddish-yellow to 5YR 5/2 reddish-grey. Simple upright
vessel with rounded rim and horizontal perforation made before firing. This is
a stray Late Bronze Age Plain Ware piece incorporated into the top of the fill in
Roundhouse 1.
Petrology: Feldspar – soft white variably altered angular to sub-angular grains,
0.05-1.5mm, rarely 2.5-4mm. Amphibole – sparse translucent light to medium
grey cleaved angular grains, 0.1-1mm. Quartz – rare translucent colourless, subangular grains, 0.9-1mm. Magnetite – sparse black glossy sub-angular magnetic
grains, 0.4mm. Rock fragments –rounded grey slate 0.8 and 2mm. Matrix – smooth
clay with grains of the main tempering minerals less than 0.05mm.
Comment: A generally fine-grained gabbroic fabric.
Comment on non-enumerated sherds
Two rim sherds with cord-impressed decoration from vessels other than those
enumerated come from infill layer (273) and were probably from Group 2 vessels
(Parker Pearson 1990). Posthole [282] has an incised sherd and posthole [785] a
cord-impressed sherd, which almost certainly come from the enumerated vessels
described above, as indeed may a small rectangular lug from the initial cleaning
over Roundhouse 1. This indicates that a minimum of eight Trevisker vessels are
represented.
Comment on the Roundhouse 1 assemblage
Distribution and representation of vessels
There are a minimum of eight vessels represented, all of which occur in the infill
levels which had been deposited into the abandoned house hollow (chapter 2). Five
features contained sherds of vessels which principally occurred in the infill layers
within the roundhouse.
the prehistoric ceramics
65
Postholes [725] and [746], although widely separated, both contained sherds of
P3, hearth [748]/[774] contained sherds of P4 and posthole [785] a cord-impressed
sherd probably from P4; posthole [282] contained an incised sherd probably from
P3. Other features contained plain sherds (Table 3.2) which may come from P3 or
P4. These features with sherds from vessels in the infill are distributed around the
circuit of Roundhouse 1 and in its hearth [748]/[774]. The greatest quantity of
sherds in the infill came from quadrant 1, reflecting the distribution both of stone
tools and of fragments of moulds for producing copper-alloy artefacts (below).
Only vessels P3, P4 and P6 are definitely represented by more than one
sherd, the other five vessels need only have a single rim sherd. P3, P4 and P6 are
unusual in that, although many sherds are present, the lower parts of the vessels
are absent. Representation of P4, with the largest number of sherds, decreases
moving down the vessel. About 80 per cent of the rim is present. The upper part
of the decoration has a number of conjoins but the lower part, including the lower
border, has none and few of the plain lower wall sherds join. The base is entirely
absent. It is possible that this range of sherds represents deliberate selection, even
possibly that sherds separated by gaps were deliberately selected and the remainder
deposited elsewhere.
Dating
There are four radiocarbon determinations from Roundhouse 1: 3169+29 BP,
calibrating to 1501-1400 cal BC (SUERC-47292), comes from posthole [286];
3109+29 BP, calibrating to 1441-1307 cal BC (SUERC-47293), comes from
posthole [701]; 3065+31 BP, calibrating to 1415-1262 cal BC (SUERC-47297),
comes from posthole [705]; 3091+27 BP, calibrating to 1429-1297 cal BC
(SUERC-47298) comes from layer (280), the infill in quadrant 3. Overall, these
dates indicate activity in the house during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries
cal BC (chapter 10). The fourteenth century cal BC date from infill layer (280), in
which all the vessels present are represented, is therefore that of the deposition of
all the Trevisker vessels present in the roundhouse.
Fabrics
Vessels P5, P7 and P8 are gabbroic, the remaining five vessels gabbroic admixture,
which all contain fragments of greenstone. This greenstone was not obtainable in
the immediate area of gabbroic clays. Greenstones vary greatly in their detailed
composition and outcrops occur across the Lizard a few kilometres to the north
of the gabbro clays as well as in places around the periphery of the Carnmennellis
granite, including in the broad vicinity of Tremough. The movement of gabbroic
clays before potting, with the addition of inclusions often deriving from close to
sites where the pots were used, is now well established through the petrological
work of Roger Taylor (Quinnell 2012), and it seems likely that the Tremough
Roundhouse 1 assemblage is yet another which resulted from this practice.
66
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Other comment
There was a minimum of eight vessels present, from the infilling of the roundhouse
hollow and the interior structural features. For such a large apparent assemblage this
is a very small number of vessels. One of these vessels, P4, is a large storage vessel
with impressed cord decoration (Group 1), three, P2 and two not enumerated,
represent smaller storage or cooking vessels with impressed cord decoration
(Group 2), three, P3, P5, and P7, are all smaller storage or cooking vessels with
incised decoration (Group 3/4), and one, P8, is a small plain vessel appropriate for
eating and drinking (Group 6) (Parker Pearson 1990). The bias of the small vessel
assemblage is storage and cooking, with limited provision for the consumption of
food and drink; the Group 6 P8 would have held several litres and is therefore a
communal rather than an individual consumption vessel as was usual at this date.
The use of gabbroic fabric without admixture belonged to vessels in the smaller
sizes, P5, P7 and P8, with gabbroic admixture used for the remainder which range
from the large Group 1 P4 down to P3 Group 3/4. No useful pattern has so far
been suggested for the reasons for the selection of these two gabbroic fabrics for
different vessels in Trevisker assemblages. As commented above in the descriptions
of the vessels, none have precise parallels in other published assemblages. However,
as all the pottery discussed has connections with the abandonment and infilling
phase of the roundhouse, the data it provides may have no relevance to the practices
current when this was in use (see chapter 11).
Roundhouse 2
Illustrated vessels
P10 (Figure 3.4) (110) layer over Roundhouse 2. Gabbroic fabric, moderate coarse
inclusions, smoothed surface, fired in less oxidising conditions than Trevisker
fabrics, 5YR 6/6 reddish-yellow to 5YR 5/2 reddish-grey. Six conjoining sherds
making up the whole profile of a simple Late Bronze Age Plain Ware vessel with
one surviving small lug scar; some other sherds may come from this vessel. Internal
rim diameter 215mm.
Petrology: Feldspar – soft white altered angular to sub-angular grains, 0.053mm, rarely 4.5mm, sparse less altered translucent cleaved grains, 0.2-0.8mm.
Amphibole – dark brownish and greyish angular cleaved grains, 0.1-1.2mm.
Magnetite – a scatter of black glossy sub-angular grains, 0.1-0.6mm, rarely 2mm.
Mica – a scatter of muscovite cleavage flakes, 0.05-0.1mm. Quartz – rare colourless
transparent angular, 0.8mm. Rock fragments – basaltic grey elongated sub-rounded
9mm shows aligned altered white feldspar laths in a dark matrix, mainly about
0.1mm up to 0.6mm long. Matrix – smooth clay with some grains of the main
tempering mineral less than 0.05mm.
Comment: A gabbroic fabric. The rock fragment is probably from a source local
to the Lizard gabbro.
the prehistoric ceramics
67
Context
Description
Gabbro admixture
Gabbro
Totals
31/412
Roundhouse 2
(109)
Soil over Roundhouse 2 4/53
27/359
(110)
Soil over Roundhouse 2
16/1015
P10, 10a, 11
16/1015
11/393
12/417
Cleaning Roundhouse 2
1/24
Other features
(105)
Cleaning above stone
spread
35/369
35/369
(106)
Soil layer
97/1044
97/1044
Table 3.3: Pottery from Roundhouse 2 and other features in Car Park 4 by sherd numbers and
weight (g). Total assemblage from Roundhouse 2, 59 sherds 1844 grams, from other features
44 sherds 1413 grams.
P10a (Figure 3.4) layer (110), layer over Roundhouse 2. Gabbroic fabric as
P10, with a similar diameter and firing, but finer. Small circular boss survives on
vessel wall.
P11 (Figure 3.3) layer (110), layer over Roundhouse 2, Gabbroic fabric, very finely
made and well-fired, but abraded. Two body sherds approximately 5mm thick,
with decoration comprising blocks of finely incised lines in different directions,
apparently infilling a design of triangles. A simple out-turned rim of the same
thickness may be the rim of the same vessel; this is less abraded. There is no known
parallel for these sherds in Cornwall and they may represent an elaboration of P13
from Pit Alignment 2 (below).
Other sherds
All of the sherds in layer (110) may come from vessels P10, P10A and P11
(Table 3.3). Layer (109) has a small abraded gabbroic admixture sherd with
Trevisker-type cord impressions. The numerous gabbroic sherds from layer (109)
include a small, thin, everted rim, which may be of Late Bronze Age type, and
sherds from simple Plain Ware vessels as in layer (110). An abraded gabbroic
admixture sherd came from cleaning over Roundhouse 2 and this context also
has another Plain Ware vessel, as P10 but with the scar of a large circular lug, and
another sherd has a small squarish lug.
Comment on Roundhouse 2 material
The Trevisker-type gabbroic admixture sherds may derive from activity around the
adjacent Roundhouse 1 or be contemporary with the occupation of Roundhouse 2.
Some six Late Bronze Age Plain Ware (LBAPW) vessels in gabbroic fabric are
probably represented. These are likely to post-date use of Roundhouse 2 as they
were found during cleaning and were not properly stratified (chapter 2). They may
represent later activity over the house hollow.
68
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 3.3 Late Bronze Age pottery. Incised sherds from vessel P11, found over
Roundhouse 2.
A radiocarbon determination of 2820+29 BP, calibrating to 1053-901 cal
BC (SUERC-47299), was obtained on a sherd of pottery in layer (110) over
the western edge of the Roundhouse 2 and relates to these vessels. Two recent
sites have provided dated assemblages of Late Bronze Age Plain Ware (LBAPW):
Higher Besore, Truro (Quinnell, forthcoming), and Scarcewater tip, Pennance,
St Stephen-in-Brannel (Quinnell 2010a, 107). On both these sites the LBAPW
material is generally gabbroic, but it lacks the admixture component present in the
preceding Middle Bronze Age Trevisker vessels. The Tremough vessels are similarly
gabbroic, without additional materials. The disuse of admixture fabrics at the start
of the Late Bronze Age appears to be now reasonably well established.
At Higher Besore the LBAPW divided into two successive groups, the first
consisting of simple slightly curved-sided vessels, the second of a variety of bowls
and jars discussed below in relation to the assemblage from Enclosure 1. Some
of the Higher Besore vessels were associated with part of a clay Wilburton-type
sword mould, which dates to circa 1150-1000 cal BC, but without radiocarbon
determinations. Others came from pits with determinations of 1050-890 cal
BC (93.7 per cent) (Wk-21204), 1060-890 cal BC (Wk-21202) and 930-810
cal BC (Wk-21203); it is uncertain whether the last of these is aberrant. This
earlier Higher Besore pottery is generally comparable to the Roundhouse 2 group,
although the small lugs of this assemblage are not represented. It may be that we
are seeing different minor features in separate sites. At Higher Besore there was
evidence that the pottery was made locally and this may also have been the case at
Roundhouse 2, Tremough.
the prehistoric ceramics
69
Figure 3.4 Late Bronze Age pottery. Vessels P10, P10a from Roundhouse 2. Vessels P12-18
from Enclosure 1 (Drawing by Jane Read).
At Scarcewater the assemblage was much smaller than at Higher Besore and
the division between early phase simple curved-sided jars and later phase bowls
and jars was less clear cut. Structure 3084 had early phase material and two
radiocarbon determinations, 1120-920 cal BC (Wk-21449) and 1130-920 cal BC
(Wk-21450). However, an isolated feature, pit [3402], produced a date of 1000830 cal BC (Wk-21451) and both simple early phase jars and a small carinated
vessel. It is probably true to say, on the basis of the three sites considered, Higher
Besore, Scarcewater and Tremough Roundhouse 2, that early phase LBAPW dates
70
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Context
Description
Gabbroic
(117)
Fill of recut [263] north terminal
3/51
(159 = (107)
Top fill south terminal
2/27
(165) = (159)
Top fill south terminal
7/220
(259) = (159)
Top fill south terminal
13/83
(272)
Fill of southern ditch
7/106
Enclosure ditch [170]
Pit / Posthole Group 1
(113)/(102)
Fill of pit [114]
7/43
(129)
Fill of posthole [130]
5/202 P12
(143)
Fill of posthole [144]
9/185
(149)
Fill of posthole [150]
1/12
(155)
Fill of posthole [156]
9/154
(170)
Fill of posthole [171]
2/6
(192)
Fill of pit [193]
13/110
(257)
Fill of posthole [258]
2/14
(100)/(127)
Fill of pit [128]
1/5
(101)/(133)
Fill of pit [134]
5/100 P13
(201)
Fill of pit [202]
1
(122)
Fill of pit [123]
2
Fill of hollow [116]
69/1168 P14, P19
Pit Alignment 2
Structure 205
(115)
(103) = (115)
Fill of hollow [116]
4/55 P15
(271)
Below Structure 205
1/29
(120)
Fill of posthole [121]
6/93
(166)
Fill of posthole [167]
71/1245
(168)
Fill of posthole [169]
1/14 P16
(174)
Fill of posthole [175]
2/66
(178)
Fill of posthole [179]
1/43
(180)
Fill of posthole [181]
3/13
(190)
Fill of posthole [191]
4/63
(112)
Fill of pit [124]
49/1417 P17, 18a. 18b
(108) = (112)
Fill of pit [124]
55/774
Post Structure 4
Pit [124] with moulds
Table 3.4: Details of pottery from Enclosure 1, contexts by sherd numbers and weight (g). Total
assemblage: 355 sherds, 6089g.
to the eleventh and tenth centuries cal BC, and that refinement of dating should be
expected as further sites with this material are found. The presence of the incised
sherds P11 in the soil over Roundhouse 2 is a reminder of just how little is really
known about ceramics during this period.
the prehistoric ceramics
71
Adjacent features
The ceramic assemblage from over the stone spread / bank (105) and soil
layer (106) is generally Trevisker Ware and all gabbroic admixture, abraded or
with moderate abrasion. Layer (105) had a sherd from a cord-impressed vessel
and two rim sherds, one with incised decoration and one with deep grooving
producing the effect of cordons (cf Trethellan P53, P64: Woodward and Cane 1991,
figs 49-50). Context (106) had five different rim sherds, two cord impressed and
three with incised decoration; small decorated body sherds may belong to these or
other vessels. There is no radiocarbon dating from either of these contexts although
they may be broadly comparable contemporary with Roundhouse 1.
Enclosure 1
Sherds from both the enclosure ditch infill and the internal features (Table 3.4)
were generally either fresh or moderately abraded. Some sherds from both context
groups have varied abrasion, suggesting that they were fresh when deposited but
had suffered the effects of groundwater and bioturbation.
Enclosure ditch [170]
32 sherds, 487g
Ditch fill (159) had a piece of carinated bowl, possibly from the same vessel as
P15 from fill (115) in Structure 205 / Pit Alignment 2. Fill (272) had a rim
from a shouldered jar as P14 from fill (115) and also a flat-topped simple bowl
rim. Carinated bowls and shouldered jars belong with the later group of Late
Bronze Age Plain Ware (see below). A radiocarbon determination of 2782+29 BP,
calibrating to 1006-843 cal BC (SUERC-47283), came from ditch fill (798).
Pit / Posthole Group 1
48 sherds, 481g
Illustrated sherd
P12 (Figure 3.4) fill (129) of posthole [130]. Gabbroic fabric, common coarse
inclusions. Well-made jar with slight carination, flat-topped rim, internal rim
diameter 95mm.
Petrology: Feldspar – white variably soft and altered angular to sub-angular
grains, 0.05-1.8mm. Amphibole – a scatter of brownish grey cleaved elongated
grains, 0.5-0.8mm. Magnetite – sparse black glossy sub-angular magnetic grains,
0.1-1mm. Quartz – rare translucent white sub-angular grains, 0.2-3mm. Matrix –
smooth finely micaceous clay.
Comment: A standard gabbroic fabric.
72
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Other sherds
Fill (143) within posthole [144] had parts including the base of a thin-walled
vessel, some non-joining body sherds and a small everted rim with an apparent
black coating. Fill (190) within posthole [191] has a finer version of rim P14.
Fill (192) within pit [193] had a smaller and finer version of P12 and also a flattopped rim from a simple straight-sided vessel. Fill (257), within posthole [258],
has a small sherd from a carination and a flat-topped rim from a vertical straight
sided jar.
Dating
Two radiocarbon determinations were obtained: 2822±30 BP calibrating to 972827 cal BC (SUERC-47288), came from (102), the fill of pit [114], and 2766±29
BP, calibrating to 997-835 cal BC (SUERC-47291), came from (155), the fill of
posthole [156].
Pit Alignment 2
9 sherds, 141 grams
Illustrated sherd
P13 (Figure 3.4) (101)/(133) fill of pit [134]. Gabbroic fabric (petrology with
project archive). Simple thin-walled biconical vessel, 145mm internal diameter.
Fine incised line decoration around girth and sloping into diagonal blocks up to
the rim. No parallel known for this vessel.
Other sherds
Fill (122) within pit [213] has sherds from a small jar with rounded shoulder and
sharply everted short rim.
Dating
No radiocarbon dates.
Structure 205
74 sherds, 1252g
Illustrated sherd
P14 (Figure 3.4) from fill (115) of hollow [116]. Gabbroic fabric as P12. Vertical
flat-topped everted rim, internal diameter 260mm, from a large storage-type jar
flaring outward to a shoulder.
P15 (Figure 3.4) from fill (115) of hollow [116]. Gabbroic fabric as P12. Two
highly oxidised joining sherds from the rim and shoulder of a jar or bowl with
everted rim and rounded carination. Internal rim diameter 240mm.
the prehistoric ceramics
73
Other sherds
Fill (115) within hollow [116], only partly excavated, contained rim sherds from
some eight other vessels, either everted jar rim forms or from fairly straightsided bowls and probably from a carinated bowl. Fill (115) within the hollow
also contained a small 4g post-medieval sherd with internal glaze from sample
338 which must be intrusive or recovered from adjacent to the stones during the
topsoil stripping. (See also Late Iron Age imported sherd P19 below).
Dating
A radiocarbon determination of 2808+29 BP, calibrating to 1048-896 cal BC
(SUERC-47289) was obtained from fill (115).
Post Structure 4
88 sherds, 1537g
Enumerated sherd
P16 (not illus) from fill (168) of posthole [169]. Gabbroic fabric (petrology with
project archive), with medium inclusions, fine burnished finish on both surfaces.
The shape is a slightly less everted version of P14, vessel wall 4-5mm thick.
Other sherds
Fill (166) within posthole [167] had a rim as P14 and also a flat-topped rim from
a simple open bowl.
Dating
A radiocarbon determination of 2790+27 BP, calibrating to 1011-846 cal BC
(SUERC-47290), came from fill (167).
Pit [124] with moulds
104 sherds, 2191g
Illustrated sherds
P17 (Figure 3.4) from (112), the fill of pit [124]. Gabbroic fabric (petrology in
project archive). Flat-topped rim from storage jar with slightly incurved closed
neck, good outside burnish. Internal rim diameter approximately 300mm.
P18a (Figure 3.4) from (112), the fill of pit [124] Gabbroic fabric. Sharply
inturned rim from a wide carinated bowl, roughly finished fabric. Internal rim
diameter 210mm.
P18b (Figure 3.4) from (112), the fill of pit [124]. Gabbroic fabric. Sherd from
angle of carinated bowl which would have had a small base; not the same vessel
as P18a but illustrated together to give an impression of form. A large sherd with
good interior dark burnish comes from another similar vessel.
74
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Other sherds
Other sherds from pit fill (112) represent a more roughly made version of P17, a
smaller necked jar and a vessel with a wall less than 4mm thick. Layer (108) had
a rim as P14 but with better burnish and also a thick straight-walled piece with a
simple rounded rim, with the possible remnant of a squarish lug.
Dating
A radiocarbon determination of 2747+26 BP, calibrating to 972-827 cal BC
(SUERC-47287), came from fill (112).
Comment on the Enclosure 1 assemblage
This assemblage contains large shouldered storage jars, bowls and jars with
carinations and also biconical jars. The radiocarbon dates indicate the tenth and
earlier ninth centuries BC. The forms, except for the unique biconical jar P13, are
broadly paralleled by vessels in the second group of Late Bronze Age Plain Ware
from Higher Besore, Truro, but these dating slightly later, in the ninth century
cal BC (Quinnell, forthcoming). However, pit [3402] at Scarcewater (Quinnell
2010a, 107) produced, together with simple straight-walled jars, a carinated jar
P26 and a date of 1000-830 cal BC (Wk-21451), a determination that is very
much in keeping with the dates from Enclosure 1. The dates from Tremough
and Scarcewater strongly indicate that these forms, broadly the later Late Bronze
Age Plain Ware group in Cornwall, start in the tenth century BC. Tremough,
Scarcewater and Higher Besore are the only sites with Late Bronze Age Plain Ware
in good stratified contexts which have associated radiocarbon determinations.
Generally knowledge of ceramics in Late Bronze Age Cornwall is very limited.
This paucity of knowledge extends into the first part of the Early Iron Age down
to around 600 cal BC, a period which, for convenience, may be termed ‘Earliest
Iron Age’. Trevelgue Head cliff castle, Newquay, has produced shouldered jars
and carinated vessels dated to the eighth century BC, and the publication of this
material made it clear that these forms probably continued down to around 600 cal
BC, when simpler smaller vessels called the ‘Plain Jar Group’ appeared (Quinnell
2011, 7.7, 7.8). Thus currently the second Late Bronze Age Plain Ware group
appears to continue without any definite changes through the first two centuries
of the Iron Age. It might be more realistic to term this material Late Bronze Age /
Earliest Iron Age.
Two long-known sites, Bodrifty in West Penwith (Dudley 1956) and Nornour
in the Isles of Scilly (Butcher 1978), have vessels belonging to the shouldered
jar and carinated bowl and jar groups but their stratigraphy is less clear and not
supported by modern radiometric dating. Other sites with contemporary ceramics
have been discussed in the report on Trevelgue Head (Quinnell 2011, chapter 7).
Overall, the amounts of pottery found on Late Bronze Age – Earliest Iron Age sites
in Cornwall appear to be much less than those from the preceding Middle Bronze
Age and from the subsequent Early Iron Age Plain Jar Group.
the prehistoric ceramics
75
Two features of the Enclosure 1 assemblage deserve further comment. The
average sherd size is large, 17.2 grams, as opposed for example to the 9.4 grams
average for prehistoric sherds from Trevelgue (Quinnell 2011, table 7.1). Practices
that this large sherd size might reflect are rapid rubbish disposal, allowing sherd
sizes to remain substantial, and quite possibly deliberate deposition. It is likely
that much of the pottery from structural features may have been stored prior
to deposition and in some instances there is evidence for structured deposition
(chapter 11). The other feature of the assemblage is the large size of some of the
vessels, especially P14 and P17 and fragments of similar rims not individually
numbered. This indicates a possible predominance on vessels for storage, or,
perhaps, for large-scale communal cooking.
Late Iron Age imported sherd?
P19 (Figure 3.5) ostensibly from (271) in the area of the cairn associated with
Structure 205 but almost certainly incorrectly numbered and probably from a
topsoil context. Sherd weighing 29 grams from the lower part of a large vessel, well
burnished inside and out. Double deeply grooved lines provide the impression of
added cordons around the vessel. Both surfaces reduced 5YR 4/1 dark grey, interior
oxidised 5YR 5/4 reddish-brown. Moderate fine inclusions. Probably wheel made
and not part of the Cornish Cordoned ware repertoire.
Petrology: Feldspar – white to grey, angular to sub-angular grains 0.1-0.8mm,
one grain shows twinning indicating plagioclase 0.05mm. Quartz – translucent
to transparent colourless and white angular to sub-angular grains, 0.05-1.2mm,
one rounded and polished grain 1.5mm. Mica - muscovite cleavage flakes 0.050.1mm, biotite dark brown cleavage flakes 0.05-0.1mm. Composite – rare quartz
feldspar grains 0.8mm and 1.1mm. Matrix – silty clay with fragments of the main
tempering minerals less than 0.05mm.
Comment: A granite-derived fabric, not obviously distinguishable from southwestern British granite-derived fabrics; sodic plagioclase is a standard component
mineral of most granites.
General comment:
Cornish Cordoned wares are all, as far as is known, made of gabbroic fabric.
The general appearance of the sherd, both of its fabric and the double grooved
lines, suggest that it is not local. The sherd has been examined by Lisa Brown (pers
comm.) who agreed with the suggested Breton origin. The fabric matches those of
some granitic fabrics from Late Iron Age Brittany, especially Fabrics B3.1-3 and
B2.3 from Le Yaudet (Williams 2005), and the form would be accommodated
amongst the imported rilled micaceous wares discussed for Hengistbury Head,
Dorset (Cunliffe 1987, 310), but which occur widely across Late Iron Age sites
in western Brittany (ibid, Ill, 223) and which also occur at Le Yaudet (Brown and
Durham 2005; Cunliffe and Galliou 2005). These wares have only been found
at Hengistbury, Hamworthy and Maiden Castle in mainland Britain (Cunliffe
1987, 310). Breton Iron Age imported wares known in South West Britain are
restricted to two sherds from Mount Batten, Plymouth (Cunliffe 1988, 40, fig
27, P20, P36), which are both of black cordoned wares of amphibolic fabric, the
76
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 3.5 Late Iron Age pottery. Cordoned sherd from vessel P19.
commonest North French import at Hengistbury. If the identification of P19 is
correct, it is the first Breton sherd from Cornwall but of a different fabric to those
from Mount Batten.
Baked clay weight and other material
Weight SF406 (Figure 3.6) from layer (273) infill in quadrant 1 of Roundhouse 1.
A ceramic weight with flattish cross section, probably with much of the lower end
crumbled off; 80mm across, 60mm+ long and 22mm thick. Top end flattened.
Cylindrical perforation approximately 17mm across and not worn.
Petrology: Slate / slaty hornfels – bluish to silvery grey tabular grains predominantly
aligned parallel, with a few fragments showing randomly orientated tilting;
fragment margins are angular to sub-angular, 1-9mm. Quartz and vein quartz –
colourless transparent to translucent and opaque angular and rare rounded grains,
0.5-2.5mm. Sandstone and silty sandstone – sparse grey sub-angular to sub-rounded
grains, 1-2mm. Mica – sparse muscovite cleavage flakes, 0.1mm. Feldspar – rare
soft white altered grains, 0.1-0.5mm. Clay with slate fragments less than 0.1mm.
Comment: The hole appears to have been made by drilling after firing. There is
little disturbance of the layering of the slate fragments which might have occurred
had the hole been made by moulding the clay round a rod or pushing a rod through
the prehistoric ceramics
77
Figure 3.6 Middle Bronze Age ceramic weight SF406 from Roundhouse 1.
the clay while plastic. The layering of the slate fragments appears to be an original
depositional structure. The clay and its mineral content have been sourced to the
edge of the thermal aureole of the granite close to the site.
The fabric contains about 70 per cent slate. No parallel is known for this
object. Those objects described as clay ‘loomweights’ from Bronze Age contexts in
South West Britain are broadly cylindrical with perforations through their longest
axis – for example, from settlements at Trevisker (ApSimon and Greenfield 1972,
341) and Trethellan (Nowakowski 1991, 140) – and are made of clay sourced very
close to the sites; they contain very little temper. This ceramic object is unusual not
only in its shape but in its manufacture and the material from which it was made.
‘Loomweights’ are perforated before firing this artefact has been drilled through
after firing. Its material consists largely of slate with only sufficient clay to bond
the slate together. Given the occurrence of metal-working moulds in the infill
context from which SF406 came, some connection with metalworking is possible.
78
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Daub Several contexts had fairly formless lumps of material best described as baked
clay or daub; they do not appear to be part of artefacts such as baked clay weights.
-
Structure 1 (11) fill of pit [23]. There are two abraded small lumps, weighing
6g, one with a fingernail impression.
-
Roundhouse 1 layer (274), infill layer within quadrant 2. There are four
fragments weighing 85g.
-
Structure 3, Enclosure 1 (161) fill of posthole [162]. An assemblage comprising
ten lumps weighing 780g.
The petrological examination of the daub fragments indicates that they are of a
local clay with a granite-derived content.
the prehistoric ceramics
79
Chapter 4
The prehistoric worked stone artefacts
Henrietta Quinnell, with petrographic comment by Roger Taylor
Dimensions are not given for fragments in the tables below unless over about
15mm in size. The term ‘fresh’ is used to indicate that objects were broken fairly
soon before deposition and do not relate to excavation damage. If no comment is
given on origin of rock this is local; that is to say from within 5 kilometres of the
site; most granite is therefore local.
Structure 1
Comment
As with the 2000-2 excavations at Tremough (Quinnell 2007, 81), most of the
stonework recovered was sourced locally, either in the immediate vicinity of the
site or from the Carnmennellis granite within a short distance of it. Beach-derived
material comes from the coastline outside the Fal estuary, a distance of some 5 to 6
kilometres. There are five sandstone beach cobbles and five chunks of granite but
only one used. The cassiterite pebble probably comes from the alluvial gravels of
the Carnon River some 7-10 kilometres to the north (Table 4.1).
The saddle quern fragment from (7), the rubbing stone fragments from (7)
and (24), the rubbing stone fragment with pestle use from (13), the rubbing stone
fragment from fill (11) in hearth [27] and the whetstone fragment from fill (50)
in posthole [51] are all objects from the usual Bronze Age domestic repertoire.
These artefacts are unusual because domestic structures of the earlier Bronze
Age period are almost unknown in the South West peninsula (chapter 11). The
artefacts from context (11) and from (50) have also been used as hammerstones.
Such use can be domestic but would also be appropriate for the preparation of
metal ores, something hinted at by the presence of the cassiterite pebble fragment.
Middle Bronze Age structure 392, excavated in 2002, produced a cassiterite cobble
(Quinnell 2007, 83).
All items were broken, shortly before deposition, except for two granite
fragments which had been brought to the site but not used. This includes the
cassiterite pebble. This universal breakage is unusual. While deliberate breakage as
part of disposal and deposition practices is likely for the artefacts, the breakage of
the pebble may have happened in the process of ore preparation. All the artefacts
appear to come from contexts on the north side of the Structure. When comparing
the broken nature of this small assemblage to the virtually unbroken material from
the prehistoric worked stone artefacts
81
Context
Description
Stonework
(7)
Fill of posthole [6]
Small fragment of working surface from saddle quern, coarse muscovite granite,
flattened surface with faceted quartz and feldspar grains, fresh break.
(7)
Fill of posthole [6]
Small fragment from large coarse greenstone beach cobble, surface glossy and
at least one area polished from rubbing-type use, fresh break.
(13)
Fill of posthole [21]
Part of tabular aplite beach cobble, 90mm+ x 80mm x 17mm, with both flat
surfaces worn smooth through use as rubbing stone, edges have striations from
pestle type use, burnt with resulting pitting on surfaces, fresh fractures.
(50)
Fill of posthole [51]
Part of bladed fine silty sandstone beach cobble, 85mm+ x 45mm x 10mm,
one side worn flat and very slightly concave through whetstone use, most of
surface including edges worn to some extent, surviving end used as crude
hammerstone, fresh breaks on edge also probably from hammerstone use.
(11)
Fill of pit [23]
Flat, fine-grained sandstone beach cobble, 48mm+ x 90mm+ x20mm, both
surfaces smooth from some use as rubbing stone, detachment from surviving
end from use as hammer, fresh break, possibly burnt.
(24)
Fill of posthole [25]
Broken alluvial cassiterite pebble with some quartz, 43g, fresh break.
(24)
Fill of posthole [25]
Broken aplite beach cobble, 50mm+ x 65mm+ x 28mm, fresh break, possibly
burnt, just possibly used as rubbing stone.
(44)
Fill of pit [45]
Coarse non-megacrystic muscovite granite, flat surface a natural joint, no
apparent use.
(44)
Fill of pit [45]
Granite fragment, fine-grained non-megacrystic, flat surface not apparently
used and probably natural.
(46)
Fill of pit [47]
Two fragments of weathered surface lump of medium fine-grained biotite
granite without megacryst, unused, burnt, recent fractures.
Table 4.1: Stonework from Structure 1.
the later Roundhouse 1, it is noteworthy that all pieces come from cut features and
it is possible that they could relate to the erection rather than the demolition of
Structure 1. From the 2000-2 excavations, Early Bronze Age structure 66 and pits
produced no stonework and of the Middle Bronze Age post-rings only structures
392 (three) and 102 (two) produced stone tools; these were all probably parts of
deliberately structured deposits (Gossip and Jones 2007, 34-5; chapter 11, below).
Roundhouse 1
Comment
Most of the stonework comes from the same range of contexts as that from
Structure 1 (Table 4.2). However, the two cobbles from Budleigh Salterton, Devon,
S1 and one other, and two tabular stream cobbles, are from sources not represented
in Structure 1. One granite muller fragment and an unused piece represent use
of the local granite. Beach cobbles are represented by two of greenstones, one of
sandstone and one of aplitic granite.
The muller fragment from posthole fill (724), the whetstone S2 from infill
(273), the end rubbing-stone wear on S4 and the pestle from gully (278) may all
relate to domestic use; the intensive use of S2 is perhaps more appropriate to metal
artefact production. All the other pieces, two, including S1 of Budleigh quartzite,
in posthole fill (749), the beach cobbles of greenstone S4 and of sandstone, both in
gully (278), and of aplitic granite S3 in infill layer (273), are all heavy-duty pestle /
82
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Context
Description
Stonework
(724)
Fill of posthole [725]
Pebble of medium-grained muscovite granite with coarse, unabraded
surface, fractured end, not used.
(730)
Fill of pit [711]
Small surface fragment from contact area between fine and coarse aplitic
granite, one smooth surface with facetted grains from use as muller of
triangular cross-section.
(749)
Fill of posthole [750]
S1: composite tool, probably import from Devon.
(273)
Infill layer in quadrant 1
S2: whetstone, sandstone cobble.
(273)
Infill layer in quadrant 1
Fragment of white vein quartz, 40mm long, possibly recent fractures.
(273)
Infill layer in quadrant 1
White vein quartz beach pebble, 55mm x 38mm x 20mm.
(273)
Infill layer in quadrant 1
S3: aplitic granite beach cobble pestle / hammerstone.
(278)
Gully cut into natural in
quadrant 1
S4: greenstone beach cobble pestle / hammerstone.
(278)
Gully cut into natural in
quadrant 1
Beach cobble fragment (?), Budleigh Salterton quartzite, pale pinkishgrey with naturally glossy surface, 50mm+ x 98mm x 45mm, on one
surface gloss worn away with abrasion, probably caused by grinding
hard material, two small patches of pestle use on end, fresh break.
(278)
Gully cut into natural in
quadrant 1
SF401: beach cobble of quartz-rich sandstone with muscovite, 102mm x
85mm x 35mm, both ends some use as pestle / hammerstone and some
hammer use on one long edge.
(278)
Gully cut into natural in
quadrant 1
Beach cobble, dolerite / basalt with small feldspar phenocrysts and paler
greenish bands of alteration, 95mm x 70mm x 35mm, slight pestle use
on one end.
(274)
Infill layer in quadrant 2
Tabular beach / river cobble of siltstone, 125mm x 37mm x 15mm, with
one edge worn straight and slightly convex from use for grinding or as a
whetstone.
Table 4.2: Stonework from contexts in Roundhouse 1.
hammerstones which have been used on hard materials such as the breakage of ore
for metal processing. The rocks used have been selected as very durable for this
purpose. However, there is no evidence for actual ore smelting on site. This appears
to be the first recorded instance of probable Budleigh quartzite cobbles from east
Devon occurring in Cornwall.
Almost all the stonework from the infilling deposits comes from north-west
quadrant 1, with a single piece from north-east quadrant 2; however, two of three
cut features with stonework were in south east quadrant 3 with only one beneath
north-west quadrant 1. Unlike the objects in Structure 1, only the granite muller
from (724) and a piece of vein quartz from infill layer (273) have fresh breaks.
Virtually all the material comes from infill levels, with only three pieces, including
S1, from cut contexts, possibly related to construction rather than abandonment.
The apparent distributional bias of the stonework reflects that of the stone
metalworking moulds (chapters 5 and 11).
Illustrated stonework
S1 (Figure 4.1) (749) the fill of posthole [750]. Tabular quartzite beach cobble
125mm x 104mm x 20mm, both flat surfaces have some possible use polish,
slight anvil traces on one surface, most of edge has facets caused by use as pestle /
the prehistoric worked stone artefacts
83
hammerstone. Brownish colour, glossy surface and quartzitic composition closely
resemble material in the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds; possibly a coastal import
from Devon.
S2 (Figure 4.1) (273) infill layer within quadrant 1. Silty fine-grained sandstone
tabular stream cobble, triangular shape, damaged before use, 80mm x 43mm x
12mm; all surfaces and edges worn from whetstone use, two specially marked
facets on longer edges, facet across wider end, similar use smoothing flat surfaces.
Transverse striations on one long edge.
S3 (Figure 4.1) (273) infill layer within quadrant 1. Beach cobble of aplitic
granite with some small feldspar / quartz phenocrysts, 50mm x 40mm x 35mm;
broken after some pestle use, size subsequently heavily reduced by use as hammer /
pestle, one end coarse hammerstone use, other pestle use.
S4 (Figure 4.1) (278) gully in quadrant 1, SF402. Beach cobble of doleritic
greenstone, pestle, 130mm x 90mm x 55mm, pecked finger grips on both flat
faces, one of which has been worn flat from rubbing-stone use, both sides with
some rubbing-stone use. Both ends have heavy pestle use. Dolerite is relatively
dense and therefore appropriately heavy for hammerstone use.
Enclosure 1 and associated structures
Comment
Most of the stonework is of the same materials and comes from the same local
sources as that in Structure 1. This larger assemblage, however, also includes several
examples of elvans, slate from surface outcrop S8, a foliated basic tuff beach cobble
S9, talcose S9 and unstratified lamprophyre which all can source to the local 5
kilometres or so around the site. The granites include several surface pieces as well
as cobbles. Several pieces of granite and elvan were imported to the site but not
apparently used (Table 4.3).
Saddle querns are represented by the fragment reused as a muller in posthole
[121], Post Structure 4 and another piece also reused as a muller from pit [124];
both these are elvan as is an unstratified example. There is also a granite segment
from an unstratified saddle quern. Mullers are represented by the greisen cobble
S5 from the enclosure ditch, granite cobble S6 from Pit / Posthole Group 1, two
weathered granite fragments for layer (115) in Structure 205, a granite and an
elvan fragment from Post Structure 4, an elvan fragment from pit [124] and an
unstratified granite fragment. There is a single broken whetstone using a tabular
silty sandstone cobble from Pit Alignment 2. Rubbing stones, surprisingly, are not
present and the pestle / hammerstone items so prominent on the other sites are
not present either. The slate cover S8 is another ‘domestic’ item not present on
other sites. Overall this assemblage is far more representative of general domestic
artefacts than those of the other sites. The unusual artefacts are the cushion /
finishing stones S7 and S9, from pit [124] and unstratified, the former being
associated with clay mould fragments and so potentially with metalworking.
84
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Context
Description
Stonework
Enclosure ditch [170]
(117)
Fill of north terminal
Fragment of white vein quartz beach cobble, 65mm+ x 65mm+ x
35mm, recent fracture marks from deliberate breakage.
(117)
Fill of north terminal
S5 quartz greisen river cobble muller.
(159)
Fill of top south terminal
Glossy oval flint beach pebble, with chatter markings, maximum
dimension 30mm.
Pit / Posthole Group 1
(113)
Fill of pit [114]
Rough discoidal medium grained granite with muscovite and common
black tourmaline, probably unused, 55mm x 55mm x 20mm.
(170)
Fill of posthole [171]
S6 granite river cobble muller.
(176)
Fill of pit [177]
Two joining piece of weathered block of aplitic granite with sparse
feldspar phenocrysts and black tourmaline, natural tabular fragment,
120mm x 155mm x 33mm, apparently unused.
Pit Alignment 2
(118)
Fill of posthole [119]
Broken whetstone, elongated rounded cobble of silty sandstone
with muscovite, 65mm+ x 25mm x 12mm, two surfaces flattened by
whetstone use, fresh fracture occurred when use worn cobble thin.
Typical fine-grained material characteristically used for whetstones.
Structure 205
(115)
Fill of hollow [116]
Muller fragment of fine-grained biotite muscovite granite from small
naturally weathered fragment, 65mm+ x 105mm x 31mm, pronounced
worn convex surface with no visible dressing, fracture fresh.
(115)
Fill of hollow [116]
Fragment of large muller, using naturally weathered surface fragment
of medium fine-grained granite with muscovite, a little biotite and black
tourmaline, 130mm+ x 115mm x 70mm, one worn convex surface with
surviving dressing adjoining another possible surface at an angle, fresh
fractures. No parallel known for two adjacent muller surfaces.
(115)
Fill of hollow [116]
Fragment of glossy elongated beach cobble, aplite with scattered
quartz phenocrysts, 20mm+ x 40mm x 20mm, probably unused but
possibly deliberately broken.
Post Structure 4
(120)
Fill of posthole [121]
Fragment triangular sectioned muller, from surface block of
microgranitic elvan with feldspar and quartz phenocrysts up to circa
10mm and some plates of altered biotite, 75mm+ x 114mm+ x 55mm.
Made on fragment of former saddle quern of which part of concave
working surface survives, slightly convex working surface with dressing
striations, fresh probably deliberate breaks, possibly burnt.
(166)
Fill of pit [167]
Glossy white vein quartz beach pebble maximum dimension 42mm.
(180)
Fill of posthole [181]
Fragment of porphyritc elvan with parallel surfaces, 150mm+ x 85mm+
x 40mm, probably unused, fresh fractures.
(184)
Fill of posthole [185]
Block of biotite lamprophyre, not water worn. Corner of saddle quern,
80mm thick 130mm+ x 130mm+, surviving worn surface dished but no
visible dressing, incipient fractures perhaps produced by burning, fresh
breaks.
(186)
Fill of posthole [187]
Chunk of weathered surface fine-grained granite with small feldspar
phenocrysts, 140mm x 120mm x 60mm, unused but shape suitable for
muller.
(190)
Fill of posthole [191]
Muller, fine-grained granite with sparse small megacrysts and some
black tourmaline, 96mm+ x 90mm+ x 60mm, part of convex muller
surface with traces of dressing striations, probably made on fragment of
surface granite.
Table 4.3: Stonework from contexts in Enclosure 1.
the prehistoric worked stone artefacts
85
Context
Description
Stonework
Pit [124] with moulds
(112)
Fill in pit [124]
S7 cushion / finishing stone, using foliated tuff beach cobble.
(112)
Fill in pit [124]
S8 large slate lid.
(112)
Fill in pit [124]
Fragment of muller, non-porphyritic elvan, probable surface fragment,
82mm+ x 78mm+ x 45mm, triangular cross section, convex worn
surface with no surviving dressing, traces of slightly concave surface
which may come from quern, fresh breaks.
(112)
Fill in pit [124]
Three white vein quartz pebbles, smooth and flattish rather than glossy,
maximum dimensions 68mm, 52mm, 42mm.
(112)
Fill in pit [124]
Surface or river pebble with a contact between coarse granite and aplite
passing through it, one probable worked flat surface on the aplite side,
convex, probable small rubber, 58mm x 52mm x 34mm, fresh breaks.
Unstratified
S9 cushion / finishing stone, talcose.
unstratified
unstratified
unstratified
unstratified
Fine-grained granite with small feldspar phenocrysts, probable surface
fragment, also showing contact with coarse grained granite. Purplish
centre and orangy surfaces suggest post-use burning. Muller fragment,
slightly cheese-slice cross section, 150mm+ x 100mm+ x 45mm, surface
worn flat, facetted crystals and traces of striations on the working
surface, very fresh damage.
Coarse non-megacrystic muscovite granite, probably a partly weathered
surface fragment. Corner of saddle quern, 190mm+ x 190mm+ x
140mm, curved segment of dished worn surface survives, good facetted
crystal on this surface: broken, possibly deliberately, on two sides.
Porphyritic elvan with abundant small feldspar phenocrysts up to 10mm
long, occasional quartz phenocrysts showing euhedral form in some
cases, occasional plates of biotite. Surface weathered block. Segment
of saddle quern with smooth dished working surface which is almost
glossy but on which there are numerous small pecks which may be an
attempt to roughen the surface; 400mm wide, 250mm+ long, 100mm
thick. Partly burnt, one of the two principal breaks has an impact
fracture which suggests that breakage was deliberate and post-burning.
Table 4.3: Stonework from contexts in Enclosure 1 (continued).
Two cushion / finishing stones with similar irregular facets to those from
Tremough were found in Late Bronze Age pit [2009] at Higher Besore, Truro;
S49 a small stone of easily worked serpentinite with numerous facets and S50
a fragment of a small stone using a siltstone river cobble, again with multiple
facets. Both had been ground into shape and have smooth, very finely abrasive,
surfaces. The pottery from this pit at Higher Besore belongs with the later Group
of Late Bronze Age Plain Ware with dates centring on the ninth century BC. The
classic examples of cushion stones are the cuboid objects from the Beaker period at
Lunteren in Holland (Clarke et al 1985, plate 4.3) which are thought to have been
used in the formation of small sheet metal artefacts. Identified examples appear rare
in Britain and the only cuboid one similar to the Lunteren pieces from Cornwall is
SF20 from Site 2 at Stannon Down: this, although not strictly stratified, probably
belongs to the seventeenth to fifteenth centuries cal BC (Quinnell 2004-5, 74,
fig 31). By the Late Bronze Age it is generally considered that small bronze anvils
were used instead of stone blocks (for example, Eogan 1983, 193, 321) although
small triangular stone blocks with ground and rounded angles were found in the
86
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Dowris hoard (ibid, 295). The four cushion / finishing stones from Tremough and
Higher Besore have similar multiple irregular ground facets at varying angles and
are both of much the same date. However, they differ in shape from the earlier
cushion stones. There is also no indication that they were used in the production
of sheet metalwork, and it seems likely that their multiple fine-grinding surfaces
were used in the finishing stages of the production of cast artefacts.
The Enclosure 1 assemblage is Late Bronze Age tenth to early ninth centuries
cal BC in date. Chronologically comparable assemblages are those from Higher
Besore, with 22 items (Quinnell, forthcoming), and Scarcewater with seven
(Quinnell 2010b). Cereal preparation items form a significant part of the Higher
Besore assemblage, as do rubbing stones, which are absent from Tremough.
Generally there seems very little difference between Middle and Late Bronze Age
domestic stonework assemblages in Cornwall, the largest of the former being that
from Trethellan Farm, Newquay (Nowakowski 1991, 141-56).
None of the items in the enclosure ditch itself or in Pit / Posthole Group 1
appear to have been broken before deposition. However the whetstone from Pit
Alignment 2, the three items from layer (115) in Structure 205, the three utilised
items from Post Structure 4 and the two mullers from pit [124] have fresh breaks,
as do the three muller or quern fragments (unstratified) and the saddle quern
from posthole [185]. There appears to be no particular pattern in the position of
features with stonework within the various structures.
Illustrated stonework
S5 (Figure 4.1) (117) the fill of the north terminal of enclosure ditch [160].
Triangular tabular muscovite quartz greisen river cobble, slightly waterworn,
130mm x 100mm x 40mm, one side worn flat through use as muller with traces of
parallel dressing striations still visible. Convenient hand-held shape.
S6 (Figure 4.1) (170) the fill of posthole [171] in Pit / Posthole Group 1.
Muller of medium-grained muscovite granite with some black tourmaline, possible
stream cobble, some fracture on one edge, 150mm x 110mm x 30mm, one surface
worn smooth and slightly convex, possible traces of dressing still visible.
S7 (Figure 4.1) (112) the fill of pit [124] with mould fragments. Complex
hexagonal cushion / finishing stone, with some damage on one side; 120mm x
70mm x 45mm. All original surfaces worn smooth and glossy, with areas of earlier
facets showing in junctions. Some small patches have striations / scratches which
may survive from the shaping of facets. One face has possible impact fractures
from hammerstone use. Foliated basic tuff, very fine-grained but not overly hard
(scratches with steel point), mottled greyish-green. Possibly a cobble of Lizard
origin.
S8 (Figure 4.1) (112) the fill of pit [124] with mould fragments. Greenish-grey
tufaceous slate, natural cleaved fragment clearly edge-trimmed to rough triangle,
150mm x 151mm x 16mm; possible lid or cover. Fairly local to site but outside
metamorphic aureole.
the prehistoric worked stone artefacts
87
S9 (Figure 4.1) (unstratified). Soft greenish-grey talcose, almost certainly of
Lizard origin. Multi-facetted cushion / finishing stone similar to S7 from fill (112)
but smaller, on a parallel sided block 102mm x 50mm x 22mm; six major facets
but traces of earlier facets between them, facets worn smooth and glossy with
blocks of scratches in different directions on most surfaces, some fresh damage.
Figure 4.1 Middle and Late Bronze Age stone artefacts. S1-S4 from Roundhouse 1
contexts. S5-S9 from Enclosure 1 contexts (Drawing by Jane Read).
88
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Chapter 5
The moulds and metalwork
Susan Pearce, with Henrietta Quinnell and Andy M Jones,
with petrographic comment by Roger Taylor
The moulds
The moulds from Roundhouse 1
Elements were considered from nine stone moulds for casting copper-alloy objects
from Roundhouse 1, which has been radiocarbon dated to circa 1500-1300 cal
BC. All these artefacts were found at the bottom of the infill layers, mostly around
the area of the hearth [748]/[774], and are therefore associated with the early
stages of abandonment of Roundhouse 1. Eight of the nine came from (273) an
infill deposit in quadrant 1; Mould 7 came from the ‘roundhouse cleaning layer’
and a small clay mould fragment also came from the cleaning of the roundhouse.
Mould 1 (Figures 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3) SF 410
This is part of a bivalve (or multiple piece) mould with a matrix on each face.
Surviving length 65mm, width 42mm, thickness 22mm; sides well dressed, end
opposite break much rougher. Matrix 1a would cast the ring section of a ring- (or
quoit-) headed pin 32mm across and of square section, 4mm by 2mm.
Figure 5.1 Mould 1 showing matrix 1a (left)
and 1b (right) (Drawing by Craig Williams).
the moulds and metalwork
89
Figure 5.2 Photograph of Mould 1 showing
matrix 1a.
Figure 5.3 Photograph of Mould 1 showing
matrix 1b.
These pins are an insular type, and show considerable variation in size and
in section, while some have incised decoration (Pearce 1983, 47). They are
concentrated in Sussex and Somerset, in, for example, the hoards from Taunton
Workhouse (Smith 1959 (ed)) which had parts of at least five, and Monkswood,
Somerset (Smith 1959 (ed)), but part of an almost certain ring-headed pin came
from the Tredarvah, Penzance, find (Pearce and Padley 1977). The pins were
presumably used as dress fasteners, and were fashionable for a long period through
the Middle Bronze Age. Matrix 1b is for part of a pin shaft. It has had substantial
wear and in part is abraded and somewhat misshapen, but was probably originally
square in section.
Petrology: Altered weathered non-porphrytic micro-granitic elvan. Widespread
potential sources occur across Cornwall.
Mould 2 (Figures 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6) SF 407
Mould 2 is half of a bivalve mould, complete as it stands but possibly re-dressed.
Length 82mm, maximum width 52mm, thickness 26mm. Exterior smoothly
dressed but wider bottom edge rougher than the rest, possibly suggesting the piece
in its present form had been re-dressed. It looks well worn, and the carving is of
poor quality. The face carries two matrices side by side. Matrix 2a, on the viewer’s
90
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 5.4
Mould 2 showing
matrix 2a (left)
and 2b (right)
(Drawing by
Craig Williams).
Figure 5.5 Photograph of Mould 2 showing back
surface.
Figure 5.6 Photograph of Mould 2 showing surface
with matrices.
the moulds and metalwork
91
right, would produce a small triangular blade 35mm long, 20mm wide at its
widest, surmounted by a wide, clumsy collar 18mm across at widest, which narrows
to a tang that merges into what appears to be the pouring funnel.
It appears to be a type of tanged and collared chisel. Such chisels are usually
slimmer and longer and date to the Late Bronze Age, when they are common, but
the chisel range is large, and it is possible that there are earlier types.
Matrix 2b is for a very similar piece, buts fits awkwardly on the mould beside
matrix 2a, because there was not enough space to carve a matrix with an adequate
collar and blade extension.
Petrology: Weakly foliated sedimentary rock, probably volcanic tuff. There are
widespread potential sources, including Mount’s Bay and possibly the Lizard.
Mould 3 (Figures 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9) SF 408
This is half a bivalve mould, with one side broken away, and it shows signs of
wear. Length 114mm, width 40mm, thickness 37mm. Exterior roughly dressed.
The matrix would produce a small but fairly substantial socketed tool 70mm
long, 25mm width of blade at widest, with near-parallel sides and a heavy mouth
moulding up to 25mm deep. Up to five irregular chevrons were cut (rather than
properly carved) into the exterior face.
Socketed tools of various types appeared in the Middle Bronze Age, for example
in the Taunton Workhouse hoard. Most of such pieces have side loops, but those
from Soham, Cambridgeshire, and Barham, Norfolk, do not (Rowlands 1976, nos
1101, 1126, plate 34, 350, 353), and another example from Soham has a multiple
chevron pattern on its face (Rowlands 1976, no 1079, plate 34, 347). A recent
Figure 5.7 Mould 3 showing surface with
matrix (Drawing by Craig Williams).
92
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 5.8 Photograph of Mould 3 showing
surface with matrix.
Figure 5.9 Photograph of Mould 3 showing
back surface.
find from Wrington, in north Somerset, has two palstaves and a socketed hammer,
loopless but with a protruding spike on one side which appears to be an integral
part of the tool, and has two ribbed chevrons on its face (Portable Antiquities
Scheme PAS-9B2032). A Late Bronze Age find from Minster, Kent, has a tool with
broadly similar dimensions, apparently no loop and a shield or chevron on its face
(Turner 2010, no 20/18, illustration 107, 174). Again, the broad type had a long
period of use.
Petrology: Altered very fine-grained non-porphrytic elvan. There are widespread
potential sources across Cornwall.
Mould 4 (Figures 5.10, 5.11 and 5.12) SF 411
This is most of one half of a well-made and well-worn bivalve mould, with a
matrix on each face. Surviving length 123mm, width 38mm, thickness 116mm.
Exterior well dressed. Matrix 4a would cast a portion of a ring-headed pin,
probably of square section, surviving length 77mm, external diameter across ring
40mm. Matrix 4b has the shaft of a pin, perhaps ground down, surviving length
approximately 150mm. For discussion, see Mould 1, above.
Petrology: Altered weathered non-porphrytic micro-granitic elvan. Widespread
potential sources are possible. It is virtually identical to Mould 3 (SF408) (above).
the moulds and metalwork
93
Figure 5.10 Mould 4 showing both surfaces
(Drawing by Craig Williams).
Figure 5.11 Photograph of Mould 4
showing matrix 4a.
94
Figure 5.12 Photograph of Mould 4
showing matrix 4b.
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Mould 5 (Figures 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15) SF 409
This mould presents some intriguing problems. It is half of a bivalve mould,
shows considerable evidence of use, and is now in five pieces, apparently through
cracking rather than breakage, possibly during use. Length 118mm, width 68mm,
thickness 28mm. Exterior dressed to a smooth finish. It has two opposed casting
vents. The lower part of the matrix would produce a relatively long and slender
expanded blade 92mm long, 50mm at its widest, with an irregularly placed and
poorly cut shield pattern on its upper face. A shield pattern on the blade occurs
on a group of fairly late palstaves and these sometimes have similar blade shapes,
like those from Arreton, Isle of Wight, or Birchington, Kent (Rowlands 1976, nos
567, 613, plate 30, 308, 312), but the similarities are not close. There is no sign
of a side loop (unfortunately the area where traces of one might have shown is
superficially damaged, but indications would probably have survived). The upper
body of the casting would have been sub-rectangular in section, with a deep, strong
mouth moulding, characteristic of some socketed axes, below the pouring funnel.
Overall, Mould 5 would have produced a slender but sizeable socketed tool,
with a blade possessing some palstave-like elements, and no side loop; comparative
material is cited in the discussion of Mould 3. It is possible that this mould was
originally for a palstave and was cut down and altered to produce a socketed tool,
but it is fully functional as it stands and does not require such an interpretation.
Petrology: Altered or weathered fine-grained greenstone; widespread west
Cornwall sources.
Figure 5.13 Mould 5 showing matrix (Drawing by
Craig Williams).
the moulds and metalwork
95
Figure 5.14 Photograph of Mould 5
showing matrix.
Figure 5.15 Photograph of Mould 5 showing
back surface.
Mould 6 (Figure 5.16) SF 414
This is half of a bivalve mould, well worn and broken at one end. Surviving length
84mm, width 42mm, thickness 26mm. Exterior sides well dressed. Its matrix would
produce part of a pin shaft 83mm long, of lozenge section 10mm across. A darkened
area on the back suggests that at some point there was a second matrix here.
Petrology: Altered weathered non-porphrytic micro-granitic elvan. Widespread
potential sources for the stone are found across Cornwall. It is virtually identical
to Mould 3 (above).
Mould 7 (Figure 5.17)
Surviving length 75mm, width 38mm, thickness 16mm. Exterior well dressed with
clear longitudinal scratches on back. This is a well-worn part of half of a bivalve
mould, the matrix of which as it survives would have produced a section of pin
shaft of lozenge section 62mm long and 5mm wide.
Petrology: Altered weathered non-porphrytic micro-granitic elvan. Widespread
potential sources of the stone are found across Cornwall. It is virtually identical to
Mould 3 (for a discussion of this type of mould, see above).
96
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 5.16 Mould 6 showing principal
matrix (Drawing by Craig Williams).
Figure 5.17 Mould 7 showing matrix
(Drawing by Craig Williams).
Mould 8 (Figure 5.18) SF 412a
Surviving length 30mm, width 25mm, thickness 17mm. Original exterior welldressed. Fragment of a well-used bivalve mould, carrying the corner of a matrix
which possibly represents part of a blade approximately 24mm long.
Petrology: Very fine-grained non-porphrytic elvan, micaceous and probably
kaolinised. Trace of darkened area on back suggests ground down from previous
use. Multiple potential sources as any elvans in proximity to granites may be
kaolinised. Trace of darkened area on back suggests that it had been ground down
from previous use.
the moulds and metalwork
97
Figure 5.18 Moulds 8
(top left), 9 (bottom left)
and 10 (right) showing
surfaces with matrices
(Drawing by Craig
Williams).
Mould 9 (Fig 5.18) SF412b
Fragment of half of a well-used bivalve mould, with section of pin matrix
approximately 25mm long, lozenge in section, approximately 8mm across. The
other side may bear traces of a second pin shaft matrix.
Petrology: Very fine-grained non-porphrytic elvan, as Mould 8 (above).
Clay mould fragment
Single abraded fragment, 18 grams. Micaceous clay with muscovite flakes up to
0.1mm, rare angular quartz up to 0.2mm, potentially from a kaolinitic source.
Similar to the clays used in the Late Bronze Age mould fragment found in pit
[124] (below).
Discussion
The radiocarbon determinations from Roundhouse 1 indicates that the moulds
were deposited between circa 1500 and 1300 cal BC (chapter 10). As such they
represent the most securely dated group of moulds from within a roundhouse
settlement in southern England.
98
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
The nature of the rock used to make the moulds does not seem to have been
important, just that it was soft and workable, and multiple sources were used for
the moulds. These sources are, however, likely to have been found inland, as their
softness and the weathering of material does not indicate that they were obtained
from coastal locales (Roger Taylor, pers comm.).
The stone moulds all seem to have been deposited at much the same time, as
part of the formal, final infilling of the roundhouse, although their location on the
floor suggests that they were deposited early in this process. They are also likely
to represent a significant element of the metalworking which had probably been
carried out in the house (chapter 11). This might be consistent with the generally
well-worn and fragmentary condition of the moulds, and the suggestion that some
of them (for example, Moulds 6 and 9) had been reworked. If the moulds were
nearing the end of their useful lives, it is likely that some of them would produce
items which were ceasing to be fashionable, and this may apply to the ring-headed
pins, of a type which falls comfortably within Middle Bronze Age copper-alloy
working traditions. It is possible that these objects were part of the biography of
the roundhouse, and this will be discussed in chapter 11 below.
Moulds 3 and 5 were intended to produce socketed tools of the very broad type
which began in the Middle Bronze Age but continued into the Late Bronze Age.
Mould 5 has a palstave-type blade used on a socketed tool, and is something of a
hybrid. Both carry poorly carved V-shaped (shield and chevron) patterns on their
faces, mould 3 particularly so. This links them with Mould 2, possibly already
carrying a matrix of some kind, which was carved or re-carved to produce two
tanged and collared chisels, with a degree of incompetence which would have
rendered the mould more-or-less unusable. Speculation suggests that either a smith
was experimenting with new forms or that an apprentice was trying his hand, in
either case apparently using moulds near the end of their useful lives. The stone
mould assemblage overall might be viewed as transitional between the standard
forms of the Middle Bronze Age and those of the succeeding industry, and as such
could fit into the later stage of the date range for the roundhouse infill suggested
by the radiocarbon determinations, or just after this.
The clay moulds from Pit [124] in Enclosure 1
A small number of clay mould fragments associated with the Late Bronze Age
Enclosure 1, dating from circa 1000 cal BC to 850 cal BC, were recovered during the
excavations. Pit [124], fill (112), produced Mould 10 as well as 15 additional small
fragments, A-O; details of the latter are given below when they are informative.
Mould 10 (Figures 5.18, 5.19 and 5.20)
Fragment of part of a clay mould, with matrix for the tip of a blade approximately
49mm long and approximately 34mm at its widest, probably the tip of a leaf-shaped
sword, of uncertain type. Leaf-shaped swords of various types appear towards the
end of the Middle Bronze Age and continued to the end of the Bronze Age. Clay
the moulds and metalwork
99
Figure 5.19 Photograph of Mould 10
showing matrix (Drawing by Craig
Williams).
Figure 5.20 Photograph of Mould
10 showing back surface.
mould fragments used to cast leaf-shaped swords of uncertain type were found at
Stoneycombe Quarry, Dainton, Devon, during excavation of a Late Bronze Age
occupation site (Needham 1980; Silvester 1980).
Petrology: Off white 5YR 8/2, light grey burning 5YR 7/1. Very finely
micaceous clay, probably kaolinitic. Probably a clay weathered from a kaolinised
area, the nearest of which are Tregonning Hill and the St Austell granite; possibly
kaolinisation on Carnmenellis granite but in small areas which have not been
commercially worked. The apparent layering of wrapping of the clay shows no
petrological difference.
Mould C (not illus)
Abraded fragment, 13 grams, reduced, outer surface 5YR 7/1 pale grey, interior
surface 5YR 5/1 gray. Two-layer wrap clearly visible.
A possible fragment from a ribbed socketed axe mould. Inner surface fairly flat
with V-shaped depression approximately 4mm across, possibly from a rib; possible
edge of a depression from a second rib converging with the first.
Petrology: Micaceous clay with muscovite flakes up to 0.3mm, sparse angular
quartz, probably from a kaolinitic source.
100
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Mould D (not illus)
Abraded fragment, 12 grams, reduced, 5YR 5/1 gray. Rectangular piece
approximately 40mm x 25mm x 10mm, bottom edge ragged; possibly inner wrap
has split off.
The mould surface suggests an object with a straight edge 35mm+ across,
deepening from 2mm to 4mm, possibly from an artefact such as a chisel.
Petrology: Rare angular to rounded quartz in very finely micaceous clay.
Moulds G, H, J (not illus)
Three fragments totalling 18 grams, two conjoin; abraded, pale fired oxidised 5YR
7/3 pink merging to 6/1 gray on interior, 7-8mm thick. Dimension of joined
pieces 50mm x 30mm; concave suggesting just possibly a plain socketed axe.
Petrology: Angular translucent colourless quartz and quartzitic grains 0.22.1mm probably about 5 per cent in soft heavily abraded very finely micaceous
clay matrix. Probably from a kaolinitic clay source.
Mould K (not illus) (112) the fill of pit [124].
Abraded fragment, 7 grams, oxidised 5 YR 6/8 yellowish-red, no sign of wrap,
possibly from collar of casting gate, pointed at top, straight down on outside
26mm to a right-angle inturn suggesting seating; curve 50mm diameter.
Petrology Sparse angular quartz 0.1mm-2.5mm in micaceous clay matrix.
Clay moulds from other contexts in Enclosure 1
B (115) the fill of hollow [116]
Abraded piece of soft baked clay, 1 gram; clay identical to that of Mould 10 from
pit [124].
A-D (143) the fill of posthole [144] in Pit / Posthole Group 1
Four abraded fragments totalling 12 grams; micaceous clay from sources similar to
those in Pit [124].
Discussion
The clay used for these moulds has a very fine matrix and is very dense compared
to the daub-type baked clay listed elsewhere (chapter 3). The matrices are generally
soft and friable, which has led to their now abraded condition. All clays used
appear to come from kaolinitic sources. Those not individually described are slight
variants on G, H and J from Pit [124].
The clay sword-tip Mould 10 from Pit [124] fits with the radiocarbon date
obtained from the pit infill, 2747±26 BP, 972-827 cal BC (SUERC-47287). The
minimal features of the other clay mould fragments from the pit are broadly in
accord with this (Henrietta Quinnell, personal observation).
the moulds and metalwork
101
Other than at Dainton (Needham 1980), evidence for Late Bronze Age
metalworking has been quite sparse in the South West peninsula (for example,
Skowranek 2007) and close dating is even less common, which makes the dating of
the Tremough finds very important. The finds are, however, particularly significant
as the mould fragments represent the first Late Bronze Age metalworking to be
recovered from a contemporary enclosure site in the South West. Elsewhere in
Britain some enclosures have stronger metalworking associations, albeit frequently
on a small scale (Needham and Bridgford 2013), and the national comparanda for
Tremough are discussed below (chapter 11).
The copper-alloy objects
Andy M Jones and Henrietta Quinnell
Copper-alloy objects from Roundhouse 1
SF400 (Figure 5.21)
Roundhouse 1, (278) fill of possible gully around part of quadrant 1. Curved
fragment of copper-alloy artefact, maximum surviving dimension 20mm, with rib
on one side; the slight protuberances shown on the other side are probably due to
corrosion.
SF413 (Figure 5.22)
Roundhouse 1, (784) fill of posthole [785]. Two lengths of possible pin shaft
20mm and 25mm, one adhering to stone; 2-3mm across and with an apparent
rectangular section. A further two short fragments 2mm across.
Figure 5.21 Copper-alloy object SF400
from Roundhouse 1.
102
Figure 5.22 Copper-alloy, possible pin shaft
SF413 from Roundhouse 1.
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Spiral copper-alloy ring, SF403 (Figures 5.23 and 5.24)
Roundhouse 1, (704) fill of [705]. Spiral copper-alloy ring, at least five coils,
each measuring approximately 2.5mm across. The ring is approximately 27mm
in external diameter and 20mm high. The full size of the object is unknown, as
examples can range from a single coil to more than five (Pearce 1983, 377; Drewett
1982, 361), and given that the find had been placed in the top of the posthole it is
possible that one or more coils could have broken off.
The spiral ring was found in the top of a posthole. Both its location within a
backfilled posthole and its almost certain high value as a personal ornament makes
it unlikely to have been casually discarded, and it adds to the number of such items
recovered from roundhouses in Cornwall (chapter 11, Table 11.2).
Spiral rings are known from the Taunton phase of metalworking, which is
associated with an ornament horizon that includes gold bar-twisted torcs, earrings,
pins and rings (Rowlands 1976; Gerloff 2007). The metalworking tradition lies
within the Middle Bonze Age, circa 1400-1250 cal BC (Needham et al 2013,
table 5.3). Most spiral rings are stray finds without context or are from metalwork
hoards (for example, Portable Antiquities Scheme database finds Northumberland
NCL-DA41F5, Norfolk NMS-300286 and North Yorkshire SWYOR-3FF370)
which means that that they are not dated by any associations. Although none have
previously been recorded in Cornwall, a number have been found in the wider
South West peninsula, including one from Kent’s Cavern in Devon, and in central
southern England (Pearce 1974, fig 3; 1983, 377-8; Rowlands 1982, 362; Smith
1959; Anon 2014).
Figure 5.23 Copper-alloy
spiral ring SF403 from
Roundhouse 1.
Figure 5.24 Photograph of the copper-alloy spiral ring after
conservation.
the moulds and metalwork
103
In particular, several spiral rings have been found in Sussex, notably in
hoards, including Stump Bottom and Black Rock (Smith 1959; Tapper 2011),
and recently eight were found within a hoard located near Lewes (recorded in
Portable Antiquities Scheme database as SUSS-C5D042). Stratified finds are rare,
although two were recorded from house 1 at Black Patch (Drewett 1982, 362)
(Figure 5.25), which has been radiocarbon dated to circa 1400-1000 cal BC. These
were found on the floor of the house and although the excavator suggested that
they may have been hidden in the rafters, more recent interpretation has indicated
that they may have been heirlooms and older than the house (Tapper 2011, 139).
The radiocarbon determination from posthole [705] at Tremough, 3065±31 BP,
1415-1252 BC (SUERC-47297), therefore provides the closest date for this form
of artefact.
Beyond southern England, Rowlands (1976, 97) drew attention to parallels to
spiral rings from northern Europe, including from an urnfield at Wesselsheim Kr.
Friedberg in western Germany and from a hoard at Villers-sur-Authie, Picardie,
in northern France. As scholars such as Sabine Gerloff (2007) have noted, the
Taunton phase of metalworking phase in Britain had strong links with northern
France; large numbers of palstaves of French design have been found in southern
Britain, for example, and other artefacts including several types of sword rapier,
palstave and flanged axes are found on either side of the Channel (Muckelroy
1981; Talon 2012, fig 96), and the actual mode of transport has been demonstrated
since the Dover boat was securely dated to the Middle Bronze Age (Clark 2004).
Recent publication of metalwork from Salcombe, Devon, and Langdon, Bay, Kent
(Needham et al 2013, 143), shows assemblages of copper-alloy artefacts transported
across the Channel probably a little after the main Taunton phase. In addition to
metalwork, other contact between France and the south West Peninsula in the later
Figure 5.25 Copperalloy spiral rings from
house 1, Black Patch,
Sussex (reproduced
with permission of the
Prehistoric Society).
104
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
second millennium cal BC is suggested by similarities between Trevisker ceramics
and some assemblages found in Normandy (Marcigny et al 2007).
Also of relevance to this discussion is the recently discovered racloir mould
from a Middle Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga, Cornwall, which indicated
awareness of Continental forms of metalwork in the local production of a copperalloy artefact of a type which was better known in France (O’Connor et al 2014,
64-5). The spiral ring, therefore, while not demonstrating direct Continental
links, was associated with contemporary fashions in personal adornments that
were found in southern Britain and northern France. It is likely to have been
part of a complex set of contacts and exchanges around the southern coastal zone
of Britain and the Continent which became more developed during the Taunton
metalworking period (Needham 2009).
the moulds and metalwork
105
Chapter 6
Geochemical analysis of samples from
Tremough
Will Marshall and Kevin Solman
Ten soil samples from Roundhouse 1 were analysed for their characteristic metals
content using two main techniques, FP-XRF and ICP. The analysis was undertaken
to help establish whether metalworking associated with the moulds had taken place
within the roundhouse.
Preparation
Prior to analysis all soil samples were milled using a Pulverisette-5 Planetary Ball
Mill fitted with zirconium oxide grinding bowls and balls. This was done to achieve
a fine homogenous powder for subsequent chemical analysis. Samples were milled
at 400rpm for 60 seconds.
Metals, for ICP analysis, were extracted from the soils using an acid mixture
(5.55% HNO3 and 16.75% HCl (v/v)) and microwave digestion following the
method of Hassan, et al (2007). A MarsXpress microwave was used for the digestion
of samples. This was run at 1600W with a ramp time of 10 minutes to 175°C and
a hold of 30 minutes.
Samples for XRF analysis were prepared as powders using standard 32mm
sample cups and 6μm polypropylene film.
Methods of analysis
1. FP-XRF: A Niton XL3T 980 X-Ray Fluorescence analyser was used to quantify
the metals content of soil samples using fundamental parameters. Samples were
placed in a test stand for analysis and Helium purging was engaged to allow
the analysis of ‘light elements’. The total firing time of x-rays was 180 seconds
per sample. Three replicates were run for each sample and the mean result is
reported here.
2. ICP-OES: A Varian 725-ES Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometer was used to analyse the metals content of the soil extracts. Three
replicates were run for each sample and the mean result is reported here.
3. ICP-MS: A Thermo-Scientific X Series 2 Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass
Spectrometer was used to analyse the metals content of the soil extracts. Three
replicates were run for each sample and the mean result is reported here.
geochemical analysis of samples from tremough
107
Figure 6.1 ICP-MS data. Copper (Cu), tin (Sn) and lead (Pb) concentrations normalised using aluminium (Al),
potassium (K) and lithium (Li). Sample identifications are 1-10 as shown in Table 6.1.
Figure 6.2 XRF data. Copper (Cu), tin (Sn) and lead (Pb) concentrations normalised using aluminium (Al),
potassium (K) and calcium (Ca). Sample identifications are 1-10 as shown in Table 6.1.
108
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Results and discussion
The full data set is contained in the associated spreadsheet forming part of the
site archive report but selected data are presented in Table 6.1 below. Significant
concentrations of copper and other metals were measured in several of the samples,
notably 343, 344, 357 and 358, the latter of which is a hearth [748]/[774].
When the metals of interest to ancient metal workers (for example, Cu, Sn
and Pb) were normalised against a number of conservative elements a trend
emerged (Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2). Normalising reduces sample matrix issues
and grain-size bias (see, for example, Loring 1991; Shotyk et al 2001). Essentially
it shows relative change between elements and can be used to highlight elemental
enrichments as opposed to a simple increase in concentration. Al, K and Li were
used for the ICP data. Li was not measured by XRF, and Ca was used instead. This
manipulation confirms that a number of the samples were significantly enriched in
copper and tin, relative to 000-B.
The values produced by the two analytical methods used here are not directly
comparable, and the XRF results must be viewed as ‘exploratory’ because they are
not calibrated to a certified reference material (CRM) specifically for XRF analysis.
The XRF was used in ‘prospecting mode’, which produces a rapid indication of
‘presence’ and ‘trends’ in the material under the lens, but not within the body of
the sample below. Furthermore, the methods used do not represent a ‘total’ rock
analysis. They provide an indication of what is on the surface of the sediments and
clay particles.
The initial results of these analyses are encouraging and would justify further
work. Advanced statistics and ordination of these data could confirm and
quantify the significance of the apparent relationships and further analysis using
a sequential digestion of the samples, combined with isotopic analysis of the lead
ICP-MS
XRF
Analysis no
Context no
Sample no
Cu
Sn
Pb
Cu
Sn
Pb
1
(278) fill of gully
342
16.3
9.6
35.0
0.00
140.20
109.4
2
(295) fill of posthole [296]
343
131.4
64.5
43.5
71.50
325.54
108.7
3
(285) lower fill of posthole
[286]
344
167.2
126.4
99.7
137.13
368.02
106.9
4
(284) upper fill of posthole
[286]
345
41.5
85.2
31.2
24.16
155.43
108.9
5
(708) fill of posthole [709]
349
18.6
15.9
47.1
0.00
46.17
106.6
6
(273) upper infill layer in
quadrant 1
353
39.4
46.6
37.4
20.21
207.93
108.8
7
(289) fill of posthole [290]
354
45.9
20.7
38.6
18.92
108.49
109.0
8
(761) fill of posthole [762]
357
192.0
78.0
49.3
117.86
264.90
109.0
9
(747) fill of hearth [748]/[774] 358
383.1
81.8
39.6
256.97
262.80
109.3
10
Background
33.2
26.4
67.4
16.21
113.15
108.7
000B
Table 6.1: Copper (Cu), tin (Sn) and lead (Pb) concentrations in the Tremough samples, as
measured by ICP-MS and XRF. Presented as ppm. Note: XRF values only confirm ‘presence’
(see text) and are supplied only as ‘additional information’.
geochemical analysis of samples from tremough
109
Figure 6.3 Tremough
copper (Cu) and cobalt
(Co) concentrations
(ICP-MS data).
(Marshall et al 2009), could be used to try and determine the provenance of the
material. Some information could potentially be obtained using the trace elements
and ‘contaminations’ in the copper. For example, cobalt is found in some copper
ores and these samples contain significant amounts of this metal. It was noted
that the copper and cobalt concentrations have a strong linear relationship (Figure
6.3). A number of Cornish mines apparently produced amounts of cobalt ore as a
by-product during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; for example,
nineteenth-century finds of cobalt associated with copper lodes from Wheal
Trugo, near St Columb Major, and Wheal Sparnon, near Redruth (De la Beche
1839, 614-5).
110
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Chapter 7
The lithics
Anna Lawson-Jones
This report covers the lithics recovered from fieldwork in 2009 and 2011. In 2009
two small Early Neolithic pits were investigated and a small but significant number
of flints recovered from within them; further unstratified pieces were recovered
across the PAC building area. During the 2011 excavations of a Middle Bronze
Age roundhouse and a Late Bronze Age enclosure in the Car Park 4 area, a small
flint assemblage was recovered. These flints appear to have been residual and not
directly associated with the sites where they were found.
Flint from the PAC building, including Early Neolithic pits
[102] and [105]
This small assemblage consists of 18 pieces, 11 of which were unstratified, six came
from shallow pits [102] and [105] and one from a tree-throw (108) (Table 7.1).
The unstratified finds are considered with those from the pits because they were
found in close proximity.
Both the pits produced Early Neolithic pottery, charcoal and burnt stone.
Tremough has in recent years produced an array of Neolithic finds and features
(Gossip and Jones 2007, 28-30), including pottery, worked flint and chert, part of
a greenstone axe, a series of radiocarbon dates spanning the Early through to the
later Neolithic period, plus a number of different types of features, including pits,
structures, hearths, flint scatters and remnant old land surfaces, including at least
one flint-knapping floor (Lawson-Jones 2007, 92-5).
Raw material sources
This assemblage consists of a mix of beach pebble flint, nodular flint and a single
piece of Portland chert. The pebble flint is almost certainly of local beach origin,
consisting most frequently of mottled, predominantly grey coloured flint. Its
quality is very variable, frequently with faulting. Flint and chert pebbles can form
Table 7.1 (following two pages): List of all pieces within the PAC building flint assemblage.
The above table presents the results of a piece-by-piece analysis. It should be noted that all
comments regarding use-related wear are based on macroscopic analysis only.
Key: Prim. refers to ‘Primary’ (51-100 per cent surviving dorsal cortex); Sec. refers to
‘Secondary’ (1-50 per cent surviving dorsal cortex) and Tert. refers to ‘Tertiary’ (0-1 per cent
surviving dorsal cortex). ‘L’ denotes illustrated pieces (Figure 7.1).
the lithics
111
112
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Context no.
Pebble,
Nodular or
Chert
Primary,
Secondary,
Tertiary
Retouched,
Use-wear,
Broken
Heated, Fresh,
Abraded
Date,
Form
Descriptive comments
Unstratified
? Pebble
Tert.
Snapped
-
? Probable
engraver
A probably deliberately broken or snapped engraver on a thick, lumpy piece. Hard- and softhammered production. Slight, probably deliberate hinge removal intersecting with snapped
edge. Uncertain piercing use of pointed end. Grey with white flecks.
Unstratified
? Pebble
Tert.
Use-wear along
edge running
up to the point
Heat damage
? Piercer
A chunky, fire damaged piece with soft- and hard-hammer removals. The bulbar end was
removed during the production of this chunky, comfortable to hold piercer. The break is
covered with small heat blisters, suggesting either that it was exposed to the hottest part of
the fire, or that as the thinnest part of the tool it was the most susceptible to heat damage.
The tip of the point has blistered off. Much of the remaining surface is covered in hairline
crazing. Distal end also snapped off to form forefinger hold. Suggestion of lateral use-wear
running up towards the broken point. Mottled or flecked grey.
Unstratified
Pebble
Prim.
Tip missing
-
Rejuvenation
piece, and?
piercer
Rejuvenation flake possibly used as a piercer. Very pale mottled, grey tan with frequent
faulting. Platform preparation visible. Distal end has a break, possibly as a result of use as a
lightweight piercer. One edge also shows tiny use-wear removals along its length. Fits well in
the hand as a piercer.
Unstratified
? Nodular
Sec.
Retouched and
utilised. Patchy
dorsal gloss
and focused
abrasion.
-
Neolithic
Ovate knife
L4 Slender, ovate, near discoidal knife flake. Small patches of dorsal glossing and short,
concave area of use-wear (tiny, abraded removals or damage) on ventral surface. Gentle
convex dorsal surface profile with thin flaked removals radiating out from oval, corticated
thumb hold area. Cortex is thin and granular. Very dark grey with occasional small, pale flecks.
Unstratified
Pebble
Prim.
-
-
Waste
Tiny bulbous, primary flake – protrusion removed as a precursor to decortication. Dark
grey-brown. Waste.
Unstratified
? Pebble
Tert.
Broken with
?slight retouch
-
Miscel. tool
Soft-hammered bulbar end of a flake, showing small breaks around periphery. Some
platform preparation. Slight lateral abrasion and tiny removals, possibly the result of use as a
small cutting flake. Slightly mottled, fine-grained, very dark grey.
Unstratified
? Pebble
Tert.
-
-
Waste
Small, narrow, slightly granular dark grey piece. Waste.
Unstratified
Pebble
Sec.
-
-
Cutting flake
Well-formed split pebble flake, with cortex running around three-quarters of its edge.
Possibly unintentional scuffing of cortex has improved the hold for use as a cutting flake.
Thin, sharp, uncorticated edge shows tiny removals indicative of slight, probable slicing wear.
Mottled dark grey.
Unstratified
? Pebble
Sec. / Tert.
? Retouch
Used
-
Neolithic
?Chopping /
cutting tool
L5 A chunky, mottled grey piece, with possible smoothing across much of surface. Sharp,
slightly jagged crescent-shaped working edge with bifacial removals caused during cutting /
chopping use. May also have been preparatory retouch along this edge. Possibly not a
modified core, but from a larger tool? Large flake removal produced a platform, one sharp
side of which has been softened – probably via controlled crushing – to facilitate hand held
use. A single thin flake has also been removed from the ventral face to create a better grip.
the lithics
113
Context no.
Pebble,
Nodular or
Chert
Primary,
Secondary,
Tertiary
Retouched,
Use-wear,
Broken
Heated, Fresh,
Abraded
Date,
Form
Descriptive comments
Unstratified
?
Tert.
Used
Polished
Heated
Neolithic
Part of a
probable
polished axe
L6 Pale, dirty greyish-cream, uniformly heat discoloured flint with remnant polished surface,
indicating that it has come from a larger polished piece, probably a broken polished flint axe.
Long, slightly curved working edge with variable but bifacial use-related wear and removals.
Opposing straight edges, although now short, run parallel to each other. Slight hair line
crazing across surface.
Unstratified
? Pebble
Tert.
Platform
retouch and
broken
-
Waste
Small bulbar end of a broken / snapped bladelet-like piece, with retouched or modified
platform preparation on the dorsal surface. Rejuvenation piece? / waste. Mottled, dark grey.
[102] / (100)
Pebble
Prim.
-
-
Waste
Initial flake removed from a pebble with a notably smooth and shiny outer surface, with
slight cortical damage probably caused during its removal from pebble. Distal crushing, plus
hammer damage on outer cortex, indicate anvil use. Pale, mottled greyish-tan.
[102] / (100)
Portland
chert
Tert.
Very fine lateral
retouch.
Abraded
Triangular
arrowhead?
L1 Small, thin, soft-hammered flake. Possibly an unclassified triangular arrowhead. Distinctive
dark, fine-grained, smoky grey. Tiny removals focused all along one near straight edge
and distal end. Opposing edge, although thin and uneven, is slightly abraded, the result of
use-wear. Bulbar end is narrower and slightly thicker than the body of the flake, and fresh or
unworn, suggestive of hafting.
[102] / (100)
? Pebble
Tert.
Broken
-
Part of a miscel.
tool
L2 Bulbar end of a long thin, triangular, soft-hammered flake. Miscellaneous utilised piece.
Widest, distal end missing. Very narrow, tapered bulbar end, the result of careful core
preparation. Long thin, delicate dorsal scars. Tiny possible post-depositional removals along
one edge, but opposing edge shows slight abrasive wear. Dark grey with small pale mottles.
[105] / (103)
? Pebble
Tert.
-
Fresh
Waste
Tiny piece of sharp, darkish grey debitage or waste from tool manufacture.
[105] / (103)
Nodular
Sec.
Slight use-wear
Fresh
Neolithic
Core tool
A very sharp, near black, multi-platform core. Small flakelets still adhering. Slight cutting use
wear focused along one sharp edge, with opposing cortex and flaked removal to facilitate
hand-held use. Not a carefully reduced core, but a core tool.
[105] / (103)
?
Tert.
Bifacial retouch
and broken
-
Neolithic
Broken leaf
shaped
arrowhead?
L3 The bulbar end of a finely worked, soft-hammered piece – probable leaf-shaped
arrowhead (rather than the butt-end of a knife, given its narrow profile). Dorsal surface shows
near all-over thinning removals, while ventral face shows removal of larger thinning flakes.
Possibly deliberately snapped, rather than broken during use. Mottled grey.
(108)
Tree-throw
? Pebble
Tert.
-
Fresh
Waste
Tiny piece of sharp, darkish grey debitage or waste from tool manufacture.
a substantial portion of any beach, up to 50 per cent according to Rogers (1923,
45), who was an early advocate of the study of Cornish beaches and interested in
the sourcing and description of beach-derived material. The use of pebble flint to
make tools occurred throughout the prehistoric period in Cornwall and is not in
itself a datable trait.
As with the majority of pebble-based flint assemblages, the relatively small size
of the material dictates both the size and potentially the form of the final worked
pieces. It also resulted in the not unusual use of anvils. Knight (1991, 57-80) has
looked at the use of anvils during preliminary reduction of pebbles and found it
to be a particularly good way of using smaller-sized flint. At least one piece in this
assemblage was clearly produced using an anvil (Table 7.1, context (100)), which
left tell-tale damage in the form of a crushed distal flake removal.
There are no primary sources of nodular flint in Cornwall, although nodular
flint does occur periodically on beaches in western Cornwall, washed up from
submerged chalk deposits. As a result, the appearance of nodular flint in an inland
location is of significance in Cornwall, since it may indicate introduction to the
site from significantly further east (Healy 1985, 18-20; 1989, 189; Saville 1981,
101-152). Beer Head on the south-east Devon coast is the best known and nearest
in situ mainland (quarried) source of nodular flint (Tingle 1998), although recent
work carried out by Newberry (2002, 1-36) highlights other good but much
smaller Devon deposits. The movement of flint (including Portland chert), or
other material such as greenstone gradually became a more frequent component
within lithic assemblages. Whether the movement of nodular flint into Cornwall
through trade or exchange was the direct result of increasing sedentism (Edmonds
1987, 155-79) or not is uncertain. But, it is clear that the desire (if not the need)
to obtain supplies from specific sources was important.
Comments by context
Tree-throw feature (108) produced a single fresh-looking piece of probable pebble
debitage or tool manufacture waste. Its inclusion within this context should almost
certainly be seen as residual.
Shallow bowl-shaped pit [102]/(100) produced three pieces of worked flint – a
piece of pebble waste (not modified or used), a finely-worked triangular arrowhead
L1 in Portland chert from Dorset (Figure 7.1), and part of a broken, but used
miscellaneous tool L2, plus several sherds of Neolithic pottery; all were included
within a dark reddish-brown, stony, charcoal-rich soil.
The basal fill (103) of pit [105] produced three pieces of flint – a tiny, sharp
piece of waste, a very sharp, very fresh, very dark multi-platform core tool, and the
butt end of a broken but beautifully worked probable leaf-shaped arrowhead L3
– plus a sherd of Neolithic pottery, contained within a dark black or grey charcoalrich soil with burnt stone.
Despite slight differences in pit shape and uniformity, and marked differences
in the quantity of pottery found in each, the two pits share certain similarities.
The main one (from the point of view of this report) is the presence of unburnt
flint within an otherwise burnt fill containing charcoal and a notable quantity of
114
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
heat-fractured and discoloured granite, killas and quartz. This would suggest that
the flint was intentionally added to, or mixed with the main fill after burning, but
prior to its inclusion within the pits: the pit fill appears to have been ‘prepared’
prior to deposition. Each pit contained a very small but potentially orchestrated
flint assemblage, which included both locally collected and potentially imported
material. Both contained a broken, possibly deliberately snapped piece of worked
flint and both contained an arrowhead (or part of ), including the butt end of a
well-made, classic leaf-shaped arrowhead of Early to Middle Neolithic date (Green
1984, 32).
The frequent inclusion of lithic artefacts within Neolithic pits of this character
has been noted elsewhere (for example, Thomas 1991, 60), while a high proportion
of tools to waste in similarly orchestrated Neolithic pit fills has been recorded by
Cleal (1984, 148). The Tremough pits thus slot into a recognised category of pit
types found across much of the country during the Neolithic period. Within the
lithic material, unbroken, broken and finely-worked pieces have been noted, again
a recognised trait, as has the inclusion of arrowheads (among other forms).
It is possible that the flint, pottery and burnt material recorded in pits [102]
and [105] represent the residue or remains left over from a short-term event.
Whether their inclusion within a specific pit merely represent ‘tidying-up’ or the
ritualised ‘closure’ of a site is open to interpretation.
The remaining 11 pieces of the assemblage were unstratified. Like the flint
from the pits some of this material was finely worked and diagnostically Early to
Middle Neolithic in date; for example, the cutting flake, the ovate knife L4 and
the small, polished flint axe fragment L6. The remaining assemblage is similarly
characteristic of the Neolithic and includes an engraver, a piercer, a possible piercer
on a rejuvenation piece, a miscellaneous tool, a small (hand-held) chopper / cutting
tool L5 and three pieces of waste. The skill displayed in the production of some
of these pieces indicates complete control over the raw material, but also a level of
workmanship and expenditure of time that would seem superfluous from a solely
utilitarian point of view, with particular reference to the polished axe fragment.
Axes, associated with the cutting down of trees / land clearance and the
working of wood into a range of objects, have been found in association with
many contexts, including as stray finds, deliberate deposits in rivers and bogs,
associated with funerary activity and in structured pit deposits. They can be made
from flint, Cornish greenstone or other hard stone, and can be found broken or
battered through use, complete and pristine, re-worked or re-sharpened, polished,
partially polished or unpolished. They are a relatively large and distinctive tool
type, which were almost invariably hafted for use. Axes have undergone study in
terms of their raw material source or ‘Group’ (Clough and Cummins 1979; and see
Quinnell (2007, 80-81) regarding the Group 1 greenstone axe found at Tremough
in 2000), and in terms of typology or classification based on size, shape and
profile. The profile (cross-section) of the polished flint axe fragment listed above
(Table 7.1) shows it as belonging to the thin-butted (Type B) form (Butler 2005,
144). Polished (or ground) flint axes when damaged or rendered blunt though use,
were frequently re-sharpened by the removal of controlled flakes from along the
the lithics
115
Figure 7.1 Selected flints from the PAC pits [102] and [105] (L1-6).
working edge, followed by retouch to form a new cutting edge, as can be seen on
the illustration of L6 (Figure 7.1). The main break may or may not be accidental
and as a result of use. Like the broken leaf-shaped arrowhead, the other half was
not found during the excavation. Unlike the arrowhead, the axe fragment was
not located within a specific pit deposit, but rather within a localised, associated
scatter of material found within the immediate vicinity of the pits.
Lithics from Roundhouses 1 and 2 and Enclosure 1
This small assemblage of 18 flint and cherty flint pieces consists of four retouched
tools, five pebbles, eight cortical flakes and one secondary waste flake recovered
during the excavations of a Middle Bronze Age roundhouse and the Late Bronze
Age Enclosure 1 in 2011.
116
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Raw material sources
All corticated pieces are made on pebble flint, probably derived from the local
estuarine beach (Rodgers 1923, 45-50). There is nothing to suggest that the noncorticated pieces have a different source, or that any imported nodular material is
represented. Some reference is made to strikingly coloured flint. It is likely that the
two scrapers at least were made on deliberately selected, colourful flint, possibly
enhanced by the use of heat (cf Lee 2001, 39-44; Pannett 2011, 235-47).
Comments by type
Pebbles
The five pebbles recovered are varied. All came from deposits associated with
the roundhouses. The largest pebble, 60mm long, has been heavily burnt, heatreddened and fractured. It came from gully fill (278). The two complete (and
smallest pebbles - 28mm and 24mm maximum dimension) are both notably
smooth and distinctively coloured: the larger piece, from layer (280), is near
spherical and deep orange; the smaller unstratified bean-shaped piece has a green,
swirling, marbled appearance. It is possible that both of these pieces were used as
tokens or game counters. Other non-flint pebbles found on site and noted in the
archive may also have fallen into this category.
Of the two remaining pebbles, one is almost complete except for a very small
abrasion at one end, suggestive of percussive damage. It came from gully fill (278)
and is an oval, very smooth, pale, speckled and marbled piece 40mm long. The
final very smooth, oval piece, from infill deposit (273) over Roundhouse 1, is
a striking pale brownish-orange. It has a flake removed from the more tapered
end. The scar is suggestive of testing for use as a core, despite the small size of
the original pebble. However, since both these final pieces are notably smooth
and distinctive in appearance, it is possible that they too were counters (perhaps
playing pieces) or otherwise utilised, perhaps, for example, in the polishing or
smoothing of wood or leather.
Cortical flakes
The nine cortical flakes recovered (displaying a near 100 per cent corticated dorsal
surface) attest to on-site testing and knapping of flint (Butler 2005, 20). All were
found in or close to the Middle Bronze Age roundhouses. Four are notably flat
and thin (less than 9mm thick), composed of a complete side of a pebble with
the naturally rounded edges of the original pebble extending all around the flake.
At least four of the flakes have been removed from notably smooth flint pebbles,
one of which, from posthole [725] within Roundhouse 1, appears to have been
polished, with dorsal damage at both ends; this suggests use rather than preknapping surface damage. The largest and thickest flake is more typical of a Bronze
Age split or tested pebble. It measures 50mm by 31mm by 11mm and was found
in gully fill (278), together with two other pieces, one of which is a narrow chunky
secondary waste flake.
the lithics
117
Five of the pieces came from a single context (788) in small stakehole or
shallow cut [789], located to the south west of Roundhouse 1. Of these, one of
the smoothest and palest flat cortical flakes has been snapped in half lengthways
(34mm long by 13mm wide by 5mm thick). There is no evidence for it having
been snapped for use as a tool (Anderson-Whymark 2011, 16-21), despite the fact
that it was almost certainly deliberately and not accidentally snapped. Several of
the most carefully made and most colourful, smooth cortical flakes could have
made good game pieces. Their fresh looking edges with a complete lack of wear
and their very smooth colourful surfaces all suggest non-utilitarian use, but rather
imply deliberate pebble selection, splitting and snapping.
The majority of the cortical flakes have been made with notable care. There
is little evidence for the less controlled splitting of pebbles using hard hammers,
followed by selective use only of suitable pieces which is normally seen in Middle
and Late Bronze Age pebble knapping assemblages (Butler 2005, 179). The
combined use of an anvil – indicated by distal flaking or crushing (Knight 1991,
57-80) - with a soft (wood or bone?) hammer – recorded as near non-existent
bulbs of percussion and minimal rippling (Andrefsky 1998, 116) - suggest a Late
Neolithic or Early to Middle Bronze Age date.
Only four pieces show specific retouch or modification through use: a large
thumbnail-like scraper (L8), an unstratified find near to the roundhouses; a sideand end-scraper (L7), found within upper fill (165) in the ditch [160] of Late
Bronze Age Enclosure 1; a probable broken point found in the fill (117) of recut
[263] in the terminal of ditch [160]; and a small, thin, knife-like flake from infill
deposit (275) in Roundhouse 1.
Scraper L8
The large, thumbnail-like scraper was made on a distinctive, fault-free and uniformly
coloured near-black flint (Figure 7.2, L8). It has a diameter of 26mm, fitting well
within Butler’s (2005, 168) thumbnail size-ratio, and retains some original cortex.
It has a typical central dorsal scar depression, allowing for comfortable hand-held
use between the thumb and forefinger; the presence of cortex will have facilitated
hand-held use by reducing thumb slippage. Semi-invasive, approximately
45-degree retouch extends around two-thirds of the circumference. There is no
clear evidence for use on the ventral underside or of abrasive wear overlying the
retouched dorsal edges. If it was used, it is likely that it only saw light, short-term
use, perhaps during a single event. Large thumbnail scrapers are associated with
the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age period, with many of the finest examples
belonging to Beaker-associated activity (Edmonds 1995, 140). Scrapers of all types
are the most common tool form found in Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age
contexts.
118
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 7.2 Flints from the 2011 excavations: L7 a side- and end-scraper and L8, a thumbnaillike scraper.
Scraper L7
This side- and end-scraper from fill (165) of the Enclosure 1 ditch is made on a
notable honey – grey-brown coloured flint and measures 25mm by 26mm across
(Figure 7.2, L7). Retouch extends half way around the flint on the thickest edge. The
retouch terminates at each side with opposing notches, while the non-retouched
side tapers to an angle and thins. The opposing notches do appear to show some
associated edge softening and suggest that this tool was hafted or bound in some
way for use. The piece does not retain any cortex and has only seen minimal use,
which is visible as tiny ventral removals extending along the working edge only.
Like the thumbnail scraper L8, this piece typifies Late Neolithic to Early Bronze
Age scraper forms. It should be noted that the two are remarkably similar in size.
Knife
The small knife-like flake (24mm by 20mm by 4mm) from infill deposit (275)
is, in contrast to the scrapers, a less heavily worked tool, more suggestive of an
opportunistic or spontaneously made piece. It shows delicate shallow retouch
along one short, thin, convex working edge, but is small and fiddly for handheld use. The partly corticated opposing edge has a couple of crushed-looking
removals indicative of backing, plus a single notched ventral removal. This damage
and scarring, although limited suggests hafting damage associated with it being
slotted into a wood or bone handle, or perhaps leather binding (cf experimental
work carried out by Rots and Vermeersch 2004, 156-168). If so, its small size
would suggest optimal use as part of a composite knife composed of a number of
mounted but small retouched pieces to form a longer cutting edge. Use of this tool
appears to have been minimal given the lack of macroscopically visible wear.
the lithics
119
Point
Points are also a frequent Late Neolithic – Bronze Age tool type. The use of
softened hinged edges and abrupt retouch made the piece from this assemblage a
small but comfortable to hold tool which probably supported a short but sturdy
point suitable for many tasks, including wood and leather working. Unlike the
two scrapers, which have a more considered and deliberate or planned design
and appearance, typical of a specific function, occasion or association, this piece
appears strongly utilitarian and domestic in character. Unfortunately the point has
been largely lost, probably through use rather than post-depositional breakage.
Only the base of it remains, although the likely angle or width of the point can be
discerned.
Discussion
To summarise, this assemblage is predominantly Bronze Age in date, with the
potential for a residual Late Neolithic element. Although small, the assemblage
adds to an already known focus of lithic activity found around the Tremough
campus (Lawson-Jones 2007, 88-96; Gossip and Jones 2009-10, 6-7). The
majority of the assemblage is of Early to Middle Bronze Age date in character with
three of the 18 pieces being found in or around the ditch of the Late Bronze Age
Enclosure 1, and the remaining 15 pieces within or close to two Middle Bronze
Age structures, Roundhouse 1 and Roundhouse 2. No significant difference in
date between the two assemblages has been identified, suggesting that those pieces
from the enclosure ditch are residual and perhaps contemporary or associated with
the use and occupation of the roundhouses. None of the flints have come from
an obviously deliberately created deposit, despite many of them having broad
associations with pottery. The only possible exceptions to this are the five cortical
flakes from feature [789]/(788), although these probably reflect a single period of
activity, rather than a deliberately constructed deposit.
120
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Chapter 8
The charred plant remains
Julie Jones
Environmental sampling at Tremough was associated with four phases of
activity. These comprised two Early Neolithic pits, Structure I, a small post-built
construction of earlier Bronze Age date, the Middle Bronze Age Roundhouse 1,
and the Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1, the latter associated with numerous pits and
postholes.
Bulk soil samples were taken from a range of features including pits, postholes,
gullies and ditch fills. At the PAC site samples were recovered from two Early
Neolithic features, pit [102] and pit [105]. Twelve samples were collected from
deposits at the AIR building and 55 from Roundhouse 1 and Enclosure 1 in Car
Park 4. Sample size varied between 10 and 40 litres, with many of the posthole and
hearth features 100 per cent sampled. The residues were collected on a 500-micron
mesh and floats on a 250-micron mesh.
The samples were examined under illuminated low-powered magnification
with a stereo-binocular microscope with magnifications between x10 and x45.
The charred cereal remains were identified with reference to Jacomet (2006),
with seeds and fruits identified with the aid of the author’s reference collection
and consultation with Cappers et al (2006) and Bertsch (1941). As there was
no assessment stage all of the samples were carefully examined and two tables
produced. Table 8.1 contains the results from the analysis of the two Neolithic
pits and Table 8.2 (see end of chapter) shows the results from all 67 samples taken
from the 2011 excavations, including the 35 samples which included charred plant
remains.
All remains refer to fruits and seeds unless otherwise stated and plant
nomenclature and habitat information follows Stace (1991). Many of the floats,
especially those from posthole fills, were very small, despite some having an initial
sample size of over 20 litres. Surprisingly, however, it was often these small floats
which produced most charred weeds and smaller chaff items; the larger floats were
often composed almost entirely of charcoal fragments.
Charred plant remains
Preservation of all plant material was by charring. Many of the cereal remains in
particular were in a poor condition, with a fine coating of sediment on many of
the grain and weed seeds, and it is likely that the acidic clay soils at Tremough
have affected preservation; however, many grains showed characteristic pitting
reflecting exposure to high temperatures during processing.
the charred plant remains
121
Some of the weed taxa were the same species as modern contaminants in the
sample floats, particularly Persicaria maculosa (redshank), although it was very clear
which were the modern intrusions. This was also commented on by Carruthers
(2007), who examined samples from earlier excavations at Tremough; she also
found an abundance of Persicaria and discussed the problems of shallow profiles
and features on archaeological sites with the possibility of modern weed seeds
moving through the soil profile.
Results
Early Neolithic pits
The plant macrofossils from two features, pit [102], fill (100), and pit [105], fill
(103), were examined (Table 8.1). Samples of approximately 10 litres from each
of the pits also produced sherds of Early Neolithic pottery, flint and hazelnut shell
fragments.
The sample floats were primarily charcoal fragments, with pit [105] dominated
by hazel charcoal, while pit [102] produced a more mixed assemblage of oak, hazel
and hawthorn group (chapter 9). The only macrofossils preserved were charred
hazelnut (Corylus avellana) fragments, with 1 fragment from [102] and 17 from
[105]. Previous excavations of Early Neolithic pits at Tremough produced very
little in the way of charred plant remains; however, a Late Neolithic pit group was
dominated by hazelnut fragments (Carruthers 2007, 100-102).
Fragmented remains of hazelnut frequently occur in early prehistoric features,
where evidence for arable agriculture is scarce. At Tremough these are likely to be
linked to hazel wood gathered as firewood, as well as collection for food.
Structure 1 (Earlier Bronze Age)
Nine postholes were sampled from the perimeter of Structure 1. Radiocarbon
dating from posthole [49] placed this feature in the earlier Bronze Age (chapter 10).
Only one of the postholes, [19], included plant remains with just a single hulled
wheat (Triticum sp.) grain and other poorly preserved cereal grain with two bulbils
of onion couch (Arrhenatherum elatius).
Pit [23] was located close to the structure. As well as occasional charcoal there
were seven hulled wheat grains. The pit was not radiocarbon dated but Bronze Age
pottery was recovered from it.
Context
Feature Float size
(No)
(ml)
Sample composition
Charcoal >2mm Charred plant remains
(100)
Pit [102] 21
70% charcoal;30%
mineral, modern roots
80
Corylus avellana 1 frag (Hazelnut)
(103)
Pit [105] 800
100% charcoal
2000+
Corylus avellana 17 frags (Hazelnut)
Table 8.1: Taxonomic composition of plant macrofossils from Early Neolithic pits [102] and
[105].
122
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Pit [37] (Romano-British)
Five metres to the west of Structure 1 was a shallow concave pit [37]. As its
relationship with Structure 1 was uncertain radiocarbon dating was undertaken on
oat (Avena) grains (253-419 cal AD) and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum ssp.
Raphanistrum) capsules (254-425 cal AD), showing that the pit was of RomanoBritish date and considerably post-dated Structure 1.
The 20-litre sample from its fill (106) produced a rich charred cereal assemblage
with 1450 grains. Many of these were hulled wheat grains, including smaller tail
grains and many more fragmented but still recognisably wheat grains, although
there was no chaff to further these identifications. Barley grains were much less
common, with six of the more angular forms identified as hulled barley. There were
several tiny fragments of barley rachis internode base, plus sections of rachis with
several internode bases. Oat (Avena sp.) grains were also abundant, including three
grains still enclosed in their floret, with two well-preserved floret bases showing the
characteristic horseshoe-shaped base of wild oat (Avena fatua). Many other poorly
preserved unidentified grains are thought likely to be mostly wheat or barley.
The weed assemblage was dominated by redshank, pale persicaria (Persicaria
lapathifolia) and dock (Rumex). These were all also present as modern contaminants
in the sample float, although the fossil seeds were easily distinguishable as they were
completely charred. These are weeds typically associated with arable habitats along
with black-bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus), scentless mayweed (Tripleurospermum
inodorum) and nipplewort (Lapsana communis). There were also four fragments of
hazelnut shell (Corylus avellana) and a single hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) fruit.
These may reflect collection of wood for fuel as both Corylus and Maloidae (Rose
family) charcoal were identified from this sample.
Roundhouse 1 (Middle Bronze Age)
Few plant remains were recovered from the fill of the roundhouse hollow in
quadrant 1. Samples from two postholes, [705] and [701], in the post-ring inside
the roundhouse hollow similarly contained little evidence, producing only a single
barley grain and nipplewort (Lapsana communis) achene.
Located Fill (161) of posthole [162], located centrally within the roundhouse
included, wheat and barley grain, two charred Celtic beans (Vicia faba) and a small
weed assemblage.
A long gully [292] that cut across several quadrants of the roundhouse was filled
with a homogenous dark brown clayey silt (291) which contained a small arable
weed assemblage. However, this feature is undated and post-dates the roundhouse.
the charred plant remains
123
Enclosure 1: ditch and internal features (Late Bronze Age)
Enclosure ditch [160/[170]
The basal fill (267)/(798) of a curvilinear enclosure ditch was sampled in several
sections. The basal fill included charcoal fragments with occasional hulled wheat
grain, a single spelt (Triticum spelta) glume base and poorly preserved spikelet fork,
with a single barley grain and two heath grass (Danthonia decumbens) caryopses.
Pit / Posthole Group 1
Plant remains from two postholes [158] and [144] were limited to small weed
seeds, including fat-hen (Chenopodium album), pale persicaria, ribwort plantain
(Plantago lanceolata) and heath-grass. Close to these features were pits [164] and
[249], which contained burnt stones and frequent charcoal with a single barley
grain, hulled wheat glume base and spikelet fork, oak (Quercus) bud and a few
weeds.
Four nearby features, [132], [154], [177] and [193], also incorporated charred
remains. Some like posthole [154] contained burnt stone, with posthole [132]
in particular filled with a dark and charcoal-rich deposit (131). Traces of charred
cereals were limited to a hulled wheat glume base and spikelet fork, with an onion
couch bulbil from posthole [177]. Barley and wheat / barley grains, plus five wheat
glume bases were among hazel and oak charcoal in pit [193].
Pit Alignment 2
Pits [202], [126] and [123] formed part of an alignment of pits and postholes in
the central area of the enclosure. These were fairly shallow, mostly less than 0.3m
deep, with the fills mostly single deposits, often charcoal-rich with burnt stones.
Charred cereal remains were again mostly limited to occasional wheat grains and
glume bases, an oat/grass (Avena/Poaceae) grain and occasional weeds, with a
charred hazelnut fragment and oak bud. Two further pits [134] and [128] to the
north of this alignment again contained charcoal and burnt granite stones. The
upper fill (133) of pit [134] had only a few wheat grains, chaff and weed seeds, but
fill (127) of pit [128] incorporated a slightly larger assemblage including 22 hulled
wheat grains and 21 smaller tail grains.
Structure 205
Structure (205), built within a shallow circular, concave hollow [116], was
composed of a pile of fire-cracked stones, on top of which lay a large flat subrectangular stone. The core (115)/(103) of the structure was dated to the Late
Bronze Age (chapter 10) and included single examples of wheat and barley grains,
a hazelnut fragment and a small arable weed assemblage. Context (271) described
as a ‘greasy’ deposit below (205) had a single-hulled wheat grain and onion couch
bulbil.
124
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Post Structure 4
To the south of the pit alignment was a rectangular post structure 4.5m long and
3.5m wide. Five of these postholes, which all contained single fills with charcoal
flecks, were also found to contain charred plant material. Two of the three postholes
on the north-west long axis, [181] and [187], contained single examples of barley
and wheat grain, with a small arable weed assemblage, while posthole [179], on
the south-east corner of the structure, had no grain but several wheat glume bases
and a spikelet fork with a similar weed assemblage. Further small assemblages were
found in postholes [175] and [198]/[121].
Inside the structure was a shallow elongated pit [167] with a fill (166) of burnt
granite stones with a few hulled wheat grains and chaff, a single oat awn and weed
seeds.
Pit [124]
The single fill (112) of pit [124], which lay to the south west of the southern
rectangular structure, again included only single examples of a wheat glume base
and spikelet fork with a ribwort plantain and grass caryopsis amongst a matrix of
charcoal, burnt bone fragments and heat-affected granite stones. Corylus charcoal
provided a Late Bronze Age determination (chapter 10).
Crop plants and weed assemblages
Triticum sp (wheat)
In terms of grain recovered from the Bronze Age features, the occurrence of wheat
was fairly limited, with mostly fewer than ten items in any one feature and the
grains appeared more fragmented than for other types. The better preserved grains
were a hulled variety and are likely to be either emmer (Triticum dicoccum) or spelt
(Triticum spelta). Campbell and Straker (2003, 15) note that emmer wheat was
probably the most frequently grown cereal from the Neolithic and Early Bronze
Age periods, although distinction between these two varieties is difficult, largely
because their morphology is affected by the charring process but also due to an
overlap in their forms. Wheat chaff, necessary to confirm identification of emmer
from spelt was very limited here. In most cases only the very basal areas of the
glumes or spikelet forks were preserved, none displaying any of the diagnostic
features needed. Only one glume base was well enough preserved to identify as
spelt wheat; this came from the Late Bronze Age curvilinear ditch [160]/[170].
Wheat grains were more abundant in the Romano-British hearth, with over 400 of
the better preserved grains of the hulled variety, although no chaff was preserved.
the charred plant remains
125
Hordeum sp. (Barley)
As with wheat, barley grain was only present in very low concentrations. The grain
was generally poorly preserved with the grain surface lost, making it impossible
to determine whether the naked or hulled form was present; however, the more
angular shape of the better preserved examples suggests that hulled barley was
present.
Avena sp. (Oats)
Many of the better preserved grains were identified as oat, but where there was
significant fragmentation and / or distortion, especially where the surfaces were
eroded these were classified as Avena / Poaceae (oat / grass). A large proportion
of the grain was much less well preserved with degrees of fragmentation and / or
pitting and these have been classified as Avena / Poaceae (oat / grass).
In contrast to wheat and barley, oat has its spikelets in panicles with three grains
in each spikelet enclosed in a floret. Oat grains are slender with the widest point
in the middle. In general terms, in cultivated oats (Avena sativa) the first grains
are large, with the second grains smaller, while wild oat (Avena fatua) is similar,
if possibly more slender (Jacomet 2006). There are only occasional traces of oat
from the Middle Bronze Age features, although they become more frequent in the
Romano-British hearth. Measurements were made of 135 of the better preserved
grains from here. These showed little erosion of the grain surface or ‘puffing’ from
charring. The 121 kernels varied in length between 5 and 6mm, and 14 kernels
between 3.5 and 4mm with a fairly consistent width of 1.5-2mm, this smaller size
perhaps more indicative of wild oat.
Cultivated oats are difficult to distinguish from other non-crop grass species
unless the diagnostic features of the floret base are preserved. Wild oats are aggressive
weeds so it is always possible that these are present as crop contaminants, together
with other weed species. The lemma bases of wild oats have a horseshoe-shaped
‘sucker mouth’ scar where the base has disarticulated from the rachis (Moffett
1988), but only two floret bases of wild oats were present from hearth [37], further
suggesting these occurred as field weeds.
Oats, wild or cultivated are occasionally present in small numbers in Middle
Bronze Age and later samples, although they are generally only thought to become
common on sites from the later Iron Age onwards although rarely present in
quantity until the Roman period. However, there are now several records from
Cornwall including earlier investigations at Tremough (Carruthers 2007),
Trethellan (Straker 1991) and features associated with a Middle to Late Bronze Age
post-ring monument found on the Maudlin to Liskeard pipeline (J Jones 1999;
Cole 1999). If some of these oats were cultivated they could have been grown as
fodder for horses or cattle but may also have been important for human nutrition
in the form of porridge and gruel.
126
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Vicia faba (Celtic Bean)
One cotyledon of Celtic Bean was recovered from a Middle Bronze Age posthole
in Roundhouse 1. Remains of beans and peas are less likely to survive as they don’t
require exposure to heat prior to cooking, although a cache of charred beans was
found in a Middle Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevilson (J Jones 2004). These
are likely to have been grown as an additional crop to provide a useful source of
protein and carbohydrate to add to soups and stews.
Wild plants
There is limited evidence for hedgerow plants which may have been collected
as fuel or as food plants. These include hazel, hawthorn, bramble (Rubus sect
Glandulosus) and elder (Sambucus nigra). However, the presence of several charred
oak (Quercus) buds raises the possibility that these taxa were collected as fuel.
Hazel and oak charcoal were dominant in many features examined, reflecting the
oak-hazel woodland of the local landscape.
Arable weeds
A small suite of weed seeds occurs throughout all phases of activity at Tremough,
suggesting little change in practises or land use. The most commonly occurring
are redshank, pale persicaria and docks. These are among a small and rather
unspecialised weed flora that seems to occur from the Bronze Age (Greig 1991)
and it is generally assumed that these would have been growing with the crops and
formed part of crop-processing residues.
Also included are black bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus) and cleavers (Galium
aparine). Both have a twining nature and may have used cereal stems as support,
indicating that the straw was gathered with the crop, which may have been uprooted
or cut near the base rather than by harvesting of individual ears by plucking. Black
bindweed, scentless mayweed and wild radish are annual weeds of autumn-sown
crops such as wheat that germinate in the autumn and grow rapidly with the crop
and are then harvested with the cereals.
Grassland taxa
Through the Middle and later Bronze Age phases there is also a constant, although
small, presence of several grassland taxa. These include ribwort plantain (Plantago
lanceolata), grasses (Poaceae) and selfheal (Prunella vulgaris). These may have been
growing as arable weeds in recently ploughed fields or plots or as invaders from
adjacent grassland.
Many of the samples also include caryopses of heath-grass (Danthonia
decumbens) and tubers from onion couch (Arrhenatherum elatius), which have been
variously interpreted as originating from turves burnt as fuel on hearths or possibly
used in the construction of kilns (Hall 2003) and have often been recorded on
Bronze Age sites (Greig 1991, 304).
the charred plant remains
127
There are two forms of onion couch, one of which produces swollen basal
internodes (tubers). This is Arrhenatherum elatius var. bulbosum that can be a
pernicious weed of arable land spread by breaking up of tubers by ploughing.
In non-arable situations such as rough grassland far fewer tubers are produced
(Robinson 1988). In this situation onion couch can form part of a community
of coarse-leaved tussock grasses with other grasses and dicotyledons including
those taxa recovered here - Plantago lanceolata, Prunella vulgaris and several Rumex
species (Rodwell 1998, 32) – in a habitat of ungrazed grassland or neglected
agricultural land. The presence of some grassland taxa such as these may be a
result of ploughing-up grassland followed by cultivation, as taxa such as ribwort
plantain can survive in arable conditions, but it is difficult to be sure from such
small assemblages as those from Tremough.
Discussion
The Early Neolithic pits at the PAC building site produced only a few fragments of
charred hazelnut shell and this is consistent with other Neolithic features recorded
at Tremough in the past.
Likewise, the earlier Bronze Age post-built Structure 1 produced very little
material: only one of the postholes from the perimeter of the circular structure and
a shallow pit from the interior produced evidence of wheat grain.
The evidence from the Middle Bronze Age Roundhouse 1 was recovered from
postholes situated within the perimeter roundhouse hollow, postholes within the
interior and a later gully. Most of the features examined contained characteristically
poor assemblages with individual occurrences of charred grain and weed seeds,
although one of the posthole fills (761) included several more hulled wheat and
barley grains and two charred Celtic beans. Other evidence from here including
copper-alloy objects and stone moulds suggest that this was an area for metalworking activities, so the scarcity of plant remains is perhaps not surprising.
There is a similar pattern from the later Bronze Age features associated with
Enclosure 1. Many of these features contained large quantities of granite stone,
many heat-cracked from burning (chapter 2), within charcoal-rich fills, although
charred grain and chaff occurred mostly as individual records or with fewer than
five specimens, with small weed assemblages.
Within this enclosure some features may have been used for specific activities
(chapter 11), although there were no certain domestic structures. In the centre of
the enclosure the fill of pit [128] contained a slightly larger assemblage, including
22 hulled wheat grains plus 21 smaller tail grains; other pits within this central
area included mostly low concentrations of cereal waste. In his discussion of
traditional communities of wet regions of modern Turkey, Hillman (1981; 1984)
relates that cereals were stored as spikelets. Small quantities would have been
taken and processed as required on a daily basis within the settlement, possibly
around a hearth, with any waste products discarded onto the fire. In many of the
Tremough samples, weed seeds outnumber both grain and chaff remains, with
several fills containing only seeds, both large and small, a characteristic that could
128
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
be suggestive of the storage of crops as uncleaned spikelets. Clapham and Stevens
(1999) have interpreted this type of assemblage as being indicative of low levels of
social organisation.
The stone structure (205), may represent carefully piled up material derived
from a burnt mound, with an adjacent pit [119] used as a cooking pit. The
function of burnt mounds remains uncertain although the presence of shattered
rock fragments are thought to be the remains of stones heated in fires to heat
water. It has been suggested that they were used for dyeing, leather treatment,
metalworking or more usually for cooking, and especially for cooking joints of
meat (chapter 11). In the past, however, there has been a lack of direct supporting
evidence from archaeological sites for interpretation of burnt mounds as cooking
pits, as animal bone is largely absent; although in the South West peninsula and
other parts of western Britain and Ireland this lack of evidence can perhaps be
explained by poor bone preservation in acidic soil conditions, although a tiny
amount of fragmented burnt bone was found in a second pit [124] amongst a
matrix of heat-affected stones and charcoal (chapter 2). Charred plant remains
are again limited, although in both features are perhaps indications of fuel from
hazel charcoal and burnt turf signified by grassland taxa, including Arrhenatherum
bulbils (J Jones, above).
It is difficult; however, with such small assemblages as those recovered from the
Bronze Age features at Tremough to make any definite interpretations, especially
as it seems likely that the structures within the enclosure may have had several
functions, including perhaps domestic, storage and/or other economic activities.
Evidence of Romano-British activity is limited to a shallow concave pit [37],
probably a hearth. A much richer cereal assemblage recovered from here included
grains of hulled wheat, forming 41 per cent of the assemblage, with barley 4 per
cent, oats 9 per cent, oats / grass 31 per cent and unidentified cereals 15 per cent.
Measurements of the oat grains and two wild oat floret bases may indicate that the
oats were present as crop weeds.
Comparison with other earlier and Middle Bronze Age sites in
Cornwall
A comparable assemblage of charred cereal remains was recovered during previous
work at Tremough, where a complex multi-period site included evidence for a
Neolithic and Bronze Age ceremonial landscape, as well as evidence for Iron Age
and Romano-British settlement and medieval farming (Gossip and Jones 2007;
2009-10). Carruthers (2007, 100-6) similarly found that plant remains from
excavated features were fairly scarce.
An Early Bronze Age pit group produced mostly hazelnut shell, with naked and
hulled barley the principal cereals and smaller amounts of emmer / spelt wheat.
She suggested that these all originated from a burning event close to a particular
pit [57], with numbers falling off further away. Pignut-type (Conopodium majus)
tubers may have been burnt in cut turves used for fuel or have been gathered as a
valuable food source.
the charred plant remains
129
In Middle Bronze Age structure [102] the highest concentration of cereal
grains and arable / disturbed ground weeds occurred in a hearth pit. The
assemblage included hulled barley and several emmer / spelt wheat grains; these
were interpreted as spilt or over-parched grain that had fallen or been thrown
into a fire, with some of the larger weed contaminants, including Persicaria and
Fallopia, having been picked out during preparations for cooking. Included in this
assemblage were four possible oat (cf. Avena) grains, although preservation was
poor and no chaff was recovered.
Most evidence came from a later Middle Bronze Age structure [392], with
the main component cereal grains, mostly emmer/spelt from a hearth pit, with a
spread of material in posthole samples around the structure. Emmer would have
been the principal grain for human consumption. Hulled barley was dominant
in two entrance postholes and Carruthers (2007, 103-4) suggested that as a crop
normally used as animal fodder or bedding, barley was more likely to be widely
scattered around outside the structure, subsequently being swept up and thrown
onto the hearth where it also formed a major component in two features close to
the hearth pit area.
Campbell and Straker’s (2003) paper on prehistoric crop husbandry and plant
use in southern England argued that plant macrofossil evidence was still scarce
from early prehistoric sites in the South West, and it remains the case that Late
Bronze Age sites are still exceptionally rare in the region. Nonetheless, there are an
increasing number of sites in Cornwall that have produced important assemblages
of plant remains from contexts associated with Middle Bronze Age roundhouses.
Postholes from these sites are often surprisingly informative, in contrast to the
earlier charcoal-filled pits where cereal remains seem to be consistently lacking.
Although individual site records are often from small assemblages, taken as a whole
these analyses are gradually increasing our knowledge of crop cultivation and local
economies. The scarcity of charred crop remains should not perhaps be regarded as
unusual, particularly from the earlier Bronze Age, as populations are likely to have
been small, with arable agriculture also small-scale; processing of cereals within
settlement enclosures is likely to have been carried out by individual households
on a daily basis.
Evidence for Early Bronze Age ploughing comes from the study of a Bronze
Age farming landscape at the coastal site of Gwithian on St Ives Bay, where three
phases of settlement occupation from circa 1800 to 900 cal BC were exposed,
including evidence of stone-walled fields with ard plough and spade marks (Fowler
1983). The settlement was probably associated with agricultural activity, with a
series of Bronze Age fields apparently under fairly continuous cultivation by cross
ploughing. We can therefore posit an increase in agricultural activity from the Early
Bronze Age that is likely to have involved clearance of grassland for cultivation of
crops, with emmer / spelt wheat, barley, possibly oats, and Celtic Bean recorded at
Tremough and other Cornish sites. A cache of Celtic Beans and a record for garden
pea are known at Scarcewater, with the addition of flax from Trethellan Farm.
130
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Middle Bronze Age (circa 1500-1000 cal BC) features from three hollow-set
roundhouses at Scarcewater (J Jones 2010, 142-9) presented low concentrations
of hulled wheat and occasional barley, but no cereal chaff from pits and postholes.
Seed assemblages similar to Tremough included arable weeds, with more typical
grassland taxa, including onion couch; here, too, the charred remains were
interpreted as stray items from activities such as food preparation that were swept
from floor surfaces onto household fires, there becoming mixed with the other fuel
identified from charcoal remains.
Low concentrations of cultivated crops, including hulled wheat, barley, possibly
oat, Celtic bean and garden pea (Pisum sativum), from a range of features were also
recorded from a Middle Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevilson, located in central
Cornwall (J Jones 2004). As with the roundhouses at Scarcewater, the evidence
largely relates to phases of construction and abandonment, with little direct
evidence for domestic activities within the house itself, apart from a shallow scoop
[532] that produced a cache of over 150 whole and 100 half cotyledons of Celtic
beans, thought to have been accidentally charred as part of food preparation, all
subsequently incorporated in post and stake-hole fills with fuel debris.
At Boden Vean, St Anthony-in-Meneage, samples from the floor of a hollow
identified as part of a Middle Bronze Age structure included a small assemblage
of hulled and free-threshing wheat and barley (J Jones 2005). Geophysical survey
identified a field system around this roundhouse; however, excavation revealed
that it was of later, Iron Age date (Gossip 2008c; 2013). A Bronze Age roundhouse
at Trethellan Farm, near Newquay, revealed evidence for the cultivation of
predominantly naked barley, with emmer and a small number of oats (either
cultivated or wild), with occasional Celtic bean (Straker 1991). The settlement at
Trethellan was adjacent to a contemporary field system, so it is likely that the crops
were locally cultivated. By contrast, Middle to Late Bronze Age features associated
with the Maudlin to Liskeard pipeline (J Jones 1999; Cole 1999) revealed pits and
postholes associated with a timber post-ring monument. Here again, postholes
seem to have acted as grain traps; one feature in particular was found to contain a
rich assemblage including over 400 oats, although there was only one Avena fatua
floret base to suggest this may have been a deposit of wild oats.
the charred plant remains
131
Key to charred plant remains
Plant remains
Common name
Hordeum sp.
Barley
Triticum spelta
Spelt wheat
Triticum sp.
Wheat
Cereal indet.
Cereals
Avena sp.
Oat
Avena / Poaceae
Oat / grass
Arrhenatherum elatius (L.)P. Beauv.ex J.S. & C.Presl
Onion couch / False Oat-grass
Carex sp
Sedge
Chenopodium album L.
Fat-hen
Corylus avellana L.
Hazel
Crataegus monogyna JacQ
Hawthorn
Danthonia decumbens (L.) DC
Heath-grass
Fallopia convolvulus (L.)A.Love
Black-bindweed
Galium aparine L.
Cleavers
Lapsana communis L.
Nipplewort
Persicaria lapathifolia (l.)Gray
Pale Persicaria
Persicaria maculosa Gray
Redshank
Persicaria lapathifolia/maculosa
Pale Persicaria / Redshank
Poa/Phleum spp.
Meadow-grass/Cat’s-tail
Plantago lanceolata L.
Ribwort Plantain
Prunella vulgaris L.
Selfheal
Quercus sp.
Oak
Poaceae
Grass
Raphanus raphanistrum ssp. raphanistrum
Wild Radish
Rubus sect. Glandulosus Wimmer & Grab
Bramble
Rumex spp.
Dock
Sambucus nigra L.
Elder
Silene dioica
Red Campion
Spergula arvensis L.
Corn Spurrey
Trifolium/Medicago spp.
Clover/Medick
Tripleurospermum inodorum (L.) Schultz-Bip
Scentless Mayweed
Vicia faba L.
Celtic/Horse Bean
132
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Sample
Context
Feature
Sample
size
(litres)
Float
size
(ml)
Charred plant remains
Structure 1 (Early Bronze Age)
100
(18)
posthole [19]
10
3
Triticum sp. (hulled wheat grain) 1
Cereal indet. (grain) 1
Arrhenatherum elatius (bulbil) 2
102
(11)
pit [23]
10
13
Triticum sp. (hulled grain) 7
gully fill
20
60
Avena sp. (grain) 2
Poaceae indet. 1
Roundhouse 1 (Middle Bronze Age)
353
(280)
351
(704)
posthole [705],
10
17
Hordeum sp. (grain) 1
347
(700)
posthole [701]
/
30
Lapsana communis 1
357
(761)
posthole [762]
7
85
Hordeum sp. (tail grain) 2
Triticum sp. (hulled wheat) 6
c.f. Triticum sp. (hulled wheat) 5
Triticum sp. (hulled wheat tail grain) 1
Arrhenatherum elatius (bulbil) 1
Avena sp. 1
Fallopia convolvulus 1
Galium aparine 1
Plantago lanceolata 1
Poaceae indet. 1
Vicia faba 2
356
(794)
posthole [795]
2
33
Poaceae indet. 1
348
(291)
ditch [292]
Post-dates
Roundhouse 1
40
32
Fallopia convolvulus 2
Lapsana communis 1
Persicaria lapathifolia 1
Plantago lanceolata 1
Poa/Phleum spp. 8
Poaceae indet. 2
Trifolium/Medicago sp. 1
Enclosure 1 ditch and internal features (Late Bronze Age)
Curvilinear ditch [160]
337
(267)
ditch [160]
10
16
359
(798)
ditch [160]
30
110
Triticum spelta (glume base) 1
Triticum sp. (spikelet fork) 1
Danthonia decumbens 2
Hordeum sp. (grain) 1
Triticum sp (hulled grain) 3
Pit / Posthole Group 1
324
(157)
posthole [158]
30
9
Chenopodium album 1
Persicaria lapathifolia 1
Plantago lanceolata 1
317
(143)
posthole [144]
20
14
Danthonia decumbens 1
Poaceae indet. 1
323
(163)
pit [164]
20
15
Danthonia decumbens 1
336
(248)
charcoal scoop
[249]
10
29
Hordeum sp. (grain) 2
Triticum sp. (glume base) 3
Triticum sp. (spikelet fork) 1
Plantago lanceolata 1
Quercus sp. (bud) 1
316
(131)
posthole [132]
10
6
Poaceae indet. 2
Table 8.2 (this page and following pages): Charred plant remains from all Bronze Age features
and Romano-British pit [37].
the charred plant remains
133
Sample
Context
Feature
Sample
size
(litres)
Float
size
(ml)
Charred plant remains
325
(176)
posthole [177]
10
39
Arrhenatherum elatius (bulbil) fragment
321
(153)
posthole [154]
10
12
Triticum sp. (glume base) 1
Triticum sp. (spikelet fork) 1
334
(206)
pit [193]
2
100
Hordeum sp. (grain) 1
Hordeum/Triticum sp. (grain) 1
Triticum sp. (glume base) 5
Pit Alignment 2
333
(201)
pit [202]
3
14
Triticum sp. (hulled grain) 1
Triticum sp. (glume base) 1
312
(125)
pit [126]
10
170
Triticum sp. (hulled wheat) 3
Triticum sp. (glume base) 1
Corylus avellana 1 frag
Danthonia decumbens 2
Galium aparine 1
Plantago lanceolata 4
305
(122)
pit [123]
10
14
313
(133)
pit [134]
25
160
309
(127)
pit [128]
20
20
Triticum sp. (hulled grain) 22
c.f. Triticum sp. (hulled grain) 8
Triticum sp. (tail grain) 21
Triticum sp. (glume base) 1
Avena/Poaceae indet. (grain) 2
Triticum sp. (hulled grain) 3
c.f. Triticum sp. (hulled grain) 1
Avena/Poaceae indet. (grain) 1
Plantago lanceolata 1
Quercus sp. (bud) 1
Triticum sp. (grain) 2
Triticum sp. (glume base) 2
Triticum sp. (spikelet fork) 1
Avena/Poaceae 1
Danthonia decumbens 2
Persicaria maculosa 3
Rubus sect. Glandulosus 1
Structure 205
338
(115)
hollow [116]
20
32
Hordeum sp. (grain) 1
Triticum sp. (hulled grain) 1
306
(115)
hollow [116]
10
37
Corylus avellana
1 fragment
355
(743)
pit [744]
10
300
340
(271)
below (205)
/
4
134
Chenopodium album 1
Fallopia convolvulus 2
Persicaria maculosa 4
Plantago lanceolata 1
1
Triticum sp. (hulled grain) 1
Arrhenatherum elatius (bulbil) 1
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Sample
Context
Feature
Sample
size
(litres)
Float
size
(ml)
Charred plant remains
Post Structure 4
328
(180)
posthole [181]
10
48
c.f. Hordeum sp. (grain) 1
Triticum sp. (hulled grain) 1
Chenopodium album 1
Fallopia convolvulus 1
Galium aparine
1 fragment
Persicaria lapathifolia 2
Spergula arvensis 1
332
(186)
posthole [187]
11
12
Hordeum sp. (grain) 1
Carex sp 1
326
(178)
posthole [179]
20
64
Triticum sp. (glume base) 2
Triticum sp. (spikelet fork) 1
Corylus avellana 1 frag
Fallopia convolvulus 1
Galium aparine 2
Persicaria lapathifolia 1
Persicaria maculosa 10
Plantago lanceolata 1
Poaceae 1
331
(174)
posthole [175]
10
56
Triticum sp. (hulled grain) 1
Galium aparine 1
Persicaria maculosa 3
307
(120)
posthole [121]
10
44
Triticum sp. (hulled grain) 5
Triticum sp. (glume base) 2
Avena/Bromus sp. 1
Arrhenatherum elatius (bulbil) 1
Galium aparine 2
Persicaria maculosa 1
329
(166)
pit [167]
40
50
Triticum sp. (hulled grain) 3
Triticum sp. (glume base) 1
Triticum sp. (spikelet fork) 1
Avena sp. (awn) 1
Galium aparine 1+ 1 frag
Persicaria lapathifolia 2
Sambucus nigra 1
(112)
pit [124]
10
21
Triticum sp. (glume base) 1
Triticum sp. (spikelet fork) 1
Plantago lanceolata 1
Poaceae indet. 1
Pit [124]
308
the charred plant remains
135
Sample
Context
Feature
Sample
size
(litres)
Float
size
(ml)
Charred plant remains
385
Hordeum sp. (hulled grain) 6
Hordeum sp. (hulled/straight grain) 13
Hordeum sp. (rachis internode base) 4
Hordeum sp. (rachis section with 2 internode
bases) 4
Hordeum sp. (grain) 25
Hordeum sp. (tail grain) 7
Triticum sp. (hulled grain) 402
c.f. Triticum sp. (grain) 124
Triticum sp. (tail grain) 75
Cereal indet. 220
Arrhenatherum elatius (bulbil) 1
Avena sp. (grain) 135
Avena/Poaceae (grain) 440
Avena sp. (grain enclosed in floret) 3
Avena fatua ( floret base) 2
Avena sp. (floret base) 2
Avena sp. (awn) 1
Corylus avellana (nut) 4 fragments
Crataegus monogyna 1
Danthonia decumbens 1
Fallopia convolvulus 4
Lapsana communis 2 + 1 fragment
Persicaria lapathifolia 41
Persicaria maculosa 16
Persicaria lapathifolia/maculosa 20
Poaceae 10
Raphanus raphanistrum (pods) 12 + 5
fragments
Rumex spp. 87
Silene dioica 3
Tripleurospermum inodorum 16
Hearth Pit [37] (Romano-British)
106
(36)
hearth [37]
20
Chapter 9
The charcoal
Dana Challinor
In 2009 two Early Neolithic pits were excavated and a small number of samples taken
which produced charcoal. During the 2011 excavations a range of environmental
samples were taken at the AIR building and Car Park 4 in order to examine charred
remains associated with various Bronze Age structures.
Methodology
All of the samples were examined under low magnification, with a selection of the
richer and / or more diverse assemblages studied in greater detail: 20-50 fragments
per sample (depending upon diversity) were identified. This approach provides a
reliable indication of the most commonly used taxa and individual predominance
within a sample, without providing a complete species list.
The charcoal was fractured and sorted into groups based on the anatomical
features observed in transverse section at x7 to x45 magnifications. Representative
fragments from each group were then selected for further examination in longitudinal
sections using a Meiji incident-light microscope at up to x400 magnification.
Identifications were made with reference to Schweingruber (1990), Hather (2000)
and modern reference material. The maturity of the wood and relevant ring
characteristics were noted where possible. Classification and nomenclature follow
Stace (1997). For the purposes of the analysis, a combined approach of ubiquity
analysis (encompassing all the samples with identified charcoal) and fragment
count (comprising the quantified samples) was used.
Early Neolithic pits [102] and [105]
The charcoal was examined from samples of approximately 10 litres of soil
excavated from two pits which produced Early Neolithic pottery, deposits (100)
and (103).
Results
The preservation of the material was variable; (100) produced a fairly sparse
assemblage of small, friable fragments, while (103) contained abundant, firm
charcoal, including large fragments (>20mm in transverse section). Table 9.1
presents a summary of the results, including estimates of abundance based upon
the scanning of the whole flot, and the full results are recorded in the archive.
the charcoal
137
Feature
[102]
[105]
Context
(100)
(103)
Quercus sp. (oak)
X hr
X
Corylus avellana (hazel)
xr
Xr
Maloideae (hawthorn group)
xr
Table 9.1: Taxonomic composition of charcoal from
Early Neolithic pits [102] and [105] (x = present;
X = dominant; h = heartwood; r = roundwood).
The curvature of the rings indicated that several of the fragments came from small
diameter roundwood. There were no complete stems, but some of the larger hazel
pieces in sample 401 were reasonably slow grown and included at least 16 rings.
Two pieces of Corylus avellana (hazel) were selected from each sample for dating.
Discussion
The assemblage from pit [105], fill (103) was overwhelmingly dominated by hazel
charcoal, while pit [102], fill (100), produced a more mixed assemblage of oak,
hazel and hawthorn group. The assemblages are comparable to those recorded by
Gale (2007) from earlier excavations at Tremough, where one Early Neolithic pit
was dominated by hazel, and another prehistoric pit contained oak and hazel. Gale
also suggests that the fast growth rate of the hazel stems is indicative of woodland
management. There was nothing in the character of the wood from the current
site, which tended to be slow grown, to suggest woodland management, although
this cannot be entirely discounted.
It is apparent that the assemblages at both sites reflect the surrounding vegetation,
which was predominantly oak-hazel woodland in this period (Wilkinson and
Straker 2008). Other Neolithic sites in the region have also indicated that oak and
hazel wood were most commonly utilised for fuel (Cartwright 1988; Challinor,
forthcoming; Gale 2006). The presence of hazelnut shell in both pits also suggests
a link between the gathering practices of fuelwood and food.
Bronze Age
Twelve samples from the AIR site were from postholes or pits / hearths associated
with the Early Bronze Age Structure 1. Fifty-one samples were available from Car
Park 4, with the majority producing identifiable fragments of charcoal, albeit of
varying quantities. For the purposes of this report, the samples are discussed in
groups, according to their association with major features such as Roundhouse 1
and the rectangular Post Structure 4 in Enclosure 1. The results are presented in
Tables 9.2 and 9.3 below by area and feature group.
Results
The condition and preservation of the charcoal was variable, with some samples
containing small, friable or sediment-infused material and others with relatively
large fragments with a clean and clear anatomical structure. This is likely to be due
to the depositional environment and taphonomic process as well as the nature of
the charcoal-production events.
138
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Ten taxa were positively identified, all consistent with native taxa.
Fagaceae:
Quercus spp., oak, large tree, two native species, not distinguishable
anatomically.
Betulaceae:
Betula spp. (birch), trees or shrubs, two native species, not distinguishable
anatomically.
Alnus glutinosa, Gaertn., alder, tree, sole native species. Corylus has a very
similar anatomical structure to Alnus and can be difficult to separate.
Corylus avellana L., hazel, shrub or small tree, only native species.
Salicaceae:
The genera Salix spp. (willow) and Populus spp. (poplar) are rarely possible
to separate. Both are trees although there is variation within the genera.
Rosaceae:
Prunus spp., trees or shrubs, including P. spinosa L. (blackthorn), P. avium L.
(wild cherry) and P. padus L. (bird cherry), all native, which can sometimes
be separated on the basis of ray width. Only P. spinosa was positively
identified, but the key distinguishing characteristics were often ambiguous
due to poor condition.
Maloideae, subfamily of various shrubs / small trees including several genera,
Pyrus (pear), Malus (apple), Sorbus (rowan / service / whitebeam) and Crataegus
(hawthorn), which are rarely distinguishable by anatomical characteristics.
Fabaceae:
Cytisus / Ulex, broom / gorse, shrubs, several native species, not
distinguishable anatomically.
Aquifoliaceae:
Ilex aquifolium L., (holly), evergreen tree or shrub, native.
Araliaceae:
Hedera helix L., ivy, climber, sole native species.
Structure 1
This earlier Bronze Age post-built structure was located in isolation from other
investigated features. Three samples, from the 12 examined, produced abundant
assemblages of charcoal and were analysed in some detail (Table 9.2). Pit [27]
was composed entirely of Quercus sp. (oak), which also dominated the assemblage
of posthole [66], although with some Corylus avellana (hazel) and Cytisus / Ulex
(broom / gorse). Hearth [37] provided the most diverse charcoal assemblage with
oak, hazel, Populus / Salix (poplar / willow), Maloideae (hawthorn group) and Ilex
aquifolium (holly).
the charcoal
139
Feature type
Pit
Hearth
Posthole
Feature number
[27]
[37]
[66]
(65)
Context number
(26)
(36)
Quercus sp.
oak
30 (4h)
16 (5r, 2h)
19 (5r, 3h)
Corylus avellana L.
hazel
16 (8r)
4
Alnus / Corylus
Alder / hazel
3
2
Populus / Salix
Poplar / willow
1
Maloideae
hawthorn group
10 (4r)
Cytisus / Ulex
Broom / gorse
Ilex aquifolium L.
holly
5
4
Table 9.2: Quantified charcoal from Earlier Bronze Age Structure 1 (h = heartwood;
s = sapwood; r = roundwood).
The remaining samples from postholes [15], [17], [19], [25], [49], [51] and
[58] produced small quantities (five to ten fragments) of oak and hazel, with a
single fragment of Betula sp. (birch) from [51]. Pits [23] and [56] were slightly
richer in quantity of charcoal, but the taxonomic composition was comparable to
the other samples, with some holly and broom / gorse from [23].
Roundhouse 1
Fifteen samples were examined from the Middle Bronze Age Roundhouse 1 (see
Table 9.3 at the end of the chapter). Seven of these, from postholes [701], [705],
[740], [762], [795], a ditch [292] and the infill deposit containing the stone
moulds (280), produced abundant assemblages and merited further work. The
remaining eight samples produced either very small quantities of charcoal or were
limited by poor preservation, but all contained Quercus (oak) and some positive
identifications were also made of Corylus avellana (hazel), Maloideae (hawthorn
group) and Ilex aquifolium (holly). In addition to these four taxa, the richer
samples provided evidence for Betula sp. (birch), Alnus glutinosa (alder), Prunus sp.
(cherry / blackthorn) and Cytisus / Ulex (broom / gorse).
Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1
Enclosure ditch [160]/[170]
There were two samples from enclosure ditch [160]/[170], with the richer one
(798) from [170] examined in greater detail (see Table 9.4 at the end of the
chapter). Quercus sp. (oak) dominated the assemblages, with Corylus avellana
(hazel) and traces of Prunus sp. (cherry/blackthorn), Betula sp. (birch) and Alnus
glutinosa (alder).
140
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Posthole / Pit Group 1
Twelve samples from cut features in Posthole / Pit Group 1 produced variable
quantities of charcoal, with abundant assemblages from pits [177], [193] and
[249]. Five taxa were positively identified from the richer samples: Quercus sp.
(oak), Corylus avellana (hazel), Prunus spinosa (blackthorn), Maloideae (hawthorn
group) and Cytisus / Ulex (broom / gorse). To this list may be added probable
Betula sp. (birch) from posthole [152]. Analysis of the richer samples (Table 9.4)
indicated that fragments of taxa which were not oak or hazel tended to be rare
and this pattern appeared to be the same in all of the other samples; all, with
the exception of pit [114], which contained little and small material, produced
oak and nine included hazel. There were also abundant roundwood fragments,
indicating small diameter branch or stem wood.
Pit Alignment 2
Six samples from pits were examined, with the assemblages from pits [126], [134]
and [136] composed entirely of Quercus sp. (oak) and [128] with additional
traces of Corylus avellana (hazel). The remaining two samples produced slightly
more diverse assemblages, albeit still oak-dominated, with the additional taxa of
Betula sp. (birch) and Cytisus / Ulex (broom / gorse). Much of the oak had split,
characteristically, down the rays leaving thin slivers from which it was difficult
to determine maturity. However, some was clearly heartwood, with evidence of
tyloses, and the majority of larger fragments did not show any curvature to the
growth rings, indicating that trunkwood was represented. One fragment from pit
[134] showed evidence of round insect tunnels with frass (faecal material).
Structure 205
The stone structure uncovered within hollow [116] showed evidence of burning
and the materials were interpreted as possibly deriving from a burnt mound (see
chapter 2, above). Three samples from context (115) (and 743) which filled
hollow [116] were mostly dominated by Quercus sp. (oak), with small components
of other taxa including Betula sp. (birch), Prunus sp. (blackthorn / cherry) and
Cytisus / Ulex (broom / gorse). The condition of the charcoal was quite poor,
the oak largely limited to thin slivers and the diffuse porous taxa infused with
sediment. Two samples from deposits (270) and (271), situated below the stone
structure, produced very little charcoal, with the exception of a couple of small
oak fragments.
Post Structure 3
The two postholes, [146] and [148], sampled from this structure produced only
small flecks of unidentifiable charcoal.
the charcoal
141
Post Structure 4
With the exception of posthole [187], all of the charcoal assemblages from postholes
[121], [175], [179], [181] and pit [167] contained large quantities of Quercus sp.
(oak). There was, however, some diversity in the taxonomic composition, with
Betula sp. (birch), Alnus glutinosa (alder), Corylus avellana (hazel), Prunus spinosa
(blackthorn), Maloideae (hawthorn), Cytisus / Ulex (broom / gorse), Ilex aquifolium
(holly) and Hedera helix (ivy). The ivy was probably an accidental inclusion,
entering the assemblage attached to another branch. There were some roundwood
fragments, especially notable in context (174). Posthole [187] was unusual in the
presence of only a few fragments of oak, and a larger quantity of hazel. Strong ring
curvature and a few whole stems indicated that the hazel came from small diameter
branchwood or young stems.
Pit [124]
This large Late Bronze Age pit contained heat fractured stones, possibly derived
from an adjacent burnt mound, and included numerous pottery fragments and
other finds. The charcoal assemblage comprised 70 per cent Quercus, with 23
per cent Corylus avellana and small amounts of Maloideae (hawthorn group)
and Cytisus / Ulex (broom / gorse). Some of the hazel fragments exhibited insect
tunnels, which were small and round in shape.
Discussion
Woodland resources
It is immediately apparent from the charcoal assemblage at Tremough that oak
was the most important of the woody resources utilised at the site throughout
the Bronze Age. It is clearly the most frequently encountered taxon (Figure 9.1),
as well as the most dominant in fragment count (Figure 9.2). The ubiquity
analysis (Figure 9. 1) shows that the most common four taxa in all phases are oak,
hazel, birch and hawthorn group, but it does not demonstrate the dominance of
oak within individual assemblages which is revealed by the quantified samples
(Figure 9.2). Additionally, it becomes apparent from this combined approach that
the ‘other’ taxa (which comprise cherry / blackthorn, holly, alder, poplar / willow
and ivy) are found both sporadically and in significantly lower quantities than the
four major taxa.
Without claiming that the charcoal provides an exact representation of the
environment, it is nonetheless reasonable to infer that oak-hazel woodland would
have been both easily accessible and readily available for exploitation. The pollen
record for South West Britain indicates that oak-hazel woodland broadly dominated
the area in prehistory, and was slowly eroded by clearances from the Early Bronze
Age onwards (Wilkinson and Straker 2007). Birch is known as a pioneer species
(especially Betula pendula which is a likely contender in this region), as it rapidly
colonises open areas. It is tempting to speculate, therefore, that the apparent dip in
142
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
oak and hazel usage in the Middle Bronze Age (Figures 9.1 and 9.2), together with
the rise in birch in this phase, reflect some changes in the landscape. However,
the picture may not be so clear-cut, as the Middle Bronze Age phase is effectively
limited to the samples associated with Roundhouse 1, from which the charcoal
may have had a very specific function associated with metalworking (above). The
origin of the charcoal assemblages, that is to say, whether as a selected fuelwood
related to a specific activity or burnt structural remains, obviously has a bearing on
any interpretation of the landscape and is discussed in detail below.
Nonetheless, even taking into account some bias for selection processes,
the charcoal demonstrates that mixed oak-hazel woodland was exploited and
probably managed throughout the Bronze Age, with a range of supplementary
taxa drawn from marginal or scrub / hedgerow type environments (hawthorn
group, blackthorn) and heathland. The heathland was probably gorse-dominated,
especially on the acidic granite of Carnmenellis. It is also possible that the birch
may be indicative of colonisation in emergent heathland. The onset of heathland
Figure 9.1 Percentage frequency of taxa by phase: Ubiquity analysis (based
upon 57 samples).
Figure 9.2 Percentage frequency of taxa by phase: Fragment count (based
upon 31 samples, 813 fragments).
the charcoal
143
in the region is still being investigated (Straker et al 2007, 112), but it may
be of significance that two Early Neolithic sites in the Tremough area did not
provide evidence for the use of gorse (Gale 2007; Challinor above). The paucity of
riparian taxa in the charcoal assemblage suggests that there was a plentiful supply
of preferred woodland resources (that is to say oak and hazel), since the habitat
around the River Fal (and tributaries) to the north of the site would have readily
supported wet ground taxa such as willow and alder.
Origin of the charcoal assemblages
As seen above, the derivation of the charcoal is the key to understanding the
selection processes involved in the formation of the assemblages. The majority of
the features from Tremough were postholes and almost all were associated with
buildings of some kind. Since there was no on-site evidence for the burning down
of any of the structures, the charcoal does not represent burnt structural remains
from a catastrophic event. However, there are several other processes which might
have led to the assemblage formation:
Charcoal accumulated from spent fuelwood which naturally found its way in
small quantities into these features during the construction and use of the building.
Dumps of waste fuel material were deliberately deposited in pits / ditches
during the use of the building or in postholes post-abandonment.
Fragments of charred post-ends – charring may have been thought to reduce
potential decay on posts set in the ground – remained in situ after the post was
removed or decayed away.
Consequently, there may be some evidence for structural timbers represented in
the charcoal record. Taxonomic identifications alone do not particularly illuminate
the issue: oak and hazel (and birch) all make suitable construction woods and it is
highly probable that the main posts used in these Bronze Age buildings would have
been of oak. The sheer quantity of these taxa recovered throughout the Tremough
features indicates, however, that they must also have been utilised as fuelwood. The
association of artefacts with the charcoal may provide some aid for interpretation:
some of the postholes and pits in Pit / Posthole Group 1 and Pit Alignment 2
contained burnt stones; others contained fragments of pottery and burnt bone
indicative of domestic waste. Analysis was undertaken to determine if there were
any patterns within the taxonomic composition of the charcoal relating to the
presence or absence of burnt stones, with Structure [205] included for comparison
(Figure 9.3). Figure 9.3 shows that oak and hazel are dominant in both categories
(with and without burnt stone), and there is some higher diversity (represented
by the ‘other’ group) in the pits / postholes with burnt stone. However, the actual
values were very small and a similar analysis based upon fragment count also
showed that any contrast was negligible.
Perhaps of greater significance is the absence of hazel from Structure 205 which
might indicate deliberate avoidance. However, hazel is commonly used for fuel at
other sites, including, for instance, in a Beaker burnt mound at Lower Boscaswell
(Gale 2006), so it seems unlikely to have been a significant omission. Ultimately,
144
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
the charcoal record is inconclusive and this probably reflects the mixed nature of
the assemblages.
The evidence for copper-alloy working in Roundhouse 1, represented by
several stone moulds and copper-alloy objects, suggests a more specific activity
was taking place in this structure. The charcoal assemblages, however, do not offer
any supporting evidence for context-related variation between the mould contexts
(internal fill), possible associated deposits (internal features) and probably unrelated
assemblages (outer post ring) (Figure 9.4). It is interesting, in a general sense, to
note the paucity of hazel and quantity of birch in these assemblages, but it is not
possible to determine if this relates to activity or to phase, bearing in mind that
Roundhouse 1 was dated to the Middle Bronze Age compared to the dominance of
oak-hazel in the Late Bronze Age structures located within Enclosure 1.
Figure 9.3 Ubiquity analysis of charcoal from pits / postholes with and
without burnt stone from the Pit / Posthole Group 1 and Pit Alignment 2,
and Structure 205 (based upon 18 samples).
Figure 9.4 Taxonomic composition of features found in Roundhouse 1,
based upon fragment count (6 samples; 227 fragments).
the charcoal
145
Conclusions
Examination of the charcoal assemblages from Tremough did not reveal any
significant context-related variations; however, it is clear that the charcoal record
reflects the oak-hazel woodland that dominated the Cornish landscape in prehistory
(Wilkinson and Straker 2007). In general, oak was well-utilised in all phases, for
a variety of wood uses, from construction timbers to wood fuel, and possibly even
charcoal fuel, for which oak is eminently suitable (Gale and Cutler 2000). Some
differences in the quantities of birch and hazel charcoal in the Middle Bronze
Age are noted but it is uncertain whether this relates to activity types or localised
changes in the landscape, which are evident in other areas.
At Tremough, by the Late Bronze Age, hazel consumption had recovered which
suggests that any variations were due to either short-lived landscape change or
preferential selection. The data from Tremough are consistent with other Bronze
Age sites in Cornwall (for example, Challinor, forthcoming; Gale 2006) which
testify to the dominance of oak and hazel, and there is some suggestion of the
exploitation of heathland resources by the Early Bronze Age.
146
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Group
Roundhouse 1
Feature
Ditch
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Infill layer
Feature number
[292]
[701]
[705]
[286]
[762]
[795]
-
Context
(291)
(700)
(704)
(284)
(761)
(794)
(280)
Quercus sp.
oak
17 (4r, 1h)
9 (2h, 1s, 6r)
13 (1h, 1r)
9 (1h, 2s, 1r)
28 (10r)
8 (7r)
14 (7h, 3r)
Betula sp.
birch
4
14 (1r)
10
12
9
10
Alnus glutinosa Gaertn.
alder
Corylus avellana L.
hazel
4
1r
Betulaceae
birch family
Prunus spinosa L.
blackthorn
Prunus sp.
cherry type
Maloideae
hawthorn group
1
1
3
Cytisus / Ulex
broom / gorse
2r
5r
3r
Ilex aquifolium L.
holly
1
5 (1r)
2
1
1
1
1
4
2r
3 (1r)
cf. Maloideae
the charcoal
Bark
6 (4r)
22r
3
1
Table 9.3: Charcoal assemblage from Middle Bronze Age Roundhouse 1 (fragment count; quantified samples only) (h = heartwood;
s = sapwood; r = roundwood; b =bark).
147
Group
Enclosure 1 ditch Pit / Posthole Group 1
148
Feature type
Ditch
Pits / Postholes
Feature number
[160]
[177]
[193]
Pit Alignment 2
Structure 205
Pits
[249]
[123]
Pit
[128]
[134]
[201]
[116]
[116]
Post Structure 4
Pit [124]
Posthole Pit
Postholes
[121]
[175]
[167]
Pit
[179]
[187]
(186)
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Context number
(798)
(176)
(206)
(248)
(122)
(127)
133
(201)
(115)
(115)
(120)
(166)
(174)
(178)
Quercus sp.
oak
18
(2s, 1h, 6r)
23
(12r, 1h, 2s)
21
(7h, 4r)
12
(1h, 2r)
10 (2r)
19 (3r)
30
(3h)
13 (1h)
18 (2s)
14 (4r)
18
(2r)
21
(1h,4r)
19
(6r)
19
4
(2h, 3s, 2r)
Betula sp.
birch
1
cf.1
1
1
2
2
2r
Alnus glutinosa Gaertn.
alder
Corylus avellana L.
hazel
5
7
5 (2r)
9r
2
2
1
4
1
1
2
1
4
1r
1r
cf.1
1r
2r
1r
4
1r
1
2r
Ilex aquifolium L.
holly
2
Hedera helix L.
ivy
Indeterminate
7
1
Maloideae
hawthorn group
Cytisus / Ulex
broom / gorse
16r
1
Prunus spinosa L.
blackthorn
Prunus sp.
cherry type
(112)
21
(1h,11r)
1
Alnus / Corylus
alder / hazel
Betulaceae
birch family
[124]
5r
1b
2b
3
1b
Table 9.4 (following page): Charcoal from Enclosure 1: Late Bronze Age features (fragment count; quantified samples only) (h = heartwood; s = sapwood;
r = roundwood; b = bark.
1
Chapter 10
Radiocarbon dating
Andy M Jones
The primary aim of the dating strategy was to obtain a series of determinations
from a representative range of archaeological features, relating to Structure 1 in the
AIR building area and Roundhouse 1 and Enclosure 1 and associated features in
Car Park 4. All of these features were excavated in 2011 and on ceramic grounds
were thought to date to the Bronze Age, with Structure 1 potentially dating to the
earlier part of the period and Enclosure 1 being rather later (chapter 3). Both of the
sites also had the potential to shed light on metalworking in Bronze Age Cornwall.
Roundhouse 1, for example was associated with a series of moulds, metalworking
residues and copper-alloy objects. Given that these finds are usually found in
unstratified contexts, the dating of a ‘metalworker’s house’ had the potential to
provide very close dating for these artefacts. As such, the results from the dating
were of national importance.
Finally it was also hoped that the radiocarbon determinations would help to
further develop an understanding of the Bronze Age chronology of the site and
complement the twelve dates for this period obtained from the 2002 excavations
(Gossip and Jones 2007, chapter 6). For example, did the metalworking activity
in Roundhouse 1 overlap with the use of the ceremonial timber circles in the field
to the north? How long after the other features had gone out of use was the Late
Bronze Age Enclosure 1 in Car Park 4 constructed?
In addition, this chapter also includes the results of the radiocarbon dating
of samples taken from two pits with Early Neolithic pottery found within the
PAC area in 2009. Again, it was hoped that the dating would build upon two
determinations which were obtained from earlier excavations and would help to
improve the chronological resolution for activities taking place across the site. For
example, other areas across the site had been associated with flint knapping or with
pits containing burnt material, whereas the area of the PAC building contained
evidence for pits associated with pottery. In other words, it was hoped that the
new radiocarbon determinations would shed light on whether these activities were
contemporary with one another.
radiocarbon dating
149
Dating strategy
Given the general absence of stratigraphical relationships between features
found across the site, the development of any finer-grained understanding of the
site’s chronology would be largely dependent upon obtaining a reliable series of
radiocarbon determinations, taken from sealed contexts.
All of the samples selected for dating were either derived from charcoal from
grains, charred hazelnut shells, short-lived species or were on ceramic residues.
All were submitted for accelerator mass spectrometry dating (AMS). This method
of dating can be carried out on very small amounts of material and gives a high
precision date.
The radiocarbon dating was undertaken by the Scottish Universities
Environmental Research Centre (SUERC) at Glasgow. All the determinations have
been calibrated using Oxcal 4.1 and, unless otherwise stated, are quoted at the
95 per cent level of confidence. Older dates cited from Tremough and other sites
have been recalibrated to the same curve. This means that they may differ slightly
from previous publications (for example, Gossip and Jones 2007, 112-17).
Results from dating programme
Two samples were submitted on charred hazelnut shells obtained from pits in the
PAC building area. Fourteen samples were originally submitted for radiocarbon
dating on material from archaeological features in the AIR building and Car Park 4
areas. In addition, two further samples were submitted from pit [37] which was
adjacent to Structure 1. Samples were submitted from this feature because a large
assemblage of oats was identified (J Jones, above). The radiocarbon dating of oat
grains and wild radish returned near identical determinations 1690±35 BP, cal AD
253-419 (SUERC-53786) and 1680±35 BP, cal AD 254-425 (SUERC-53783),
which places it in the Romano-British period. As such, it will not be discussed
below.
The resulting dating has been ordered by broad chronology (that is to say,
Early Neolithic, Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age).
Coincidentally, these period divisions were also reflected in the different sites
excavated (PAC building, AIR building and Car Park 4). Consequently, the
determinations relate to both chronological and changing spatial uses of the area
over time.
Earlier Neolithic period (circa 3900-3350 cal BC)
Two securely sealed pits found in the PAC area were selected for radiocarbon
dating. Both features were found to date to the middle centuries of the fourth
millennium cal BC (Table 10.1, below). The submitted samples were on charred
hazelnut shells (SUERC 29383 and SUERC-29387) and they produced identical
radiocarbon determinations of 4750±40 BP, calibrated to 3640-3370 cal BC,
which lies at the end of the Early Neolithic and extends into the Middle Neolithic
period. These provide terminus ante quem dates which relate to the final use of the
150
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 10.1 Date ranges from Early Neolithic pits containing pottery in Cornwall.
Feature
Material
Lab. no
Age BP years
Calendrical years 95%
Pit [102], fill (100)
Charred hazelnut. Corylus
Avellana
SUERC 29383
4750+40
3640-3378 cal BC
Pit [105], fill (103).
Charred hazelnut. Corylus
Avellana
SUERC-29387
4750+40
3640-3378 cal BC
Table 10.1: Results from the radiocarbon dating of pits [102] and [105].
radiocarbon dating
151
Feature
Material
Lab. no
Age BP years
Calendrical years BC 95%
Ditch [76], fill (77)
Charcoal. Corylus
AA-44604
4995±50 BP
3944-3662 BC
Pit [21], fill (22)
Charcoal. Corylus
AA-44601
4850±55 BP
3765-3520 BC
Table 10.2: Results from the radiocarbon dating of Early Neolithic features excavated in 2000.
pits. Since these are not thought to have been open for long and the samples were
from a fast-growing species (Corylus Avellana, hazelnut), the dates probably relate
closely to the creation and infilling of the pits.
The determinations are significant because they provide secure dating for the
Neolithic pottery assemblage (chapter 3) with which they were associated, and this
will be discussed below (chapter 11). They add to a growing number of radiocarbon
determinations associated with Early Neolithic pottery in Cornwall (Figure 10.1).
However, they are also important because they relate to two other fourth
millennium cal BC radiocarbon determinations (Table 10.2, above) which were
obtained following archaeological recording at Tremough in 2000 (Gossip and
Jones 2007, 7). They are the first pits at Tremough to be associated with Early
Neolithic pottery. This contrasts with the earlier excavations to the north, which
was largely devoid of ceramics and Neolithic flintwork was found in a scatter
(Gossip and Jones 2007, 28-9). The contrasting use of the plateau will be discussed
below (chapter 11).
Interestingly, pits [102] and [105] appear to be a century or so later than the
two features dated to the Early Neolithic period excavated in 2000 (Gossip and
Jones 2007, 8). Ditch [76] in Field 7 produced a determination of 4995±50 BP,
3944-3662 cal BC (AA-44604) and pit [21] in Field 4, 4850±55 BP, 3765-3520
cal BC (AA-44601) (Table 10.2, above). These determinations are similar to one
another and could be taken to represent roughly contemporary activity on the site,
although it is also possible that that from pit [21] could be a little later.
It appears that the determinations from the 2000 excavations are earlier than
those from the 2009 investigations. Nonetheless, the deposition of pottery into
pits which are located in a different part of the site to the pits without pottery and
the flint scatter supports the hypothesis made in the previous excavation report
which suggested that there was a significant spatial separation of tasks in the Early
Neolithic period (Gossip and Jones 2007, 29; chapter 11, this volume). This will
be explored further below.
Earlier Bronze Age period (circa 2400-1400 cal BC)
Four samples for radiocarbon determinations were taken from features associated
with the simple post-built Structure 1, located in the AIR building area (Table 10.3).
One of the samples failed to produce a date. In part the difficulty with dating
the structure was due to the relatively limited amount of material which was
available for dating. However, the results are also unsatisfactory because, the
other three determinations produced results which are not consistent with one
another. There is, therefore, the problem of deciding which (if any) of the dates
is likely to represent the actual date of the structure. The latest determination,
152
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Feature
Material
Lab. no
Age BP years
Calendrical years BC 95%
Pit [23] fill (11)
Charcoal. Cytisus / Ulex
GU30878
Failed
-
Posthole [49], fill (48) Charcoal. Corylus
SUERC-47281
3623±27 BP
2116-2098 BC (3.4%)
2039-1900 BC (92%)
Pit [56], fill (55)
SUERC-47282
2989±29 BP
1371-1346 BC (3.4%)
1316-1126 BC (92%)
SUERC-48150
3237±30 BP
1608-1570 BC (11.4%)
1561-1546 BC (3.1%)
1541-1435 BC (81%)
Quercus sp. rw
Posthole [25], fill (24) Charcoal. Cereal grain.
Table 10.3: Results from the radiocarbon dating of the earlier Bronze Age, Structure 1.
2989±29 BP, 1371-1126 cal BC (SUERC-47282), obtained on Quercus charcoal
can almost certainly be ruled out on the grounds that pit [56] was in an area
which had been disturbed by later activity; on balance it seems probable that this
date is associated with later contamination and it has therefore been discounted.
The middle determination, from posthole [25], 3237±30 BP, 1608-1435 cal BC
(SUERC-48150), dates to the middle of the Bronze Age. It was on a small grain
of cereal which could have been intrusive, as it post-dates the ceramics, which are
probably of an earlier Bronze Age date (chapter 3). The earliest determination,
3623±27 BP, 2116-1900 cal BC (SUERC-47281), on Corylus charcoal from
posthole [49], falls at the start of the second millennium cal BC, which would be
more consistent with the limited ceramic dating. The relatively flimsy nature of
the building and lack of evidence for replacement of posts makes it unlikely that
it was used for any length of time. However, given the uncertainty over the dates
we would broadly assign the structure to the first half of the second millennium
cal BC.
Although the determinations from Structure 1 did not precisely date its
construction, the dating does to some extent build upon the earlier dating
carried out at Tremough in 2002 (Gossip and Jones 2007, 11-13). Four of the
determinations from this work spanned the Early Bronze Age (Table 10.4, below).
Three of these produced almost identical date ranges. The earliest, from posthole
[75], 3704±38 BP, 2204-1977 cal BC (Wk-14995), was associated with structure
66, the southernmost of a series of post-rings, which have been interpreted
ashaving a ceremonial function. Pits [64] – 3677±45 BP, 2199-1941 cal BC
Feature
Material
Lab. no
Age BP years
Calendrical years BC 95%
Structure 66
posthole [75],
fill (76)
Charcoal, Corylus
Wk-14995
3704±38 BP
2204-1977 BC
Early Bronze Age
pit [64], fill (65)
Charcoal, Corylus
Wk-14993
3677±45 BP
2199-1941 BC
Early Bronze Age
pit [59], fill (60)
Charcoal, Corylus
Wk-14992
3668±45 BP
2196-1926 BC
Structure 66
posthole [69],
fill (70)
Charcoal, Quercus sw
Wk-14994
3380±38 BP
1756-1534 BC
Table 10.4: Results from the radiocarbon dating of Early Bronze Age features excavated in 2002.
radiocarbon dating
153
Figure 10.2 Date ranges from earlier Bronze Age structures in Cornwall.
(Wk-14993) - and [59] - 3668±45 BP, 2196-1926 cal BC (Wk-14992) - were part
of a circular arrangement of pits located in the southern part of the 2002 excavation
area (TRM 02). However, a second determination obtained from Structure 66,
from posthole [69], gave a determination of 3380±38 BP, 1756-1534 cal BC
(Wk-14994), which is late in the Early Bronze Age. This might imply that the postring had been renewed. The dating from Structure 1 suggests that there is likely to
have been a degree of chronological overlap with use of the ceremonial post-ring
and activity associated with the pits. Structure 1 is the first hint of occupationrelated activity that we have from the Early Bronze Age at Tremough, and the
dating therefore contributes to the discussion of the earlier second millennium
landscape below.
The dating is also of interest as it gives further evidence for the character of
buildings in use in Cornwall prior to circa 1500 cal BC, after which roundhouses
were constructed on a much larger-scale. To date only three occupation-related
structures in Cornwall have been radiocarbon dated to the period before 1500 cal
BC. The other two are structure 1624 at Gwithian site GMXV and the Beakerassociated structure 108 found near to Sennen in West Penwith during the
recording of a pipeline (Nowakowski et al 2007; Jones et al 2012) (Figure 10.2).
These buildings will be discussed in chapter 11.
Middle Bronze Age period (circa 1500-1100 cal BC)
Four radiocarbon determinations were obtained from material associated with a
Middle Bronze Age hollow-set roundhouse which was located in the wider Car
Park 4 area (Table 10.5, below).
The radiocarbon dating from Roundhouse 1 was altogether more successful
than that from Structure 1. Three of the determinations were on charcoal from
postholes and all are broadly similar in date: 3169±29 BP, 1501-1400 BC cal BC
(SUERC-47292); 3109±29 BP, 1441-1407 BC (SUERC-47293); 3065±31 BP,
1415-1252 BC (SUERC-47297). Interestingly, the fourth determination, 3091±27
BP, 1429-1297 BC (SUERC-47298), which came from the infill layer (280), did
not differ from the others which were obtained from postholes. This might be
154
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 10.3 Date ranges from Middle Bronze Age hollow-set roundhouses associated with
metalworking in Cornwall.
due to material associated with the occupation of the house being backfilled into
it, material from the infilling seeping into the postholes, or to the structure being
relatively short-lived.
The four determinations suggest that the roundhouse dated to the centuries
between circa 1500 and 1300 cal BC, with the weight of the dating suggesting the
mid fifteenth fourteenth centuries cal BC for the use of the building. This building
therefore sits within the well-established chronology established for Middle Bronze
Age hollow-set roundhouses in Cornwall (Jones and Taylor 2010, 160).
In addition to securely dating the building itself, the results are important
because together they closely date a nationally important collection of moulds
that were used for the manufacture of copper-alloy objects. Interestingly, the
dating from Roundhouse 1 is almost indistinguishable from that of a recently
dated Middle Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga (Figure 10.3), which was also
associated with a mould, in that case one for a racloir (Jones and Quinnell 2014).
Finds of metalwork and moulds from Cornish roundhouses are discussed in the
synthesis below (chapter 11).
Feature
Material
Lab. no
Age BP years
Calendrical years BC 95%
Posthole [286], fill (285)
Charcoal. Ilex
aquifolium
SUERC-47292
3169±29 BP
1501-1400 BC
Posthole [701], fill (700)
Charcoal. Betula
SUERC-47293
3109±29 BP
1441-1407 BC
Posthole [705], fill (704)
Charcoal. Ulex/Cytisus
SUERC-47297
3065±31 BP
1415-1252 BC
Layer (280)
Charcoal. Betula sp. x 1 SUERC-47298
3091±27 BP
1429-1297 BC
Table 10.5: Results from the radiocarbon dating of Middle Bronze Age Roundhouse 1.
radiocarbon dating
155
Feature
Material
Lab. no
Age BP years Calendrical years BC 95%
Structure 102 Posthole [109],
fill (110)
Charcoal. Corylus
Wk-14996
3180±39 BP
1526-1390 BC
Structure 102 Posthole [112],
fill (111)
Charcoal. Corylus
Wk-14997
3111±37 BP
1490-1271 BC
Structure 102 Hearth- pit [157], Charcoal. Corylus
fill (158)
Wk-14998
3009±40 BP
1386-1129 BC
Posthole Group 37, posthole
[29], fill (30)
Charcoal. Corylus
Wk-14991
3060±51 BP
1435-1132 BC
Structure 392 Posthole [623],
(622)
Charcoal. Betula
Wk-15003
2964±40 BP
1370-1047 BC
Structure 392 Hearth-pit [320], Charcoal. Corylus
fill 319)
Wk-15002
2947±43 BP
1301-1016 BC
Pit [25], fill (26)
(26) Charcoal. Corylus
AA-44602
3080±55 BP
1492-1134 BC
Ditch [30], fill (31). Date is
residual as it was obtained
where ditch cut land surface
(17).
(31) Charcoal. Corylus
AA-44603
3055±55 BP
1434-1130 BC
Table 10.6: Results from the radiocarbon dating of Middle Bronze Age features excavated in
2002.
The dates from Roundhouse 1 are also significant because they can be compared
with others obtained from the earlier excavations in 2002 (Gossip and Jones 2007,
114-116). Eight radiocarbon determinations were obtained which related to
a Middle Bronze Age phase of activity (Table 10.6). These spanned the period
circa 1500-1100 cal BC. Six were obtained from circular post-rings, interpreted
as ceremonial timber structures, and two were from other contexts. Post-ring
structure 102 produced the earliest of the Middle Bronze Age determinations.
They were obtained from posthole [109] – 3180±39 BP, 1526-1390 cal BC
(Wk-14996) – and posthole [112]: 3111±37 BP, 1490-1271 cal BC (Wk-14997).
These dates slightly overlap with one another but could also be taken to suggest
that a post had been renewed. Contemporary activity on the site is also indicated by
a third date from a hearth-pit [157]: 3009±40 BP, 1386-1129 cal BC (Wk-14998).
A date was obtained from posthole [29], 3060±51 BP, 1435-1132 cal BC
(Wk-14991), which was located at the southern end of linear Posthole Group 37
on the western side of the Tremough site. Two further broadly contemporary
determinations came from post-ring structure 392: posthole [623] dated to
2964±40 BP, 1370-1047 cal BC (Wk-15003), and hearth-pit [320] to 2947±43
BP, 1301-1016 cal BC (Wk-15002).
The final pair of determinations were obtained from two features to the east of the
post-ring structures. Pit [25] and ditch [30] produced very similar determinations
of 3080±55 BP, 1492-1134 cal BC (AA-44602), and 3055±55 BP, 1434-1130 cal
BC (AA-44603). Pit [25] contained a structured deposit of Trevisker Ware pottery.
The last determination from ditch [30] was not regarded as providing a date for
the ditch which contained Iron Age ceramics and is instead likely to relate to the
adjacent land surface (17), which produced Bronze Age artefacts.
156
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
When all the radiocarbon dates are taken together, the dates from Roundhouse 1
overlap significantly with those for the ceremonial post-rings and with others from
features on the western part of the Tremough site, suggesting a clear spatial division
of contemporary activities across the area. This will be discussed in the concluding
section below.
Late Bronze Age Period (circa 1100-800 cal BC)
Six radiocarbon determinations were obtained from material associated with
features associated with an enclosure which was located in the Car Park 4 area
(Table 10.7, below). A seventh was obtained on residue from an unstratified sherd
of Late Bronze Age pottery found during hoeing over Roundhouse 2.
The radiocarbon determinations from Tremough provide only the third
significant set of Late Bronze Age dates from Cornwall, the others coming from a
settlement at Higher Besore, Truro (Gossip, forthcoming), and a palisade enclosure
and roundhouse at Scarcewater, St Stephen in Brannel (Jones and Taylor 2010,
159). However, given their association with Enclosure 1, metalworking, a mound
of burnt stone and other structures, the new determinations from Tremough
arguably represent the most important set of Late Bronze Age dates to be recovered
from Cornwall so far. It might have been expected that the determination from
the base of enclosure ditch [160], fill (798), 2782±29 BP, 1006-843 cal BC
(SUERC-47283) would have been distinctly earlier than those from features inside
the enclosure; however, it was derived from Corylus charcoal, which had entered
the open ditch cut, and it is therefore uncertain how long the ditch had been
kept open before the charcoal entered it. In other words, the ditch cut could have
been older, and given that no Late Bronze Age features were uncovered outside
the ditch, it seems likely that all the other features were probably associated with
activity inside the enclosure.
Feature
Material
Lab. no
Age BP years
Calendrical years BC 95%
Enclosure 1 ditch [160],
fill (798)
Charcoal. Corylus
SUERC-47283
2782±29 BP
1006-843 BC
Pit [124], fill (112)
Residue
SUERC-47287
2747±26 BP
972-959 BC (3.5%)
937-827 BC (91.9%)
Pit / Posthole Group 1, pit Residue
[114], fill (102)
SUERC-47288
2822±30 BP
1071-1065 BC (0.4%)
1056-899 BC (95%)
Structure 205, fill (103)
Residue
SUERC-47289
2808±29 BP
1048-896 BC
Post Structure 4, pit [167], Residue
fill (166)
SUERC-47290
2791±27 BP
1011-892 BC (89.1%)
880-846 BC (6.3%)
Pit / Posthole Group 1,
posthole [156], (155)
Residue
SUERC-47291
2766±29 BP
997-987 BC (2.3%)
980-835 BC (93.1%)
Roundhouse 2, layer
(110) cleaning over
Roundhouse 2
Residue
SUERC-47299
2820±29 BP
1053-901 BC
Table 10.7: Results from the radiocarbon dating of Late Bronze Age features within Enclosure
1 and residue on a sherd from over Roundhouse 2.
radiocarbon dating
157
Within the enclosure itself there were a range of features. The earliest date
from these was from pit [114]: 2822±30 BP, 1071-899 cal BC (SUERC-47288).
The next earliest determination was associated with Structure 205 2808±29 BP,
1048-896 cal BC (SUERC-47289). This date is of interest as the feature was a
carefully constructed cairn of burnt stone and the determination is the first to be
associated with a Late Bronze Age site of this type in Cornwall.
The three remaining determinations (SUERC-47287, SUERC-47290 and
SUERC-47291) are all associated with pits and postholes within the enclosure
and all are quite close together, dating from circa 1000 cal BC to 850 cal BC
(Table 10.7). Although it is not possible to say whether features were entirely
contemporary with one another these dates do imply a focused period of activity.
Indeed, taken together, all six determinations from Enclosure 1 form a coherent
group associated with activity within the two centuries following 1000 cal BC. The
determination 2747±26 BP, 972-827 cal BC (SUERC-47287) associated with pit
[124] is of interest as the feature contained burnt stone, pottery and fragments of
moulds, including the tip from a sword mould.
In addition to the determinations associated with the enclosure, a seventh Late
Bronze Age date was obtained from residue on an unstratified sherd of pottery
recovered during initial clearance over the unexcavated Roundhouse 2: 2820±29
BP, 1053-901 cal BC (SUERC-47299). This sherd was dated in order to further
ceramic studies (chapter 3), as no pottery of this type had been dated in Cornwall
before. The date is broadly contemporary with that from Pit [114] in Pit / Posthole
Group 1 (SUERC-47288), and it may therefore represent the dumping of midden
material outside the enclosure.
By contrast with the excavated Early Neolithic, Early Bronze Age and Middle
Bronze Age sites, no Late Bronze Age features had previously been identified at
Tremough. This means that it not possible to compare them with previous datasets.
It is, however, of interest that the dating reveals that after a gap of around two
centuries, the Late Bronze Age enclosure was sited in the space between both the
hollow-set Middle Bronze Age roundhouses to the south and the ceremonial postrings to the north. This might imply that there was a continuing memory of place,
which had influenced where the Late Bronze Age features could be situated, and
this will be explored in chapter 11.
158
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Chapter 11
Discussion: pits, deposition
metalworking and circularity
Andy M Jones
This chapter presents a synthesis of the results from the recent excavations. The
findings from relevant earlier work at Tremough will be drawn upon to provide
an overview of the chronology of the immediate area. In doing so, the following
section not only discusses the excavated sites themselves but will also place them
within their regional and national contexts. Where appropriate, comparanda from
a wider area will also be drawn in.
Although the discussion will be organised chronologically, we will try to avoid
falling into the trap of considering the features as discrete chronological units and
instead will have cross-cutting themes which run across periods. This will include
consideration of the changing use of space across the plateau. Indeed, one of the
clearest patterns to emerge from more than a decade of work at Tremough is the
lack of overlap between features of different periods and in fact of different types
of activity during the same period. Discussion will be given to identifying differing
types of inhabitation and occupation both spatially across the investigated areas
and chronologically over the millennia. The intention is not to demonstrate that
values or associations were singular, remained constant or were so ingrained that
they fixed the use of an area (for example, see papers in Bender (ed) 1993), but
rather to explore the ways that certain practices or social memory may have affected
use of space over time (for example, Connerton 1989; Gosden and Lock 1998).
The second major strand for consideration is the character of the deposits which
were found within the investigated features. As will be discussed below, certain
terms such as ‘structured deposition’ and ‘special deposits’ have been readily and,
according to a number of commentators (see below), perhaps sometimes overly
used in relation to the archaeological record. In light of this, we consider the
formation of particular deposits closely to determine the level of intentionality
behind them, as well as, where possible, exploring the links between deposits
found in different types of contemporary feature across the site.
Lastly, throughout the discussion we will draw the evidence for metalworking
from all three phases of the Bronze Age to the fore, and consider its character. In
doing so, we will consider the significance of Tremough in relation to other sites
which have been recorded in the South West region and beyond.
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
159
Early Neolithic pits
The PAC building pits
Archaeological recording at the Tremough PAC building produced the only new
evidence for Neolithic activity. This revealed a single phase dated to 3640-3370
cal BC or the earlier Neolithic period, and comprised two pits, both containing
fragments of pottery and flint in charcoal-rich deposits. These were possibly the
remains of adjacent fires mixed with the excavated soil and artefacts which might
have been associated with activities or events on the site. Significantly, pit [102]
appeared to have been marked by a pile of stones while pit [105] had a possible
posthole at its northern end, perhaps supporting a marker post. Nearby were two
tree-throw pits, the hollows left from the disturbed ground beneath fallen trees.
These contained similar deposits to the pits recorded at Tremough and may have
been deliberately backfilled as part of a comparable process.
The digging of pits and the burial of artefacts belongs to a widespread
Neolithic tradition and is a phenomenon that has been recognised at numerous
sites throughout southern Britain and along the Atlantic facade. In Cornwall, as
elsewhere, the artefactual and environmental assemblages associated with these
pits typically includes pottery, stone, flint, charcoal and hazelnut shells and their
occurrence spans the period from at least the earliest to the latest Neolithic (Cole
and Jones 2002-3, 134; Gossip and Jones 2007, 28-9). Settlement evidence in
southern Britain from this period is generally scarce; however, it seems that these
pit sites are not associated with permanent settlement, but were instead linked
with intermittent or seasonal occupations.
The pit-digging tradition in Cornwall therefore forms a regional variation of
wider practices characteristic of the British Neolithic, and it is apparent that pits
dug during the Early Neolithic belong to a much broader continuum and were
linked with a wider set of ritualized practices which were prevalent in Britain from
the onset of the Neolithic (Thomas 1999, 64-74; Garrow 2007; Pannett 2012).
Indeed, as a recent review of Neolithic pits recorded across Britain has revealed,
in Cornwall they constitute the most widely occurring evidence for the Neolithic
period (Garrow 2012a).
Regional context
However, by contrast with some other parts of Britain, including East Anglia
(Healy 1988, 5-18; Garrow 2007), where pits are located in large groups, those in
Cornwall and the wider South West region (with the exception of a larger group
of 25 pits which has recently been found at Ottery St Mary in eastern Devon
(Quinnell 2014)), tend to be found as isolated features, in pairs as at the Tremough
site, or in small groups of less than a dozen pits.
Cornish Neolithic pits are typically bowl-shaped, small and shallow, although
less regular examples are known. In fact one of the examples described here,
pit [105], was of an irregular oval shape and is perhaps the largest recorded in
Cornwall at 2.5m long by 1.6m wide. Elsewhere in Britain, pits tend to be larger
160
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
than the Cornish examples and can contain notably exotic items, as at Cadbury
Castle in Somerset, where a series of Early Neolithic pits contained leaf-shaped
arrowheads, plain bowl pottery, antler and both animal and human bone (Griffith
et al 2008, 82), or at Reading Business Park, where a pit was found to contain a
complete bovine skeleton (Moore and Jennings 1992, 6). Nonetheless, pottery,
flint, charcoal and worked or unusual stones remain the most consistently and
frequently found deposits.
In Cornwall, the earliest Neolithic pit group with a more sophisticated finds
assemblage was recorded at Tregarrick, Roche. Here ten pits ranged in date
over four centuries, from circa 3790 cal BC to 3370 cal BC (Cole and Jones
2002-3, 134). There was evidence for the careful selection of artefacts for burial
and for the careful placing of sherds of pottery within some of the pits, a practice
also recorded in Grooved Ware assemblages from Late Neolithic pits elsewhere on
the Tremough campus (Gossip and Jones 2007, 8).
Other Early Neolithic pit sites in Cornwall have also been found to contain
similar suites of artefacts (Figure 11.1). These include pits at Portscatho, on
the Roseland (Jones and Reed 2006), Trenowah, near St Austell (Johns 2008),
several along the route of the Tintagel to Boscastle pipeline in north Cornwall
(Jones and Quinnell 2014), and at Penmayne, Rock, near the Camel estuary
Figure 11.1 The distribution of pits with Early Neolithic pottery in Cornwall.
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
161
(Gossip et al 2012). All these sites had one to four pits containing earlier Neolithic
pottery and the PAC building pits fit the same pattern.
Over the last decade, Early Neolithic pits in Cornwall have become much
better dated; radiocarbon determinations for Early Neolithic pits with pottery
in Cornwall are presented in Table 11.1 below (and see Figure 10.1). The PAC
building pits can therefore be discussed in the context of other Cornish pits which
have produced Neolithic pottery.
At Poldowrian, on the Lizard, a group of small pits were identified, one of
which, pit [106], contained pottery and a leaf-shaped arrowhead, and another,
pit [139], had been backfilled with large quantities of stones and charcoal (Smith
and Harris 1982). The value of the dating from this site, is however, lessened by
the fact that the radiocarbon determination was undertaken on bulked charcoal
and may appear earlier than it actually was. Early Neolithic dates were, however,
obtained from one of four pits excavated at Porthscatho, where four pits contained
pottery, charcoal, hazelnuts and charcoal; one also produced a few cereal grains
(Jones and Read 2006).
At Penmayne one of the pits was associated with carinated bowl pottery
and hazelnut shells and had radiocarbon determinations spanning the thirtyseventh and thirty-sixth centuries cal BC. The contents and association with
charred hazelnut shells are similar to Tremough. Likewise, several pits which were
excavated along the north Cornwall pipeline were of Early Neolithic date (Jones
and Quinnell 2014, 128-30). One of these, pit [235], contained pottery, hazelnut
shell fragments and, unusually, a small quantity of cereal grains. Again the dating
is very close to that from the PAC building pits at Tremough (Table 11.1).
At Trenowah three of the pits contained finds, including one, pit [300], with a
sherd of pottery, a flint blade, charred crab apple pips and white quartz fragments
in a charcoal-rich fill (Johns 2008, 6). This pit was not radiocarbon dated but an
adjacent one produced a Middle Neolithic determination (Table 11.1).
However, although the Tremough PAC building pits share characteristics
with other Cornish Neolithic pits, in containing deposits of pottery and broken
flint (including finely-worked tools), charred macrofossils, especially hazelnut,
and abundant charcoal, it is with those at Portscatho and Penmayne that they
have the most similarities. They are broadly contemporary with one another. The
formation of pit deposits is also comparable: at Portscatho, as at Tremough PAC,
there is no evidence for the curation of vessels as sherds were fresh (Jones and Reed
2006, 22) and they appear to have been deposited very soon after breakage. This
lack of formality in infilling was echoed in another pit at Tremough (pit [21]),
to the north of the PAC site, which gave the date 4850±55 BP, 3770 – 3510 BC
(AA-44601) (Gossip and Jones 2007, 28); that feature, however, was not associated
with pottery.
Table 11.1 (following page): Pits with Early Neolithic pottery with closely associated
radiocarbon determinations from Cornwall and Devon.
162
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Site
Context/association
Lab. no
Age BP
years
Calendrical
years 95%
North Cornwall
pipeline, pit.
Pit [235], hazel charcoal, found with
open bowl pottery a quarzitic pebble
and a leaf-shaped arrowhead (Jones and
Quinnell 2014).
SUERC-42047
4690±23
3625-3372
Penmayne, pit.
Pit [403], hazelnut found in pit with
carinated bowl sherds (Gossip et al
2012).
SUERC-315182
4770±30
3641-3384
Penmayne, pit.
Pit [403], hazelnut found in pit with
carinated bowl sherds (Gossip et al
2012).
SUERC-315183
4775±30
3641-3386
Penhale, pit.
Pit [254], within structure 3299, charred
cereal grains associated with pottery
(Whittle et al 2011, 514)
Wk-9839
5001±75
3953-3657
Penhale,
posthole.
Posthole [3221], within structure 3299,
hazel charcoal associated with pottery
(Whittle et al 2011, 514).
Wk-9840
4951±61
3942-3639
Poldowrian, pit.
Pit [106], oak and Pomoideae charcoal
found with pottery (Smith and Harris
1982)
HAR-4323
5180±150
4331-3696
Portscatho, pit.
Pit [512], hazel charcoal found in pit
with carinated bowl P1 (Jones and Read
2006).
Wk-13259
4713±45
3635-3372
Portscatho, pit.
Pit [504], hazel charcoal found in pit with
sherds of Neolithic pottery (Jones and
Read 2006).
Wk-13257
4805±51
3696-3382
Portscatho, pit.
Pit [502], hazel charcoal found in pit with
sherds of Neolithic pottery (Jones and
Read 2006).
Wk-13256
4818±48
3704-3385
Portscatho, pit.
Pit [505], hazel charcoal found in pit with
sherds of Neolithic pottery (Jones and
Read 2006).
Wk-13258
4952±45
3912-3644
Tregarrick, pit.
Pit [40], hazel charcoal found with
carinated bowl P6 (Cole and Jones
2002-3).
Wk-14916
4914±40BP
3773-3641
Tregarrick, pit.
Pit [48], hawthorn charcoal found with
sherds of Neolithic pottery (Cole and
Jones 2002-3).
Wk-14918
4908±47
3791-3636
Tregarrick, pit.
Pit [19], hazelnut shell found with sherds
of Neolithic pottery (Cole and Jones
2002-3).
Wk-14913
4839±42
3705-3524
Tregarrick, pit.
Pit [45], hazelnut shell found with sherds
of Neolithic pottery (Cole and Jones
2002-3).
Wk-14917
4768±43
3643-3380
Tregarrick, pit.
Pit [27], hazelnut shell found with sherds
of Neolithic pottery (Cole and Jones
2002-3).
Wk-14915
4776±44
3644-3379
Tremough PAC,
pit.
Pit [102], Charcoal, Hazel dated. Sherds
of Neolithic pottery (this volume).
SUERC-29387
4750±40
3640-3377
Tremough PAC,
pit.
Pit [105], Charcoal, Hazel dated. Sherds
of Neolithic pottery (This volume).
SUERC-29383
4750±40
3640-3377
Pit [1510], Oak charcoal found in
association with sherds of Neolithic
pottery (Leverett and Quinnell 2010).
Wk-27272
4722±30
3634-3376
Cornwall
Devon
Waylands,
Tiverton, pit.
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
163
Interpreting pit contents
Interpretation of the way pits were infilled has formed the basis for much discussion
and debate. Since the 1980s (for example, Richards and Thomas 1984; Thomas
1991; 1999, 64-74) it has been argued that many Neolithic pits were deliberately
infilled and that residues from occupation may have been meaningful and carefully
buried. The term ‘structured deposition’ has been widely used since the 1990s as a
convenient short-hand for this process (Garrow 2012b).
However, it has also been pointed out that not all material which enters pits
need have symbolically placed with great care or been undertaken as a ritual event
in itself. Joanna Brück (1999b), in discussing the problems of interpreting ‘ritual’
at prehistoric sites, has suggested that many archaeologists have fallen into the
trap of accepting a false dichotomy in explaining their site data as either associated
with ‘practical’ or with a distinct ‘non-functional’ category of behaviour. The latter
category is then often identified as of a ‘ritual’ nature. This is problematic because
such divisions are unlikely to have been meaningful to prehistoric communities.
As noted above, material found within pits has often been interpreted in this way
and has sometimes been singled out by archaeologists as ‘special’. However, Brück
(ibid) has suggested that ‘special’ or ‘odd’ deposits need not have been viewed as
such at all by prehistoric communities, who may have seen them as being routine,
rational and effective actions, which led to desired outcomes.
Duncan Garrow (2012b) has also pointed out that there has been a tendency
to concentrate on interpretations which favour ‘special activity’ of an overtly ritual
character and as such to underplay the formation of deposits through routine
day-to-day life. Instead, he has proposed that deposits found in Neolithic pits
and other contexts formed part of a continuum which ranged from ‘odd deposits’
(for example, articulated human remains or complete pots) through to ‘material
cultural patterning’ produced by routine quotidian activity (for example, the
burial of refuse from a meal). Indeed, in most prehistoric societies it is likely that
divisions between the sacred and the profane were far less distinct than they are
today and that even the burial of selected items of domestic refuse in selected ways
may have held significance (Bradley 2005, 169).
Given recent debates over structured deposition and the potential over-use of
this term, it is worth noting that, as we have seen above, there does in Cornwall
appear to be a continuum in practices associated with pits ranging from casual
discard to more formal deposition. There are some instances where pottery was
clearly placed very carefully, as at Tregarrick (Cole and Jones 2002-3, 135). By
contrast, rather less care would appear to have taken place with the infilling of pits
at Tremough. Nonetheless, the Tremough PAC site pits are of interest as they do
provide evidence for the way certain items were treated after use.
The PAC pits contained sherds of freshly broken pottery, which do not appear
to have been placed in any order, a broken projectile-point L3 and a finely-worked
Portland chert arrowhead L1, mixed with a charcoal-rich soil. The presence of
both gabbroic clays from the Lizard and glassy Meneage basalts in the fabrics of
the vessels is an indicator that the pots were manufactured away from their clay
source and could be a pointer to their significance. Also of interest is the inclusion
164
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
in both pits of both local and possibly imported lithic material, including the
Portland chert arrowhead, the raw material for which came from approximately
250 kilometres to the east on the Dorset coast. Both pits also contained worked
flint that had been broken, perhaps deliberately, and both contained arrowheads,
including a beautifully worked probable leaf-shaped arrowhead of Early Neolithic
date L3. The inclusion of these items indicates that their burial was not entirely
down to random loss or carelessness (Lawson-Jones, chapter 7). Both the distance
of the clay source, the flint and the chert from the Tremough plateau, could have
made them redolent of those places and of the people who made the artefacts
(cf, for example, Harris 2009; Smythe 2014, 130), and their deposition could have
made reference to those connections.
The PAC building pits at Tremough contained charcoal-rich fills, as did the
tree-throw holes (below), and stones (killas, granite and quartz) showing signs of
having been subjected to high temperatures (heat fracture and scorching). The
subsoil adjacent to pit [105] also showed some signs of having been heated. While
not hearth pits in themselves, it is possible that material from adjacent fires was
mixed with the artefacts as part of a process surrounding the infilling of the pit,
perhaps marking the end of an occupation or an event such as a gathering involving
the consumption of food. This included hazelnut shells, the only surviving remnant
of a meal consumed immediately before the burial of the artefacts. The abundant
charcoal deposits recorded in the majority of contemporaneous pits in Cornwall
indicates that fires may have been closely linked to the pit digging and reburial
process, with significance attached to the inclusion of some of the charred remains.
The presence of hazelnuts and wild food species, such as apple or pear at Trenowah
and Tregarrick (Johns 2008, 33, 36; Cole and Jones 2002-3), and occasionally of
small amounts of cereal grain (Jones and Quinnell 2014, 128), may be an indicator
that the preparation and consumption of a food were followed by the ritualized
burial of its traces.
Some items found within the PAC building pits, including the pottery, may
have had a short biography of use, being deposited not long after breakage, but
it is difficult to imagine that their deposition was not deeply embedded cultural
practice, perhaps part of an ‘ingrained disposition’ of ‘clearing away’ away at
the end of an event or an occupation (Jones 2013). This process would not, as
Brück (1999b) has argued, have necessarily been seen as being ‘special’ but would
probably have been considered (if it were consciously thought through at all) to
have conformed with the ‘right’ way of acting or dwelling in the landscape. It has
been argued previously that the burial of domestic rubbish in prehistoric features
at Tremough is likely to have been part of deeply embedded cultural traditions
and that everyday and ritual activities may have been ‘inextricably entwined’
(Gossip and Jones 2007, 29).
Marking space
Significantly, the results from Tremough have shed light on how pits might have
been marked after they had been infilled. The lack of intercutting relationships
between Neolithic pits has been noted elsewhere in Cornwall and it has been
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
165
suggested that this was either because pits were contemporary with one another or
because they were marked in some way which has not survived in the archaeological
record (for example, Jones and Quinnell 2014). There is evidence to suggest that
the PAC pits may have been marked on the surface after being infilled. The large
pile of stones adjacent to pit [102] indicates that it had been marked on the surface,
perhaps to avoid accidental disturbance to its contents at some point in the future
or to leave a more permanent marker of the place of a past event. The posthole
[111] at the end of pit [105] may have supported a post which marked the site of
the pit after it had been backfilled. It has been argued that pit digging (and the
burial of the objects within them) was a way of fixing a community to the land on
which they were dug (Pollard 2001; Thomas 1999, 72, 87; Cole and Jones 2003,
134; Harding 2006), and the marking of the pit sites with stones or posts would
have made the sites of the pits more visible to subsequent visitors to the plateau.
Tree-throws as shelters and ‘pits’
The presence of the two tree-throw hollows may relate to the selection of this land
for woodland clearance or possibly their ad hoc use as temporary shelters. Similar
features are being recognised more frequently in the Cornish archaeological
record. For example, an amorphous pit identified at the Travel Inn site, Helston, is
thought to be a possible tree-throw. This feature had been deliberately backfilled
with Middle Neolithic Fengate Ware, the first instance of its kind in Cornwall
(Quinnell 2009), in addition to flints. In the wider region, other recently identified
potential tree-throw holes with anthropogenic deposits have been recorded at
Willand Road, Cullompton, Devon, where flint was found in association with
amorphous pits filled with otherwise natural deposits (Hood 2009b), and at
Waylands, near Tiverton, where sherds of earlier Neolithic pottery were found
(Leverett and Quinnell 2010).
Beyond the South West region, tree-throws have been widely found to have been
associated with Neolithic activity around Britain and Ireland (Brown 2000; Cuttler
et al 2012, 144; Smythe 2014 115-6). They have been recorded in particularly
large numbers along the Thames Valley, in the south of England, and this has
led to discussions regarding the intentional deposition of material culture in tree
hollows created either by natural processes (storm damage or diseased trees) or as
part of woodland clearance (Evans et al 1999; Butterworth 1999, 138; Macphail
and Linderholm 2004, 34-36).
One interpretation of the evidence from the Thames Valley has been that treethrow holes were used as shelters and that these later became deliberate middens
for significant groups of artefacts. It is also suggested that tree-throws are a feature
of episodes of tree clearing during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, but that
the use of them disappears after the Early Neolithic (Allen et al 2004, 91-92). It
has, however, also been pointed out that the discovery of Neolithic artefacts in
tree-throws may in some instances have related to symbolic beliefs connected with
trees (for example, Hills and Lucy 2013). In a world which was covered by large
areas of woodland, it is possible that the long life-cycles of trees could have become
associated with generational conceptions of human time (Evans et al 1999), with
166
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
trees becoming seen as animate in their own right. Anthropological research has
revealed that trees can be conceived as being ‘alive’, or inhabited by spirits, and
as having metaphorical analogies with the human body (Bonnemere 1998), and
ethnological studies (for example, Busia 1954; Hackett 1996, 40) have shown that
tree felling is often accompanied by placatory rituals to woodland spirits or other
supernatural beings. For example, before cutting down trees for use in settlements,
the people of Ara, South Sulawesi, in Indonesia, engage ritual specialists to talk
to the spirits of the tree to make sure the tree is willing to be cut down (Gibson
1995). Given some broadly similar cultural context in the Early Neolithic of
southern Britain, it is possible that the sites of ‘well-known’ fallen trees with long
biographies may also have been marked with deposits, out of respect.
Returning to Tremough, the piece of debitage or tool manufacture waste found
with burnt stones and charcoal in tree-throw infilling deposit (108) may be an
indicator that the hollow was used a temporary shelter or perhaps more probably
as a receptacle for occupation-related refuse. Although there is a near absence of
artefacts and no radiocarbon determinations from either of the Tremough treethrow holes, the composition of their deposits is comparable with Early Neolithic
pits found at Tremough and across Cornwall (for example, Gossip and Jones
2007, 7-8; Jones and Quinnell 2014), which often contain charcoal-rich fills and
abundant stone and flint. It is possible therefore that these natural hollows were
in some ways seen as being similar to and were in use at the same time as the
deliberately dug pits.
As such, they may have fulfilled a similar role to dug pits, and been the foci for
comparable activities. It is possible, therefore, that the tree-throws were the foci
for deposits following the acquisition of new land for agriculture and settlement,
with the marking of a ‘special’ fallen tree or were associated with other activities
which took place within clearings in the woodland (Leverett and Quinnell 2010).
The pits and experiencing space
The locations chosen for pits may have been significant to Neolithic communities;
for example, the selection of coastal locations for pit sites at Portscatho and
Poldowrian, and for those near to the north Cornish coast, may have been an
important consideration, occupying liminal zones between sea and land (Jones and
Reed 2006, 139-40; Jones and Quinnell 2014, 130; Gossip et al 2012). Others
such as those near Roche Rock may have been associated with larger gatherings
at topographically distinctive focal points in the landscape (Cole and Jones 2002-3).
By contrast, those in lowland environments, as at Tremough, may have been
created by small groups passing through a partially-cleared wooded landscape.
The occurrence of pits in the Early Neolithic without associated occupationrelated evidence, such as large flint scatters or permanent structures, suggests these
activities were being carried out by sections of the community, possibly during
seasonal gatherings (Cole and Jones 2002-3) or as part of regular movement
around the landscape.
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
167
Ditch 76
AIR
[23]
[21]
[13]
[28]
[11]
TRM 02
CP4
Intervention
prior to 2008
Tremough College
complex
Pit [102]
Excavated areas
2008 onwards
PAC
Flint scatter
0
Pit [105]
100
metres
This map is based upon the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office
© Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Cornwall Council (100049047) 2014
Figure 11.2 Early Neolithic features.
At the level of the Tremough plateau, the PAC building pits are among a small
number of archaeological features dating to the first half of the fourth millennium
cal BC (Figure 11.2) and are of interest because, with the exception of a single
small abraded sherd of pottery from ditch [76] (Gossip and Jones 2007, 7), they
are the first Early Neolithic features at Tremough to be associated with ceramics.
By contrast, the pits excavated in 2002 in Field 4 were associated with burnt stones
and charcoal but were entirely devoid of artefacts (Gossip and Jones 2007, 6-7).
They are also broadly of the same date as the ditch [76] which appeared to delineate
an area that was associated with primary flint knapping (Lawson-Jones 2007) but
devoid of pits. The two pits at the PAC building therefore offer some further
support for the suggestion raised by the earlier investigations, which proposed that
different types of activity were occurring across the plateau area during the Early
Neolithic period, with perhaps more sustained activity taking place at the eastern
end of the plateau, to the east of ditch [76], and shorter visits elsewhere.
168
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Early Bronze Age activity
Structure 1 was associated with the second major phase of activity to be
identified by the recent excavations at Tremough. This dated to the earlier second
millennium cal BC. Unlike the previous large-scale investigations, no evidence
was found for Late Neolithic Grooved Ware-associated pits. In common with
the earlier excavations there was also a paucity of evidence for occupation at the
end of the third millennium too, when Beaker pottery was current in southern
Britain. There is, therefore, a gap in our knowledge about how the Tremough
plateau was inhabited for much of the third millennium cal BC. Structure 1 was,
however, broadly contemporary with other activity identified on the plateau and
the relationships between the features will be discussed below.
Earlier Bronze Age Structure 1
Structure 1 represents an important discovery because, in common with the
Neolithic, much of what could be broadly termed ‘domestic’ or ‘non-funerary’
Early Bronze Age activity in the South West (for example, Jones et al 2012),
and elsewhere in Britain, is typically characterised by small pits and stray finds
of pottery which may be residual or in contexts which might not necessarily be
‘domestic’ (Halsted 2007; Garwood 2011; 123; Morigi et al 2011, 311-330).
Currently, only one other circular earlier Bronze Age ‘domestic’ structure has been
found in Cornwall which has been dated to the first half of the second millennium
cal BC, with the majority of roundhouses firmly belonging to the period after circa
1500 cal BC (for example, Jones and Taylor 2010, 158-9).
Tremough Structure 1 was a sub-circular construction which was defined by
a ring of postholes with a diameter of approximately 7m. There was no trace of
any surviving wall material; however, judging by the size of the postholes which
formed the circuit of the ring it is likely to have been covered by a relatively light
superstructure. The entrance was difficult to establish, although the postholes were
fairly evenly spaced, around 1m apart, with a far wider gap of 3m on the eastern
side between postholes [19] and [62]. The presence of shallow pit [56], a possible
hearth or burnt area, central within this gap suggests it was set within the area of
the entranceway (chapter 2). There was little evidence for recutting of features and
from this we can surmise that the building was probably rather short-lived.
There were further features outside the structure. One which was thought
to be possibly related to it was pit [37]; this was situated a few metres to the
west, displayed evidence for burning and contained a charred plant macrofossil
assemblage which included cultivated oats. Two radiocarbon determination, on
the oats and a wild radish capsule, were both radiocarbon dated to the RomanoBritish period (chapters 8 and 10). Other nearby features mostly could not be
dated and their relationship with Structure 1 could not be ascertained, so they will
not be discussed here (for details, Gossip 2011).
Comparanda for Structure 1 in the South West as a whole are scarce. Two
earlier late third to early second millennium cal BC structures have been identified
in Cornwall. The first, an ephemeral, oval-shaped, post-built Beaker-associated
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
169
structure dating to circa 2000-1730 cal BC was excavated at Higher Besore, west
of Truro (Gossip, forthcoming). The second, structure 108 at Sennen, was also
associated with Beaker pottery and was a flimsy stake-built structure set over a hollow
measuring approximately 4m by 3m (Jones et al 2012). It has been radiocarbon
dated to circa 2300-2100 cal BC, which was much earlier than Structure 1. Neither
of these structures appears to have been associated with permanent occupation, and
little is known about use of the contemporary surrounding landscape, although a
saddle quern fragment from Higher Besore might have been associated with the
Beaker structure and mullers which may have been used for the processing of
cereals were found in the structure at Sennen.
Chronologically, the closest known structure to Structure 1 is Gwithian
structure 1642 (formerly often referred to as the Beaker house), which has two
radiocarbon determinations; one of these dated to 1890-1610 cal BC but the
second of 1310-1040 cal BC fell in the Middle Bronze Age (Nowakowski et al
2007). This structure was more complex, being 7.5m in diameter and comprised
of stake-rings associated with gullies containing posts and earth banks which are
likely to have formed a double-skinned wall. The building also possessed a porch
and a central hearth. It seems to have been more permanent than either of the
Yarnton
Stackpole Warren
Brean Down
Bishops Canning Down
Snail Down
Belle Tout
Gwithian
Sennen
170
Higher Besore
Tremough Structure 1
Figure 11.3 The principal earlier
Bronze Age structures referred
to in the text.
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Beaker-associated structures discussed above, or Tremough Structure 1, and was
associated with an agricultural settlement comprised of small fields (ibid).
Beyond Cornwall, Early Bronze Age settlement activity of the later third and
earlier second millennium cal BC is fairly widely distributed across southern
Britain (Figure 11.3) As noted above, however, this normally takes the form of
pits containing sherds of pottery and occasionally charred cereal remains (Brück
2000; Garwood 2011, 123), or clusters of posts and stakeholes which are difficult
to assemble into well-defined structures, as for example at Belle Tout in Sussex and
Snail Down in Wiltshire (Bradley 1970; Thomas 2005, 74-5).
Circular or oval settings of posts and stakeholes are commonly found under
Early Bronze Age round barrows (for example, Fox 1959; Lynch 1993). Many of
these structures are likely to be closely associated with primary phases of barrow
construction or activity linked with funerary rites and did not exist as independent
settlement-related structures. Other structures sealed by barrows, however, are
more difficult to be sure of, and may well represent earlier episodes of settlement
activity, as, for example, at Upper Ninepence in the Walton Basin in Wales, where
stakeholes forming a structure with a diameter of 12m was found beneath a barrow
mound (Gibson 1999, 163).
However, some identifiable structures have been recorded in southern
England. At Yarnton, Oxfordshire, a small dwelling with a diameter of 4m with
an entrance porch has been found to date to the first two centuries of the second
millennium cal BC (Morigi et al 2011, 321) and five other structures found there
may have belonged to the same phase, although these were not securely dated.
More permanent roundhouses have been suggested for the settlement at Bishops
Canning Down, Wiltshire. Chris Gingell (1992, 153) argued that the post-built
structures might date to the latest part of the Early Bronze Age, although the
radiocarbon dating places them in the Middle Bronze Age (ibid, 159). To the west
of Wessex, at Brean Down in Somerset, an oval, stone-lined building, structure 57,
measuring 4.5m by 3m was excavated. This structure is not, however, closely dated
and could belong to either a Beaker-using phase, or may instead be of a date later
in the Bronze Age (Bell 1990, 34).
In Wales very few Early Bronze Age settlements have been identified (Lynch et al
2000, 87). However, the largest and best recorded example was found at Stackpole
Warren in Pembrokeshire, where sherds of Collared Urn, flint and cremated
human bone were recovered from a small hollow-set roundhouse, structure 146.
This structure had a diameter of circa 5m and was defined by a post-ring with a
porch (Benson et al 1990). Two radiocarbon determinations falling in the periods
2134-1700 cal BC and 1876-1467 cal BC were obtained from destruction deposits
within the structure. These dates overlap with those from Structure 1 at Tremough,
and the size of the buildings is similar.
Because of the lack of evidence for substantial architecture, it is necessary to
consider alternative modes of settlement activity. Joanna Brück (1999c) has argued,
for example, that the relatively insubstantial structures found across southern
England during the Early Bronze Age may have been associated with short-term
periods of occupation involving residential mobility; in essence, dwellings of the
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
171
Early Bronze Age were less permanent than those of the Middle Bronze Age. The
evidence from Structure 1, which does not indicate that it was occupied for a long
period of time, would certainly be consistent with this interpretation.
Leaving the structure behind
Ritualized abandonment will be discussed more fully below in relation to Middle
Bronze Roundhouse 1. However, it seems probable that Structure 1 was abandoned
with some degree of deliberation. Although there was little evidence for patterning
in the distribution of artefacts, some formality in deposition practices is indicated
by the fact that some of the postholes and adjacent features were filled with deposits
which contained a large assemblage of artefacts. As has been argued above for the
Neolithic pits, there may have been a routinely ritualized process of clearing away
and returning of objects to the ground which cut across many aspects of life, from
the ‘domestic’ through to the overtly ceremonial, throughout the third and second
millennia cal BC.
Some light can be shed on this process by considering the condition of the
artefacts which were found within the structure. The majority of the assemblage
comprised sherds of more or less fresh or lightly abraded sherds of Trevisker
pottery (chapter 3, above), which had not been crushed by in situ standing posts.
This suggests that broken ceramics were not left lying around on the surface but
were instead rapidly placed soon after breakage into the posthole cuts, and given
that they were not crushed, the posts must already have been removed from their
sockets. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the ceramics were associated with
the latest use of the structure and that they were deliberately, if not necessarily
carefully placed into the empty post sockets during the abandonment of the site.
In addition to the finds of ceramics, the postholes were also found to contain
worked stones, which included a saddle quern fragment, a whetstone, and other
stones which had been used as pestles for grinding; another posthole was found
to contain a cassiterite pebble. There must be significance in the fact that all the
stone artefacts, and the cassiterite pebble, had been broken before deposition.
Although the assemblage is small, such uniformity in non-completeness has not
been observed in Cornish Bronze Age structures elsewhere. The cassiterite pebble
was also of interest as such pebbles would not have occurred naturally on the site
and must have been obtained from a stream or river and brought to the structure.
It could, of course, have been crushed and ground down to produce ore, and much
of the stonework assemblage would have been suitable for such a purpose. The
whetstone could also have been used for the sharpening of finished copper-alloy
objects. The inclusion of these finds might suggest that they were not chance losses
and, as will be discussed below in relation to Roundhouse 1, the items chosen
for inclusion in abandonment contexts could reflect the use or biography of the
building or perhaps the activities which the person who occupied it might have
been engaged in. Either way the selected artefacts might have been associated with
conveying a biography of the place.
172
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
As will be discussed below, the abandonment of structures, especially
roundhouses, with deposition of occupation-related material and more finelyworked objects, reached its peak after about 1500 cal BC and continued to around
1200 cal BC with the ritualized abandonment of the Middle Bronze Age hollowset roundhouses that are found across the lowlands of Cornwall (for example,
Nowakowski 2001; Jones, forthcoming a). The infilling of postholes associated
with Structure 1, however, indicates that the planned abandonment of ‘domestic’
structures was already taking place before circa 1500 cal BC.
The setting of Structure 1
The local context of Structure 1 is uncertain. The rather limited evidence from
plant macrofossils and charcoal from the current and previous environmental
analysis has suggested that during the Early Bronze Age woodland resources were
still available, with oak and hazel being common in the archaeological record
(Gossip and Jones 2007, 22; chapter 9, above). At the same time, hazelnuts are
still found in occupation contexts, and it is not until the Middle Bronze Age
that cereals become more common in the archaeological record. However, there
are some indications that cultivation may have taken place in the surrounding
landscape rather earlier. In Structure 1, posthole [19] produced a single hulled
wheat grain and just outside the post-ring, pit [23] produced a small quantity of
hulled wheat grains (chapter 8). Several of the Early Bronze Age pits excavated in
2002 were also found to contain small amounts of charred grain (Gossip and Jones
2007, 22) and the saddle quern fragment from Structure 1 may have been used
to grind cereals (chapter 4). Limited evidence for earlier Bronze Age cultivation
has been found elsewhere in Cornwall. At Gwithian, sherds of Beaker pottery may
have been incorporated into the manuring of fields, and as noted above structure
1642 appeared to be associated with a field system (Nowakowski et al 2007). The
remaining evidence is much more scanty. A large pit [44] at Portreath on the
north Cornish coast, for example, which is likely to have held a standing stone,
produced a small quantity of cultivated cereal grains (Reynolds 2006). In the De
Lank valley on Bodmin Moor traces of later Early Bronze Age cultivation were
identified in the pollen record (Jones and Tinsley 2000-1). Across the broader
South West region (Devon and Somerset) the environmental record indicates an
increase in cultivation from the middle centuries of the second millennium cal BC
(for example, Wilkinson and Straker 2008).
In fact, indications of cultivation in southern Britain before circa 1500 cal BC
are generally still quite scarce (Yates 2007, 111-12). Prior to 2000 cal BC, there is
evidence for cultivation during the Beaker-using period in some parts of southern
Britain, including areas of the Wessex chalk and the Upper Thames Valley (Gingell
1992, 155; Evans 1990; Evans et al 1993, 188-9; Whittle 1997, 7; Whittle et al
1993, 232). Nonetheless, although settlements in some parts of southern Britain
may have been surrounded by relatively extensive cultivated areas (Allen 2005),
it is also possible that agriculture during this period was of an episodic or shortterm character, as there is little evidence for formal field systems with well-defined
boundaries around them (Thomas 1999, 200; Brück 2000). Indeed, Andrew
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
173
Lawson (2007, 172-3) has argued that on the Wessex chalk shifting episodes of
pastoralism rather than cultivation may have been the principal mode of subsistence
during the latter part of the third millennium cal BC, and this may have persisted
into the second millennium cal BC.
However, as with the identification of domestic structures, there are few securely
dated indicators of cultivation during the earlier part of the second millennium cal
BC in southern Britain, with evidence taking the form of small amounts of grain
recovered from pits and postholes and cereal impressions on pottery (Case and
Whittle 1982; Halsted 2005, 23; Morigi et al 2011, 317-20). As discussed above,
this paucity is partly attributable to the paucity of well-defined settlement sites and
also because of the lack of securely dated field systems belonging to the first half of
the second millennium cal BC.
The limited data from Tremough are, therefore, broadly similar to what has
been found elsewhere both in Cornwall and across much of southern Britain. On
current evidence we might envisage significant tree coverage in the wider vicinity
of Structure 1, with some cultivation, perhaps on shifting plots, and this would be
consistent with the probable short duration of Structure 1 itself.
Air Structure 1
Excavated areas
Early Bronze Age Pit Group
Intervention
prior to 2008
Tremough College
complex
Structure 66
Excavated areas
2008 onwards
0
This map is based upon the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office
© Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Cornwall Council (100049047) 2014
50
metres
Figure 11.4 Early Bronze Age features.
174
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
In addition to cultivation, however, the relationship between Structure 1 and
other forms of Early Bronze Age activity on the site also needs to be considered.
There was evidence from the 2002 investigations that other activities, including
the digging of pits and the construction of a free-standing post-ring, were also
taking place in a different part of the Tremough plateau during the Early Bronze
Age (Figure 11.4). This raises questions about the organization of space and
the relationship between Structure 1 and other practices which were of broadly
contemporary date.
Formal ceremonial activity was identified at the western end of the plateau,
approximately 170m to the south west of Structure 1 (Gossip and Jones 2007,
11). In this area was located Structure 66 (Figure 11.5), the earliest of a series of
five timber circles that spanned most of the second millennium cal BC. It was
erected around 2200-1950 cal BC and the posts were probably renewed around
1750-1550 cal BC. The post-ring was 6m in diameter and was made up of six
surviving posts, the eastern side having been removed by a later field division.
Some evidence for formalized deposition was indicated by an unweathered firedclay block, possibly part of a mould associated with metalworking, which had been
placed into a posthole on the western side of the ring.
The earliest phase of this post-ring appears to have been associated with a
group of six nearby pits which had been backfilled with charcoal, burnt stone,
hazelnut shells and a small quantity of charred grain. Other than these pits, there
was no evidence for any occupation-related activity. It is possible that the pits,
which date to circa 2200-1900 cal BC were contemporary with the construction
of Structure 66, or activities associated with its earliest usage. However, the
subsequent renewal of the posts within Structure 66 means that it is likely to have
Figure 11.5 Photograph of structure 66 taken from the south-west.
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
175
been standing for a long period of time, and was possibly for some period at least
contemporary with Structure 1.
It is therefore of interest that Structure 1, a domestic building, was built at
a respectful distance from the ceremonial post-ring, and appears to have set a
precedent for the distancing of formal ceremonial activity from settlement areas
which continued into the Middle Bronze Age (below). The two structures were,
however, at no great distance from one another and there were clearly some
conceptual links between them. As has already been discussed, this is unsurprising
because it is unlikely that communities in the Early Bronze Age would have made
rigid distinctions between ritual and secular activity (for example, Bradley 2005)
and we might therefore expect there to be overlaps between formal ceremonial
activity and ritualized activity occurring in inhabited structures.
The first area of overlap lies with the architecture of both structures. Both
comprised a setting of posts with a similar diameter. This marks a departure from
previous Early and Late Neolithic activity on the site which was associated with
amorphous groups of pits (Gossip and Jones 2007, 7-10). As circular structures
of similar size, they may have embodied shared symbolism and aside from the
differences in use – one as a short-term residence and the other for less frequent but
much longer-term ceremonial activity, there are likely to have been connections
between the sites.
These connections would have included the materiality of the timber used for
the posts and any symbolic properties that the wood they were made from was
perceived to have had (Townend 2007; Aldhouse-Green 2000; Coles 1998). The
selection of suitable timber, the felling of trees, the cutting of the posts and the
digging of postholes to hold the timbers would also have involved shared techniques.
Anthropological study reveals that the construction process is frequently one which
is punctuated by ritualized actions and events and that the timbers themselves
may have been chosen for their symbolic properties (for example, Kis-Jovak et al
1988, 46-9; Turton 1978; Waterson 1997, chapter 6); this might also have been
true for the construction of Structure 1 and structure 66.
There may also have been shared underlying symbolic associations which
were associated with their circularity. The post-rings represent the imposition of
standing architecture onto the plateau and the adoption of the circular archetype,
which became the prevalent form for both ceremonial monuments and domestic
structures across the British Isles from the later Neolithic to the end of the Iron
Age (for example, Bradley 2012, 189-203). In the end, the major difference
between Structure 1 and structure 66 was their final wrapping (Richards 2014a).
At Structure 1, the post-ring was sheathed by a roof and walling, which would
have covered the posts forming the superstructure of the building. At structure 66
the posts were left open and the boundary remained permeable, but the symbolic
importance of the posts and their circular arrangement may have been significant
in both structures.
In addition to these architectural links, both structures also produced evidence
of formalized deposition. As we have seen, in Structure 1 this included the
inclusion of pottery, hammerstones, a whetstone and a pebble of cassiterite. As
176
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
noted above, much of the stonework assemblage would not be out of place in
association with the working of metal ores. It may therefore be of significance that,
the only deliberately deposited find from structure 66 was also likely to have been
a mould associated with metalworking. Both structures may therefore have made
links to a magical transformative process that turned stones into metal objects. In
the case of Structure 1, it is possible that the actual process of transformation took
place there or nearby, or that the inhabitant was associated with those practices. In
the case of structure 66, the symbolism of transformation may have been referred to.
It is also worth noting at this juncture, that just as structure 66 seems to have
been the first in a series of timber ceremonial monuments which spanned much
of the second millennium cal BC, so Structure 1 represents the first of a series
of structures with associations with metalworking, including Roundhouse 1 and
to a lesser degree, the Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1 (below). Although this could
be argued to be coincidental, Bronze Age metalworking sites have seldom been
identified in Cornwall or elsewhere in the South West peninsula (see below), and
to have three successive Bronze Age sites with metalworking associations seems a
little fortuitous. Is it perhaps, therefore, possible that, just as some areas became
associated with burial monuments, that a landscape biography or oral tradition
had accrued, which associated Tremough with a place of metalworkers? If correct,
this would be significant because it would mean that not only did ritual traditions
continue, albeit in a transformed context, from the Early Bronze Age into the
Middle Bronze Age (Jones 2008; and below), but also that specialized practices
associated with place may have done so as well.
Structure 1, a summary
In summary, Structure 1 was almost certainly a short-lived building which
belongs within a wider tradition of ephemeral buildings, including the example
from Gwithian in Cornwall and those at Stackpole Warren and Yarnton. These
date to before the middle second millennium cal BC, at which time domestic
architecture in the form of roundhouses became more visible in the landscape. It
is not certain whether it was linked with a wider occupation involving activities,
such as pastoralism, or if it was sited in an area which had been cultivated. It is,
however, possible that it was linked with seasonal episodes of occupation. The
finds recovered from abandonment contexts suggest that it could have associated
with the working of metal ores, or at least have been used by someone who had
undertaken such tasks.
It is also probable that Structure 1 was erected in an area which was the focus
for activity over a longer period than the life of the building. It is likely to have
been contemporary with ceremonial activities associated with structure 66 and
both structures in their own ways may have contributed to the way that the plateau
was used by subsequent generations.
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
177
Middle Bronze Age settlement
Two Middle Bronze Age roundhouses were uncovered during the 2011 excavations.
Although Middle Bronze Age post-rings had been identified in 2002 (Gossip and
Jones 2007, 14-22), they were the first houses of this period to be discovered
on the plateau. Both were of the hollow-set type, around 20 of which are found
across the lowlands of Cornwall, including sites at Trevisker and Trethellan,
Callestick and Trevilson (ApSimon and Greenfield 1972; Nowakowski 1991; Jones
1998-9a; Jones and Taylor 2004). They have been found across the lowlands from
Boden on the Lizard (Gossip 2008c) to Scarcewater, located on the edge of the
St Austell granite (Jones and Taylor 2010, 6-26) and the Carnon Gate roundhouse,
situated near to the Carnon River (Gossip and Jones 2008), which is the closest to
Tremough, lying approximately 6 kilometres to the north west higher up the river
system, or around 5 kilometres as the crow flies across land (Figure 11.6).
Figure 11.6 The distribution of hollow-set roundhouses in Cornwall.
178
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Roundhouse 1: A ‘life’ history
Many anthropological and archaeological writers have stressed the central
importance of roundhouses for the reproduction of later prehistoric communities,
arguing that these could act as places of socialization, embody cosmologies in their
designs and can even be considered as being animate in their own right (Tringham
1991; Parker Pearson 1996; Waterson 1997, chapter 6; Brück 1999a; Bender et al
2007). These and other works have been highly influential in the interpretation
of prehistoric roundhouses. The idea that houses had life-cycles has also been
an important concept, and Ruth Tringham (1995) has highlighted the fact that
buildings have life histories involving interactions with people which go beyond
mere ‘use-lives’. These interactions can begin with the selection of the building
materials and the rituals undertaken during their construction, to their use in daily
life over time and through to the way that they are left (Turton 1977; Brück 2001;
Townend 2007; Smythe 2013, 12-20; Jones, forthcoming a). In other words,
houses can have biographies which are as rich as those of their inhabitants, and
the two can become interwoven with one another. The following section therefore
considers Roundhouse 1 in relation to other excavated houses in the South West
peninsula, but also in regard to it having had its own biography, especially in
relation to its abandonment.
Form and use
Roundhouse 1 is similar in size to other excavated examples The 9m diameter
of the house hollow, is for example comparable to both roundhouse 1250 at
Scarcewater and the Trevalga roundhouse on the north Cornish coast (Jones and
Taylor 2010, 11; Jones and Quinnell 2014). The architecture is also consistent
with other excavated lowland roundhouses, like those at Trethellan or Scarcewater
(Nowakowski 1991; Jones and Taylor 2010, 16-26). It was a hollow-set structure,
within which a ring of posts were set to support the roof. The surviving house
hollow was not as deep as in some other structures, but the site is likely to have
seen a degree of truncation as a result of post-prehistoric ploughing and this may
have reduced the depth. There was no surviving evidence of walling. This would
have been located within the inside edge of the hollow cut, but it may again have
been removed, either through subsequent ploughing or as part of the demolition
process. The cut for the hollow was, however, deeper along part of the northwestern side of the roundhouse and some stones were present here, which may
have represented displaced walling material. Elsewhere there is evidence that house
walling was removed as part of the abandonment process, as at Callestick, for
example, where the wall had been pushed into the house interior (Jones 1998-9a).
Internal features, in the form of stakeholes and postholes, were frequent but
difficult to disentangle in terms of their functions and relationships. There were,
however, two hearths north of the centre of the roundhouse and these had been
heated to such an extent that the natural had been scorched and a layer of tamped
clay (799) had been partially burnt by the temperature of the fire. It is extremely
rare for floor layers to survive, and where they do it is often because of the proximity
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
179
of the hearth, as at Trevalga and Boden (Jones and Quinnell 2014; Gossip 2008c).
Presumably this floor originally extended across the remainder of the structure but
had not survived due to wear and tear and erosion by feet.
Despite having sunken interior floors, typically there are relatively few
occupation-related layers and comparatively little is known about daily life. As
we shall see below, much of what has been written about Middle Bronze Age
roundhouses has in fact concerned their abandonment. Fortunately, we know
rather more about the function of Roundhouse 1 than is the case with almost
any other excavated roundhouse in the south west of Britain. The artefacts from
the roundhouse were all in abandonment contexts and this will be discussed
below; nonetheless, the strands from the artefactual assemblage combine to give
an indication of activities which took place inside the building. The most obvious
indicators of possible use were the nine bivalve stone moulds which had been
used to make pins and socketed tools (for example, axes, palstaves and chisels)
(chapter 5). The stonework assemblage also included other items of worked stone
including pestles / hammerstones which could have been used for metalworking.
However, there was no slag, which implies that they were being used on finished
metals, which leave far less debris. By themselves these artefacts need not have
been linked to the roundhouse. However, droplets of copper-alloy were recovered
from soil samples taken from inside the roundhouse and geochemical analysis also
revealed raised levels of copper and tin within the house and around hearth [748]/
[774] (chapter 6). Taken together, these results provide convincing evidence for
Roundhouse 1 having been used for metalworking. The significance of this will be
discussed below.
The entrance was not clearly defined, although it seems likely that it was on the
south eastern side. A roughly southern facing entrance is common to many of the
Middle Bronze Age roundhouses found across the South West peninsula (Mercer
1970; Jones and Taylor 2010, 70; Jones and Quinnell 2011; Butler 1997, 126)
and beyond (Barrett et al 1991, 183-95; Drewett 1982; Ladle and Woodward
2009, 365). There has been much debate over the reasons for this orientation
of doorways, which range from an embodiment of cosmological ideas towards
the rising sun on one hand (Parker Pearson 1996; Parker Pearson and Sharples
1999, 16-21), to the maximization of daylight on the other (Drewett 1982), with
other scholars arguing that there is more in the way of regional variation than some
commentators have allowed for (Webley 2007; Pope 2007).
In Cornwall, it is certainly the case that any part of the southern horizon seems
to have been preferred. At Callestick, for example, the doorway faced south west,
at Scarcewater the doors of all three roundhouses opened to the south and at the
Trevalga roundhouse, on the north Cornish coast, the entrance opened to the south
east. There are also rare examples where the orientation was entirely reversed: the
entrance of Bosiliack house 8 (Jones and Quinnell 2011) in West Penwith faced
north to Carn Galva, a prominent landscape feature.
Nonetheless, it is evident that in most instances cosmological factors appear to
have been paramount. At Trevalga the south east-facing doorway of the roundhouse
opened directly against the side of the hill. As a consequence, the interior of the
180
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
roundhouse would have been gloomy, dependent for light on the dull glow from
the hearth; in this case the orientation led to the house becoming flooded (Jones
and Quinnell 2014, 139). Likewise, at Bosiliack, most of the 13 roundhouses in the
settlement, which were arranged in two arcs around a central space, did not open
into this but instead faced south (Jones and Quinnell 2011). Taken together, these
examples imply that a roughly south-facing entrance was preferred in the Middle
Bronze Age. There are likely to have been long-standing cosmological traditions
affecting the orientation of doorways, although high-precision alignments do not
seem to have been important and at times other factors such as the referencing of
landscape features could override accepted practice.
A lengthy period of occupation is also potentially indicated by the radiocarbon
determinations, which place Roundhouse 1 between 1500 cal BC and 1300 cal
BC, with the weight of the dating falling in the period 1430-1350 cal BC. This
could imply that it was used for a century, although it is uncertain how much of
that span it actually stood for. Although the opportunity has not arisen to apply
Bayesian techniques to dates from hollow-set structures, potentially lengthy ‘lifespans’ are indicated by the radiocarbon determinations which have been obtained
from other excavated lowland roundhouses in Cornwall. For example, roundhouse
1500 at Scarcewater seems to have stood for up to three centuries (Jones and
Taylor 2010, 70). In other instances the duration was far shorter, as at Scarcewater
roundhouse 1100, which appears to have been a single-phased building (ibid). In
the case of Roundhouse 1, there are indications that repairs had been made to it, as
several of the posts seem to have been replaced. Again, this is something which has
been found elsewhere in Cornwall, with, for example, roundhouses at Trethellan,
Boden and Scarcewater being renewed (Nowakowski 1991; Jones and Taylor 2010;
Gossip 2008c).
In Cornwall lowland house renewals seem to have taken place in two contrasting
ways. The first, as at Scarcewater roundhouse 1500, involved the wholesale removal
of the superstructure followed by the laying of a new floor in the hollow, and
then the construction of a new superstructure. The second method was less drastic
and involved the replacement of posts, as at Scarcewater house 1250. This later
technique seems closer to what occurred at Roundhouse 1.
The contrasts in the ways buildings were treated and renewed (or not) are
of interest because they may reflect the individual biographies of the structures,
especially if they were in some way considered to be living entities in their own
right (Waterson 1997), and / or tied into the biographies of their occupants (Jones
and Taylor 2010, 72-6; Jones, forthcoming a). Given that moulds and the copperalloy artefacts were recovered from the roundhouse it is very possible that this was
reflecting the biography of the occupants or of the house itself. This point will be
returned to below.
Longevity of settlement is not confined to the lowlands; extended use of
structures has also been identified in the uplands of Cornwall (Jones and Quinnell
2011), where stone-walled roundhouses appear to have been used seasonally
or episodically over several centuries. Taken together with the radiocarbon
determinations from lowland roundhouses it implies that during the Middle
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
181
Bronze Age, in Cornwall at least, there was a developing process of communities
marking attachment to place through domestic architecture.
It is also of interest that Cornish roundhouses appear to have been occupied for
far longer than their counterparts in central southern England, which seem to have
been lived in for far shorter periods of time, with little evidence for renewal (Brück
2001). Longevity of settlement has, however, also been indicated by radiocarbon
dating of settlements elsewhere in Britain and Ireland, including at Corrstown,
Co Derry, in Northern Ireland, where many of the houses had been rebuilt on
repeated occasions, and at Ronaldsway on the Isle of Man, which appears to have
been occupied over several centuries (Ginn and Rathbone 2012, 233; Rathbone
2013). This implies that different temporal traditions of roundhouse occupation
existed across Britain.
In common with many of the hollow-set roundhouses which have been
excavated across Cornwall over the last 40 years, the Tremough roundhouses were
part of a small settlement, which in Cornwall typically ranges from two to six
structures (ApSimon and Greenfield 1972; Nowakowski 1991; Jones 1998-9a;
Jones and Taylor 2010, 69-70). Paired examples are quite common as at Penhale
Moor and Trevisker (Nowakowski and Johns 2015; ApSimon and Greenfield
1972). This arrangement is comparable with other Middle Bronze Age settlements
across Britain and Ireland, where the majority of settlements are made up of small
numbers of roundhouses, scattered pits and four-post structures (Ellison 1981;
Brück 2000).
The lack of diversity in the settlement record and similarity of the material
assemblages across roundhouses has been argued to suggest that there was not
much in way of social stratification during the Middle Bronze Age (Brück 2000;
Davis 2012; Ginn 2012, 352). Overall there is little to separate any of the excavated
roundhouse settlements found across Cornwall in terms of wealth. The only real
difference is a contrast between lowland settlements, which tend to produce larger
artefactual assemblages, and upland settlements which have relatively fewer finds.
This difference may, however, represent differences in settlement occupation, with
moorland houses perhaps only being used intermittently at certain times of the
year or intentionally abandoned for short periods, and then re-used, so that their
biographies are very different to lowland roundhouses (for example, Jones and
Quinnell 2011).
As only one of the two roundhouses at Tremough was excavated, however, it
is not possible to be certain whether both had been used for the same purposes,
or if, for example, one was a dwelling and the other a workshop or ancillary
building, which has been found elsewhere, as at Penhale Moor (Nowakowski and
Johns 2015). We do not know whether Roundhouse 1 was also used as a domestic
residence. It was associated with a range of ceramics but these were all derived
from abandonment contexts. It is possible that it was the residence of one or
more metalworkers who lived with their tools, or that the adjacent Roundhouse 2
was the domestic building and Roundhouse 1 was used solely as a place where
metal was worked. Anthropological and historic studies provide evidence that
metalworking was often considered to be a magical practice and that it often took
182
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
place in secrecy, with its practitioners living separately from other members of the
community, and this could have been the case at Roundhouse 1 (below).
There were very few external features which can confidently be identified as
being contemporary with Roundhouse 1. A few postholes were located outside the
roundhouse, but these were devoid of finds. However, running out of the southern
side of the stripped area a north east – south west aligned spread of tightly packed
stones (105) was uncovered (Figure 2.6). This measured approximately 5.5m wide
and 9m long and may represent the ploughed-down remains of a stony bank,
perhaps comparable with that found near to the settlement at Trethellan Farm
(Nowakowski 1991). Against the eastern side of the feature was a dark clayish
silt soil layer (106), measuring 30m long and 2m wide. This perhaps represents a
preserved buried soil or possibly a shallow ditch. Sherds of abraded or moderately
abraded Bronze Age Trevisker pottery were recovered from both within stony bank
(105) and soil layer (106). Like Roundhouse 2, these features were not excavated
and were preserved in situ. It is, however, reasonable to suggest that the area to the
south of the roundhouses was enclosed, and we might envisage either small plots or
fields, comparable to those found elsewhere in association with Middle Bronze Age
settlements in south west Britain (for example, Nowakowski et al 2007; Balaam
et al 1982; Fleming 1988). It is possible that layer (106) could have been the fill of
a shallow ditch, associated with bank (105), but it is also tempting to see it rather
as a midden-rich soil which survived in the lee of the bank. Comparable soils have
been found in Bronze Age field systems elsewhere, where they have been taken to
be produced by manuring and composting with domestic waste (Pryor 1998, 118;
Nowakowski 2009). It is also of interest to note that the ceramics within this soil
layer were far more abraded than those from Roundhouse 1 (chapter 3), which
might again be consistent with a ploughsoil assemblage.
Leaving the roundhouse
As is commonly the case in Cornish roundhouses, most of the artefacts associated
with Roundhouse 1 were recovered either from deposits inside postholes or were
found in backfill layers which had entered the houses when they were being
abandoned. Indeed, as a consequence of this, many of the discussions about
roundhouses in Cornwall have focused on the ritualized patterns of roundhouse
abandonment, rather than evidence for occupation (for example, Nowakowski
2001; Jones 1998-9a; forthcoming a). At the same time, it has become apparent
that roundhouses appear in the archaeological record at the very time that evidence
for ceremonial construction and barrow building goes into a decline, and several
writers have suggested that the settlement may have become the focus for both
formal ritual and ritualized practices as well as other events such as feasting at
a community level (for example, Barrett et al 1991; Brück 1995; Needham and
Spence 1996).
However, as discussed in relation to Neolithic pits above, there has been some
questioning of the way in which deposits in prehistoric settlements have been
attributed to ritual activity and what is actually meant by terms such as ‘structured
deposition’ and ‘ritual’. Brudenell and Cooper (2008), for example, have argued
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
183
that what have been termed ‘ritual deposits’, such as artefacts found within pits
in settlements, could have been produced through taphonomic processes. They
suggest that other practices such as middening may account for the deposits that
pottery and other artefacts are found in, as much as their symbolic treatment. It has
also been argued (for example, Brück 1999b) that there are problems with the way
that many archaeologists define ritual as activities which are out of the ordinary
or ‘non-functional’, and separate it out from what is considered to be ‘functional’
within the settlement, such as the grinding of grain. Brück suggests that these
distinctions are unlikely to have been recognized in prehistory and actions such
as the deposition of artefacts would have been viewed as practical actions which
produced specific, pre-conceived and sought-after results (even if these were only
broadly framed in terms of, say, warding off the potential ‘bad luck’ which might
accrue if the actions were not performed). It is therefore incorrect to see ritualized
activity, such as the actions and procedures undertaken at the abandonment of a
roundhouse, as being less rational than a task such as planting wheat; both were
carried out to achieve desired outcomes.
Following on from Brück’s work, Richard Bradley (2003; 2005) has argued
that ritual and domestic activities are likely to have been deeply interwoven and
not easily separable from one another. Adrian Chadwick (2012) has suggested in
relation to later prehistoric settlements that both informal depositing of ‘rubbish’
and ‘special placed deposits’ undertaken as ritualized acts were not distinct
from each other, but were merely different points on a continuum of practices
all influenced to a greater or lesser degree by social and cosmological beliefs. He
has stressed the need for archaeologists to develop methodologies to identify and
account for all acts of patterned deposition. Seen in this light, Roundhouse 1 could
have been used by a metalworker, associated with ‘magical practices’ and still have
been a dwelling.
In addition to the identification of ritualized deposits associated with settlement
abandonment, it also apparent that in the South West region traditions which
had taken place at cairns and barrows during the Early Bronze Age subsequently
informed practices associated with house abandonment (Jones 2008; forthcoming
a; Bender et al 2007). For example, evidence from recent excavations makes it
apparent that many hollow-set roundhouses underwent episodes of transformation
at the end of their occupation: they were monumentalised and in many cases
would have ended-up looking similar to Early Bronze Age cairns or barrows. At
Scarcewater, for example, roundhouse, 1250 became mounded over and another
roundhouse 1500 had a substantial cairn-ring built around the edge of the
infilled house-hollow (Jones and Taylor 2010, 76-77; Jones, forthcoming a). The
resemblances between abandoned houses and earlier ceremonial monuments are
likely to have been intentional and drew on earlier Bronze Age ritual traditions
(Jones 2008). It should, however, be noted that just as in the Early Bronze Age
there were substantive differences in the biographies of creation of barrows and
cairns (Jones 2005) specific patterns of house abandonment differed between sites
and there were visual differences between the final form of abandoned houses. In
other words there was no blueprint for leaving hearth and home.
184
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
With these points in mind the abandonment of Roundhouse 1 will be
considered. In particular we will seek to establish a ‘biography’ (cf Tringham 1995)
for the abandonment process of the house and will consider the contexts within
which artefacts were found as well as their condition. Were they old or new and, if
old, how might they relate to the biography of the house?
The destruction of the roundhouse follows a pattern which has resonances with
other sites across lowland areas of Cornwall, although there is perhaps less evidence
for the patterning of artefacts which has been found at some roundhouses. At
Callestick (Jones 1998-9a), for example, pottery had been placed behind the wall
of the structure and the entrance filled with quartz blocks. There is also rather less
evidence for structured deposition than was found at the ceremonial post-rings to
the north (Gossip and Jones 2007, 35; and below). Nonetheless, several significant
artefacts were recovered from Roundhouse 1 and there is some indication of spatial
patterning.
In common with, other hollow-set roundhouses, the destruction of
Roundhouse 1 commenced with the removal of the superstructure. Thatch would
have been taken off and any walling demolished. As noted above, in some instances
walling has been found pushed inside the house-hollow, as at Callestick (Jones
1998-9a). In Roundhouse 1, however, aside from a few stones on the western side
of the structure, which could be displaced walling, there was little indication for
one. The posts were removed from their sockets. Unlike some other structures,
such as the Trevilson roundhouse, near St Newlyn East, there is no evidence for
any burning of structural timbers (Jones and Taylor 2004), and it is possible that
the posts could have been left to rot off-site or even reincorporated into other
structures. Also by contrast with other structures, such as roundhouses 1250 and
1500 at Scarcewater (Jones and Taylor 2010, 74-6), the empty post sockets seem
to have been less generally used as receptacles for the formalized deposition of
artefacts. There were, however, a few exceptions: two of the three copper-alloy
objects recovered, the spiral ring and the pin fragments, were both located in the
fills of postholes (Figure 11.7). The spiral finger ring was located close to the
entranceway in posthole [705] and the copper-alloy pin diametrically opposite in
posthole [785]. The metalwork finds will be discussed in greater detail below, but
at this point it worth noting that their distribution creates a north west – south east
axis which was also mirrored by finds within several of the ceremonial post-ring
structures investigated during previous work at Tremough (Gossip and Jones 2007,
34-5; and below). Interestingly, both of these postholes also contained pottery,
although this may have entered the empty postholes accidentally – parts of the
same vessels were also recovered from within the general infill layers found across
the house, from which most of the pottery and the stonework were recovered
(chapters 3 and 4).
It is also noteworthy that, by contrast with other excavated roundhouses in
Cornwall, comparatively little worked stone was recovered from the site. Many
Middle Bronze Age roundhouses, including those at Trethellan, Callestick,
Trevilson and Scarcewater, have produced quantities of worked stone, especially in
the form of querns (or fragments of ) and mullers used for the processing of grain;
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
185
Figure 11.7 Photograph showing the copper-alloy spiral ring which had been placed into the
top of posthole [705].
these are often found as ‘placed deposits’ in pits and postholes (Nowakowski 1991;
Jones and Taylor 2004; Jones 1998-9a; Jones and Taylor 2010, 23; Watts 2014,
84-91). The stonework assemblage (excluding the moulds) from Roundhouse 1
includes only one muller fragment, however, and the reminder of the assemblage
took the form of heavy-duty cobble hammerstones, suited to the breaking down
of ore for metalworking (chapter 4, above), and two whetstones, which may have
been used in the final stages of production for sharpening the cutting edges of
metal objects.
After the posts had been removed and a few artefacts formally deposited into
them, the hollow was backfilled, and the vast majority of the artefacts came from
the actual infill deposits which had been spread across the interior of the site
(Figure 11.8). The greater part of the finds, including the ceramics, must have
entered the hollow without much formal placing of artefacts occurring. Again,
however, there is a noticeable pattern with a significant group of finds. All of the
moulds were found at the bottom of the infill and were situated at the back of the
house in the north-west quadrant close to the hearth. The geochemical analysis
(chapter 6) of samples taken from this hearth indicates that it had been used for
metalworking and it seems reasonable to suggest that a symbolic connection was
being made between the part of the roundhouse where the magical activity of
transforming ore into metal took place and the moulds which were a selection of
the metalworker’s historic working equipment (below).
The majority of the stonework generally, and the pottery from the infill deposits
also came from the northern half of the house, although as noted above there was
little evidence for careful placing of pottery, and in part the greater number of
186
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Quadrant 1
Overlying deposit (273)
P4, P6, P7, P9, S2, S3.
Quadrant 2
Overlying deposit (274)
[796]
P8
402
400
[785]
413
P4
[774]
401
6
7
(278) S4
4
2
[286]
3169 ± 29 BP 1501-1400 BC
(95%) (SUERC-47292)
3
8
9
5
1
(799)
[705]=[725]
3065 ± 30 BP 1415-1252 BC
(95%) (SUERC-47297)
406
[715]
S1
[750]
403
P3
[730/710]
[701]
3109 ± 29 BP 1441-1407 BC
(95%) (SUERC-47293)
P3
[746]
Quadrant 4
Overlying deposit (275)
Quadrant 3
Overlying deposit (280)
P3, P5
3091 ± 27 BP 1429-1297 BC
(95%) (SUERC-47298)
Pottery
Later linear gulley
Moulds by small find (sf) number
1 = 410
3 = 408
5 = 409
2 = 407
4 = 411
6 = 414
0
7 = (273)
8 = 412a
9 = 412b
5
metres
Stone
Burning/scorched clay
Worked pebble
Stakeholes (777)
Baked clay weight
Stone
Moulds
Clay surface
Copper Alloy
Figure 11.8 Plan showing the distribution of artefacts in Roundhouse 1.
artefacts in this area could be accounted for by the fact that the infill survived to a
greater depth over the northern portion of the site.
The infill deposit is itself of interest, as it produced most of the ceramics
(Figure 11.9), and therefore raises the question of what it was and its formation.
As we have seen, there was some evidence of a surviving soil horizon in the form
of layer (106) alongside the remains of stony bank (105). The finds from this
layer included abraded sherds of Trevisker pottery, which it was suggested possibly
derived from the improvement of the soil with midden-derived material. The
majority of the sherds of pottery from cut features in Roundhouse 1 were in a
fresh condition but most sherds from the infilling have some varied abrasion,
suggesting that they were fresh when deposited but subsequently suffered the
effects of groundwater and bioturbation (chapter 3). Sherds from the same vessels
were found in both the cut features and the infill deposits, which means that
theoretically they should have been in a similar condition. Despite being fresher
than those from soil layer (106), the sherds from Roundhouse 1 may also have
been derived from a midden deposit. The difference between them may have been
that those found within the roundhouse had been in a stockpile which was bound
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
187
Figure 11.9 Photograph showing
in situ pottery spread in
Roundhouse 1.
for use as infill material. Some differentiation between the two assemblages is also
suggested by the over-representation of rim sherds in the infill material which
could also be indicative of differential storage prior to deposition (chapter 3). It is
therefore of interest that the analysis of the pottery from Roundhouse 1 suggested
that, despite there being a large ceramic assemblage, comparatively few, perhaps
only eight vessels were actually represented. One possible interpretation for this is
that particular pots were associated with the roundhouse or its occupants and were
stored in a house-associated midden.
Such stockpiles of settlement-generated material could have held their own
symbolism and it is possible that particular midden heaps were associated with
specific houses, containing residues of occupation strongly connected with
events, individuals and the houses themselves. Indeed, Gary Robinson (2013)
has suggested that middens beside houses may have been seen as being ‘living
entities’, associated with fertility and reproduction and intimately associated with
the biography of the household. If this interpretation is correct, it is again possible
to argue that the links between the occupants of Roundhouse 1 and the house
itself were made manifest by the deployment of the midden material during the
abandonment process.
188
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
As we have touched upon above, the most obvious evidence for ritualized
deposition in Roundhouse 1 relates to the deposition of copper-alloy artefacts and
moulds associated with the production of metal items, including pins and socketed
tools. The following section will consider the wider significance of these finds.
Metalworking in the roundhouse and beyond
The likelihood that the building was used for the production of metalwork and
had been abandoned with a degree of formality is of particular interest as actual
metalworking sites are extremely rare in both the Middle Bronze Age and the
Later Bronze Age. A recent survey of 50 sites across the broader South West
region (Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire),
Worcestershire and Berkshire (Skowranek 2007), revealed that only a very small
number of Middle and later Bronze Age settlements have produced any evidence
for metalworking, and in most cases the context was ambiguous. For example,
at Bishops Canning Down, Wiltshire, fragments of casting waste were found in
plough soils over the area of the settlement but not in direct association with the
roundhouses (Gingell 1992, 105-6). At South Lodge, Dorset, a small number of
copper-alloy artefacts were recovered from the enclosure ditch around a roundhouse
settlement, and a clay mould fragment was recovered from the topsoil over the site
(Barrett et al 1991, 144-83).
In the South West peninsula (Devon and Cornwall) evidence has been even
scantier, despite having both abundant Bronze Age settlement sites and the
proximity of sources of tin and copper. There is no evidence for metalworking
taking place within Middle Bronze Age settlements in Devon, and with the possible
exception of the houses at Trevisker (ApSimon and Greenfield 1972), prior to the
excavation of Roundhouse 1 at Tremough, no Middle Bronze Age settlements with
a direct association with metalworking were known in Cornwall at all. Where
evidence has been recovered it took the form of artefacts which were located away
from settlements, or stray stone moulds used in the production of artefacts, as, for
example, at Bodwen near Lanlivery (Pearce 1983; Harris 1977).
Indeed, as Stuart Needham (2007a) has pointed out, in Britain generally, there
is a distinct lack of correlation between the distribution of settlements and that
of metalwork. Metalwork for the most part was deposited in hoards, away from
settlements in other parts of the landscape. In southern and eastern England it
was often deposited in rivers (Bradley 1991; Pryor 2001; Yates 2007), although in
other parts of Britain other forms landscape feature or boundaries were preferred;
for example, in the Severn Valley, bogs appear to have been preferred to rivers
(Mullin 2012).
Moving back to the South West peninsula, there are further localised trends in
the places in which metalwork is found during the later Bronze Age. Susan Pearce
(1976, 21), for example, has identified a group of later Bronze Age metalwork
finds recovered from hilltop sites which had been enclosed in the Neolithic or
subsequently became hillforts, including Woodbury and Hazard Hill in Devon and
Hambledon Hill in Dorset. In Devon wet places may also have been significant:
near Chudleigh Knighton two complete bivalve moulds for a rapier were found
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
189
together in a field close to a river (Tucker 1852) and a bivalve mould for a dirk
was found during a drainage scheme at Holsworthy (Pearce 1983, 443). Both
find-spots could have been associated with the marking of boundaries or with
wet places, and it may have been of significance that all these moulds had been
made from visually distinctive greenstones. Deliberately deposited Middle Bronze
Age metalwork in Devon, however, has also been found in earlier Bronze Age
barrows; at the Lovehayne barrow, for example, where copper-alloy palstaves were
recovered (Pearce 1983, 438; Jones and Quinnell 2008); more recently copperalloy palstaves were recovered during excavations of two Bronze Age cairns at
Hemerdon (AC Archaeology 2013). This implies that in Devon earlier barrows
and cairns had become places of renewed interest to later communities.
By contrast, in Cornwall, only one barrow at Roche has a possible association
with later Bronze Age metalwork, in the form of spearheads and possibly palstaves
(Pearce 1983, 424). Instead, copper-alloy objects have more commonly been found
in other contexts, such as within field boundaries, or at distinctive places in the
landscape. For example, a flanged copper-alloy axe and a palstave were found in an
old field boundary at Veryan on the Roseland, and the Middle Bronze Age palstave
hoard from Mulfra in Penwith, which was found near to the chambered tomb,
may have been deposited within a field bank (Pearce 1983, 427, 416). Middle
Bronze Age metalwork has also been found within streamworks, and includes two
spearheads from Roche and a pin from St Columb (Penhallurick 1986, 196-8).
Finds from the streamworks could be seen as propitiatory offerings, or perhaps
the streamworks themselves, like field walls and banks, acted as boundaries which
needed to be symbolically marked.
Natural landscape features were also marked: for example, hoards of axes
were found on Carn Brea near to an outcrop and beside the Giant’s Rock, near
Polstrong (Mercer 1981; Cornish 1880-81). This strongly suggests that there
were certain accepted, localised behaviours or dispositions associated with the
discard of metalwork across the landscape. However, in addition to the marking of
significant boundaries, small quantities of metalwork and moulds have also been
recovered from roundhouses in Cornwall (Table 11.2, below). Interestingly, with
the exception of Gwithian, the radiocarbon determinations from roundhouses
associated with metalwork or items associated with its production (cassiterite
pebbles and moulds) generally fall in the period 1500-1300 cal BC (Figure 10.3).
These deposits take the form of finds which can be argued to have been special
deposits, as well as those which are more likely to be accidental losses. The racloir
mould from Trevalga, which was buried beneath colluvium, represents an almost
certain case of accidental loss (Jones and Quinnell 2014). Other finds are much less
likely to have resulted from mundane processes associated with the formation of
the archaeological record (cf Brudenell and Cooper 2008); those from Tremough,
Boden and Penhale Moor more probably represent instances where artefacts were
deliberately placed into archaeological contexts (Gossip 2008c; Nowakowski 2001;
Nowakowski and Johns 2015). As such they require greater contextualization and
explanation. The copper-alloy spiral ring from Roundhouse 1, for example, which
was found in the top of posthole [405] could not have entered it when the post was
190
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 11.10 Photograph of the copper-alloy knife from a
posthole within the roundhouse at Boden Vean.
still standing (Figure 11.7). Likewise, the copper-alloy pin fragments within [784]
probably did not enter the posthole when a post was still inside it.
Comparable finds have been made in other roundhouses in Cornwall. The
copper-alloy knife from a posthole at Boden (Figure 11.10) was not a casual loss
as it had been placed behind the packing stones, and the spearhead which had
been driven into the levelling layer at the Penhale Moor roundhouse, structure
1013, required a deliberate thrust which must have been an action beyond casual
discarding of an unwanted item. By contrast, at Trevisker two lumps of copperalloy were found in a posthole within house A and two cassiterite pebbles in
another (Greenfield and ApSimon 1972). As discussed above, the placing of these
artefacts are likely to belong to the part of the continuum of deposition which is
likely to have been highly selective.
More difficult to interpret are those items which are found on the floor of
houses, which could have been deliberately placed or casually deposited at the start
of the abandonment process. The moulds from Tremough Roundhouse 1 are all
parts of bivalve moulds, which are worn, incomplete or broken, and several had
been reworked (chapter 5). None are pristine new pieces which were ready to be
used and all could have been derived from a midden heap and may not have been
deposited with any great formality. The same may be true for the curved fragment
of copper-alloy from the gully.
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
191
Similarly, at Trevisker cassiterite pebbles and a fragment from a copper-alloy
dagger / knife were found in abandonment layers within structure B (ApSimon and
Greenfield 1972) and at Gwithian conjoining fragments of the same mould were
found in two adjoining structures 724 and 730; copper-alloy objects including
three pins were also found in one of them (Nowakowski et al 2007; Table 11.2).
At Trethellan a copper-alloy wire, possibly a bracelet, was found on the floor of
house 2222 (Nowakowski 1991). As was the case at Tremough with the moulds,
these objects could have simply reached the end of their lives as moulds or artefacts
and have been casually discarded. However, as scholars including Joanna Brück
(2001) and Mike Williams (2003) have noted, fragmented items, such as worked
stone are frequently found on the floors of roundhouses and, rather than being
left over from occupation-related activity, may have been deposits associated with
deliberate abandonment.
If it is accepted that metalwork and the moulds used in the production of metal
artefacts were deliberately deposited as part of abandonment rites, the question
becomes one of how to interpret these items. As noted above, Joanna Brück (1999a;
2001) has argued that most Middle Bronze Age roundhouses in central southern
Britain show little sign of renewal and were only occupied for a generation, and she
has made links between the life-cycles of roundhouses and their owners, suggesting
that they were perhaps abandoned at the death of the head of the household.
As discussed, in Cornwall the situation is rather more complex, as houses
frequently show signs of rebuilding and renewal. Nonetheless, as we have also
seen, there is good evidence for the ritualized abandonment of roundhouses
(Nowakowski 1991; Jones, forthcoming a). The deposition of metalwork
within roundhouses was therefore likely to have been part of formalized rites of
abandonment. Certain instances, such as the depositing of the spearhead into the
base of the Penhale Moor roundhouse, could be interpreted as a deliberate ‘killing’
of the house (Nowakowski 2001).
However, one of the major things to stand out is that many of the metalwork
finds are distinctive, highly personalised artefacts, which probably had individual
biographies and associations which would have given them added significance.
Anthropological study has showed that the accrued history of personal items
can be very significant. For example, when discussing necklaces of sperm whale
teeth from Fiji, Gosden and Marshall (1999) described how these items can
gain in prestige because of the patina which they have developed through being
exchanged and touched by individuals. The idea that artefacts had biographies
has been particularly influential in the consideration of Early Bonze Age grave
assemblages, where it has been proposed that some artefacts, including beads,
pottery and metalwork may have been curated heirlooms (Healy and Harding
2004; Woodward et al 2005). However, as Ben Roberts (2007) has argued, Middle
Bronze Age ornaments too, including rings, bracelets and pins were personal items
which may have been worn for considerable periods of time before being separated
from their owners.
Table 11.2 (following page): Copper-alloy artefacts and objects associated with metalworking
from Bronze Age house structures in Cornwall and Devon.
192
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Site name
Form
Dating
Context and associations
Principal references
Tremough,
Roundhouse 1.
Copper-alloy
spiral ring and pin
fragments; nine
stone moulds.
SUERC-47292, 3169±29 BP, 1501-1400 cal BC
SUERC-47293, 3109±29 BP, 1441-1407 cal BC
SUERC-47297, 3065±31 BP, 1415-1252 cal BC
SUERC-47298, 3091±27 BP,1429-1297 BC
Spiral ring had been placed in one posthole, pin fragments in another. Part
of an unidentified copper-alloy object was found within a gully.
Moulds for copper-alloy artefacts of ‘ornament horizon’ type were found on
the floor of the house below infill deposits.
This volume
Boden,
roundhouse.
Copper-alloy knife
blade.
OxA-14517, 3085±30 BP, 1421-1267 cal BC
SUERC-6169, 3055±35 BP, 1411-1223 cal BC
SUERC-6170, 3005±35 BP, 1311-1224 cal BC
Copper-alloy knife blade found within a posthole behind packing stones.
Gossip 2008; 2013
Gwithian,
structures 724 and
730.
Socketed axe mould
and copper-alloy
pins.
SUERC-6162, 2835±35 BP, 1110-909 cal BC
OxA-14525, 2946±29 BP, 1257-1051 cal BC
Two conjoining fragments of stone forming a socketed axe mould from
structures 724 and 730. Two unusual decorated copper-alloy pins and a
third lacking its head were found in 724.
Structure 724 appeared to have (been) burnt down.
Burgess 1976;
Needham 1981, 1-16,
fig 3; Nowakowski et
al 2007
Trethellan, house
2222.
Copper-alloy wire /
bracelet.
UB-3114, 3091±20 BP, 1416-1291 cal BC
Plain copper-alloy wire / bracelet found lying on the floor of house 2222
Phase 1.
Nowakowski 1991,
figs 54,76
Trethellan, house
142/3022.
Copper-alloy object
and mould.
UB-3115, 3091±40 BP, 1491-1265 cal BC
‘Trumpet’-shaped copper-alloy object, phase 2 house 142/3022; mould 519
may be related.
Nowakowski 1991,
figs 54, 75
Penhale Moor,
structure 1013.
Side-looped copperalloy spearhead and
a fragment from a
second spearhead.
NZA-32932, 2874+35 BP, 1200-920 cal BC
A side-looped spearhead was embedded at a 45-degree angle into the
levelling spread within the roundhouse.
A blade fragment from a second spearhead was found in the same levelling
layer.
Nowakowski and
Johns 2015
Trevalga,
roundhouse.
Mould for a racloir.
SUERC-42058, 3105±26 BP, 1434-1312 cal BC
SUERC-42059, 3057±23 BP, 1399-1265 cal BC
SUERC-42064, 3092±31, 1432-1292 cal BC
SUERC-42064, 3092 ±26, 1428-1302 cal BC
Mould was found on floor of house which had been buried beneath
colluvium.
Jones and Quinnell
2014, 64
Trevisker, house
A, house 3 and
structure b.
Fragment of
dagger, cassiterite
pebbles and
mineralized lumps
of copper-alloy.
NPL 134, 3060±95 BP, 1509-1028 cal BC
Lumps of copper-alloy, possibly associated with metalworking, were found
in one posthole within house A; two cassiterite pebbles were found in
another. Cassiterite pebble found in house 3. Further cassiterite pebbles
and a burnt fragment of a knife / dagger were found in the badly damaged
structure B.
ApSimon and
Greenfield 1972,
309-10, 350
Cassiterite pebble
and possible piece
of tin-working slag.
Bronze Age pottery found in roundhouses.
A cassiterite pebble was found in ‘Hut 5B’ and a minute ‘bead’ of possible
tin-working slag was found inside a hearth within ‘Hut 7’.
Fox 1957, 30-1
Cornwall
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
NZA-32931, 2913+35 BP, 1260-1000 cal BC
193
Devon
Dean Moor, hut
5B.
Starting with the metalwork itself, it is noticeable that unlike the material found
in hoards during the Middle Bronze Age, which often takes the form of socketed
axe-heads or items of weaponry, such as spearheads and rapiers (Needham 1988;
Bradley 1991, 123-4), most of the artefacts found in Cornish roundhouses are
singular pieces which could be interpreted as personal ornaments or belongings.
As can be seen in Table 11.2 the artefacts from roundhouses in the South West
include pins, a knife blade, a dagger, a possible bracelet and the spiral ring from
Roundhouse 1.
Interestingly, comparable personal copper-alloy items have also been found
in roundhouses beyond Cornwall, across southern Britain. At Charlton in
Hampshire, a copper-alloy awl, a knife and a palstave were placed on the floor of
a roundhouse and a decorative copper-alloy disc was deposited inside a posthole
during its abandonment (Cunliffe 1970). At Bestwall in Dorset two copperalloy bracelets had been placed into features associated with the abandonment of
roundhouse 1 (Ladle and Woodward 2009, 72). Metalwork has also been found
directly associated with several roundhouses in Sussex (Tapper 2011, 140-43).
House 1 at Black Patch produced two spiral rings which are likely to have been
deposited during the abandonment process (Drewett 1982, 362; Tapper 2011) and
two more of the houses also contained what could be interpreted as personal items,
including a copper-alloy razor in house 3.
Although there does not appear to have been any direct continuity in ornament
forms between the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age (Roberts 2007),
there may have been some continuity of ideas relating to their treatment when
they came to be deposited. As Needham (1988) made clear, for the Early Bronze
Age trinkets or personal items such as pins and daggers are very much associated
with round barrows and burial-related contexts. Such items could have been
markers of identity or status or have carried symbolic properties (for example,
Jones and Quinnell 2013; Fowler 2013); they may have been used to create and
express particular ideas about identity or ‘personhood’ by the community (Fowler
2004, 75). Similarly, in the later Bronze Age items such as pins and bracelets may
have helped construct and define individual identity (Sorensen 2010; Davis 2012,
67). It therefore seems likely that such artefacts held symbolic associations and
had a role as decorative items during the Middle Bronze Age. Indeed, it is very
likely that distinctive items such as spiral rings, bracelets and pins were strongly
associated with bodily adornment (Roberts 2007). It is therefore very possible that
these items were deposited into abandoned roundhouses because they were linked
with their former owners or at least were associated with particular properties which
were considered to be redolent of the house and its occupiers. If roundhouses were
associated with particular heads of household or family members, then perhaps
objects belonging to or resonant of them could have been deposited during the
abandonment process.
Seen in this light, it is possible that the personalized character of copper-alloy
objects deposited into Middle Bronze Age roundhouses during their abandonment
could have had similar connections and served a very similar role as barrowassociated metalwork had done during the earlier Bronze Age.
194
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Moving now to the moulds from Roundhouse 1, these too could have been
associated with individuals who occupied the house. However, although these
items may have been personal possessions they may have been included because
they conveyed information about the biography of the house and the activities
which had taken place within it. As noted above, none of these items was fresh
but were worn and in some cases reused. Rather like querns, which are often
found with abandonment layers and are likely to have been associated with
transformation (Brück 2001; Jones and Taylor 2010; Watts 2014, 56-7), moulds
are also agents of change, in this case linked with the transformation of molten
liquid into cold hard Bronze. Anthropological and historical studies have shown
that such processes are often swathed in secrecy, with metalworking considered to
be a magical practice often with strict gender divisions associated with it (Budd
and Taylor 1995; Herbert 1993; Eliade 1988, 472-4; Helms 1993, 59-60). The
actual process of metalworking may also have created social bonds between those
engaged in metalwork production (O’Mhaolduin 2014) and potentially with the
place where it occurred. Seen in this way, the deposition of the moulds could
represent the deliberate deposition of symbolically charged artefacts associated
with the ‘magical’ transformation of stones into metal, which were closely linked
to the biography of the roundhouse, its occupants and the arcane activities which
took place there.
To conclude, the moulds and copper-alloy artefacts from Roundhouse 1 are
unlikely to have been casual losses but instead more convincingly fall at the more
formalized end of a continuum of possible ritualized activity associated with
the abandonment of the roundhouse. Furthermore, it has been suggested that
metalwork was deposited into the roundhouse because it fulfilled a role comparable
with that which barrow-associated metalwork had done in the Early Bronze Age.
These patterns of deposition are detectable in excavated Middle Bronze Age
roundhouses in the south west and more widely across southern Britain.
The setting of Roundhouse 1
The environmental evidence for the wider landscape setting of Roundhouse 1
and the adjacent Roundhouse 2 is, like that of Structure 1, limited to evidence
from the plant macrofossils and charcoal assemblages. Although still quite low,
greater amounts of cereals are present than in the earlier Bronze Age and there still
appears to have been access to mixed woodland (chapters 8 and 9). Interestingly,
the quantity of charred grains recovered from Roundhouse 1 was less than from
the largest of the timber post-rings identified in previous work at Tremough, which
will be discussed below.
There was also little evidence for daily activity outside the roundhouses. Cut
features outside the roundhouse hollows were quite limited, and except for the
possible buried soil (106), buried land surfaces did not survive. Ditched field
boundaries dating to the second millennium cal BC are rare in the south west
of Britain, and the stony banks found in upland areas such as Bodmin Moor, or
more rarely preserved below colluvium, were more or less absent on the Tremough
site (Johnson and Rose 1994; Jones and Quinnell 2014, 135). Two features did,
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
195
however, indicate that the roundhouses may have been associated with a field
system or at least an enclosed plot. In the southern part of the stripped area was
what may have been a levelled bank and preserved along the eastern side of this
was a soil layer. As discussed above, this could represent a shallow ditch or the
remnants of a buried soil which had been protected by the bank. Either way it
suggests that the roundhouses lay within or close to an enclosed patch of land.
This is significant because the roundhouse dates to the period around 1500
cal BC when there is widespread evidence for an increase in enclosure and
cultivation across southern Britain, from the east of Kent to the Wessex chalklands
(for example, Yates 2007, 111; Morigi et al 2011, 338-30; Champion 2011, 177;
Gingell 1992). In South West Britain major upstanding enclosures which are likely
to have been used for pasture are found across the uplands, including Dartmoor
and Bodmin Moor (Fleming 1988; Johnson and Rose 1994). Elsewhere, more
ephemeral traces of enclosure in the form of stony banks sometimes survive below
sand dunes or colluvial deposits (Nowakowski et al 2007; Jones and Quinnell
2014, 98).
The somewhat limited environmental data from Tremough therefore indicates
a situation comparable to what has been found elsewhere in Cornwall and more
generally across southern Britain. This is supported by the charcoal assemblages
from both the 2002 and 2011 excavations (Gale 2007; chapter 9, above). On
current evidence we might envisage a mosaic, with tree coverage in the wider area,
enclosed land closer to the roundhouses perhaps with some cultivation and other
Land Surface [17]
Pit [25]
Structure 392
Structure 712
Structure 335
Structure 232
Posthole alignment
Structure 102
TRM 02
CP4
Intervention
prior to 2008
Tremough College
complex
Roundhouse 1
Excavated areas
2008 onwards
Roundhouse 2
100
0
This map is based upon the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office
© Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Cornwall Council (100049047) 2014
metres
Figure 11.11 Middle Bronze Age features.
196
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
areas down to grass. There are also likely to have been extensive tracts of rough
ground in the wider area, providing a resource for grazing and a variety of natural
resources (Dudley 2011).
Rather more evidence has been gained from past excavation of other sites across
the plateau (Figure 11.11). To the north east of the roundhouses there was more
ephemeral evidence for broadly contemporary although poorly understood activity.
A Middle Bronze Age radiocarbon determination (chapter 10) was obtained
from the Iron Age field ditch [30] which cut an old land surface (17) containing
Trevisker pottery and fragments from clay loom weights, and the date is likely to
be on residual material derived from this layer (Gossip and Jones 2007, 21). A
second Middle Bronze Age date was obtained from pit [25], which again contained
Trevisker pottery. A sub-rectangular structure, 232, measuring 13m long by 3m
wide was also found in this general area. It was not radiocarbon dated but a sherd
of Trevisker pottery was recovered from one of the postholes and it is possible that
it was also related to the Bronze Age occupation of the area (ibid).
If the land to the south and the north east was possibly being used for agriculture,
the picture may have been rather different to the north. The roundhouses can be
considered in relation to a north west – south east alignment of four timber circles,
which lay to the north approximately 160m away (Gossip and Jones 2007, 14-24).
As discussed in relation to Structure 1 above, formal ceremonial activity was
identified at the western end of the plateau and dated from the Early Bronze
Age onwards (Figure 11.12). Five timber circles were uncovered, one of which,
structure 66, dated to the Early Bronze Age. The remaining examples were all of
Figure 11.12 Reconstruction of the Middle Bronze Age landscape showing the timber circles in
the foreground and roundhouses 1 and 2 to the south.
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
197
Middle Bronze Age date, and this spanned most of the latter part of the second
millennium cal BC from, circa 1500 to 1100 cal BC (chapter 10). At face value,
the radiocarbon determinations from the timber-rings both pre-date and post-date
those from Roundhouse 1, suggesting that formal ritual activity in the area to the
north lasted longer than the occupation of the roundhouse.
One of the post-rings, structure 102 (Figure 11.13), has very similar radiocarbon
determinations to those from Roundhouse 1 and it is entirely feasible that the two
were contemporary with one another, occupation of the roundhouse overlapping
with that of the post-ring. The structure 102 post-ring formed a circle with a
diameter of approximately 7m. It was erected around 1500-1400 cal BC, although
a date from an internal hearth-pit fell in the period circa 1400-1150 cal BC,
suggesting that the structure had been renewed. The post-ring comprised 12 posts.
Two additional postholes and a group of pits were located on the south-eastern
side, which might have been an entrance. A stony spread was also found to cover
these features and it is possible that this represented a closing deposit (Gossip and
Jones 2007, 14). Post-ring structure 102 also produced evidence for structured
deposition: several pits and postholes, especially those in the entranceway and the
posthole directly opposite the entrance, were found to contain artefacts, including
two vein quartz pebbles, two beach cobbles and sherds from a minimum of three
Trevisker-related vessels.
The pottery assemblage from structure 102 is of interest because although
broadly contemporary with that from Roundhouse 1, the two were of a very
different character from one another in terms of decoration and vessel form. Indeed,
the ceramic assemblage from the post-rings in general was rather different from
that of the roundhouse and the term ‘Trevisker-related’ has been used to describe
Figure 11.13 Photograph of structure 102 taken from the south.
198
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
it (Quinnell 2007, 57-9). Given the chronological overlap, these differences are
likely to be meaningful, and arguably relate to the biography and contrasting uses
of the buildings. Roundhouse 1 may, for example, have been used by a closed
group of people, the post-rings by a more extended community. Differences in
ceramic forms may therefore have derived from or been used to denote differing
contexts of use and users (cf Richards 2005, 280).
Despite the differences in the ceramic assemblage, as has already been discussed
in relation to Structure 1, there are likely to have been a good many symbolic links
between the circular architecture employed at the roundhouses and the post-ring
structures. As noted above, both the post-ring within Roundhouse 1 and that
embodied by structure 102 had diameters of around 7m. If the timber post-ring
supporting the superstructure of the house was believed to embody a cosmological
scheme then it is unsurprising that the exposed ceremonial timber post-rings
would have had similar associations. The free-standing post-rings may have stood
for ‘unwrapped’ houses (Richards 2014a), with their symbolism laid bare.
As Richard Bradley (2013) has recently argued, circular buildings whether
‘domestic’ or ‘ceremonial’, are likely to have embodied the same cosmological
ideas, involving relationships between the earth, the sky and the movements of the
sun and moon. He also suggests that ceremonial monuments in Western Europe
could have taken their form from houses, albeit often on a large scale, so that, for
example, a henge could be viewed as a ‘big house’ (Bradley 2005, 74-5). Likewise,
Colin Richards (2014b) has suggested in relation to Orcadian stone circles, that
they were the result of an attempt by a ‘house society’ to construct a community.
He argues that at the village level descent and genealogy were materialized
monumentally through construction of monumental circles.
At Tremough the building of large-scale monuments does not seem to have
been of paramount importance. It is, however, possible that there was again a
strong metaphorical link between the post-ring structures and the hollow-set
roundhouses and that there was an attempt to create or represent an imagined or
fictional community which would link households together and create a genealogy.
It is possible that symbolic and metaphorical links between the roundhouses and
ceremonial monuments became greater as settlements became more permanent and
the house became the dominant expression of the community in the landscape. In
this respect it may be significant that the use of the post-rings far outlived that
of Roundhouse 1. Individual households of the living, therefore, may have come
and gone but the post-rings may, through their construction, maintenance and
renewal, have helped to create and maintain community cohesion.
Seen in this way, it interesting that there was evidence for a much more
formalized level of ritualized deposition in the post-ring structures, than was
found within Roundhouse 1. As discussed above, there was good evidence for
the structured deposition within the roundhouse of a small proportion of the
overall artefactual assemblage, including the copper-alloy objects and the moulds;
however, the majority of the finds were from infilling deposits and had not been
carefully placed. This contrasts with the evidence from the post-rings. As we
have seen with post-ring structure 102, artefacts were deposited in the entrance,
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
199
Figure 11.14 Photograph of structure 392 from the south east.
located in the south west and in the opposing north-east side of the post-ring. This
pattern was even more marked in the later post-ring, structure 392 (Gossip and
Jones 2007, 35) (Figure 11.14). Items chosen for inclusion within this structure
included a minimum of 12 vessels, quartz, and wolframite pebbles, a large broken
muller, charred cereals and a possible heirloom in the form of a ripple-flaked flint
knife. Interestingly, a cassiterite pebble was also recovered, which again may have
been making a metaphorical reference to activities taking place elsewhere on the
site. The broken muller and the charred grain are also of interest, for, as Williams
(2003) has suggested, the agricultural cycle itself may have become a dominant
metaphor in later prehistory, with symbolic links being made between preparing
the ground, growing crops and recovering the harvest and the sequence of fertility,
death and regeneration.
These finds were strongly patterned, on a south east – north west alignment
from the entrance to the opposing side of the post-ring, as was also found in postring structure 102 At first glance, the patterning in Roundhouse 1 does not reflect
this dominant axis. However, if the two copper-alloy objects which had been
formally placed inside postholes are considered by themselves, they maintain this
axis, and this may have may have reflected a shared cosmological scheme which
was common to the post-ring structures and the roundhouse.
Roundhouse 1, a summary
In summary, Roundhouse 1 can be seen to belong to a wider tradition of roundhouse
architecture which has been recorded across lowland areas of Cornwall. It was a
component of a small settlement which in part is likely to have been surrounded
by fields and agricultural buildings. To the north was a series of timber post-rings
200
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 11.15 The distribution of finds in Middle Bronze Age structures.
which were probably used by the community at times of ceremonial gatherings.
Importantly, traces of activities involving metalworking were recovered, and
this part of the ‘biography’ of the house was found to be emphasised during the
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
201
abandonment process when moulds and copper-alloy objects were deposited. It
has been suggested that links between activities in the house and its occupants were
made manifest during its closure.
Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1
The wider background
Following the infilling and abandonment of Roundhouse 1, there is a break
spanning at least three centuries in the identified settlement record at Tremough,
during which the only recorded activity on the site is associated with the last phase
of use at the post-rings (Gossip and Jones 2007, 114-16).
Enclosure 1 was not fully exposed, and its western side is likely to have been
removed by a service trench. However, its construction, around 1000 cal BC to
850 cal BC, marked a change in the way that space was demarcated on the plateau
(Figure 11.15). The layout and features within the enclosure will be discussed
below. A second site, the multiple-ditched Enclosure 2, may also date to the Late
Bronze Age, although the finds from the limited evaluation work on the site are of
Late Iron Age – Romano-British date. Possible relationships between the enclosures
are discussed below.
The Enclosure 1 site represents the first evidence for an enclosure at Tremough,
and is very significant because it represents one of the earliest securely-dated later
Bronze Age enclosed sites in South West Britain. It is likely to have been associated
Figure 11.16 Photograph of Enclosure 1 from the south. The site marks the first formal
enclosure of space. Note the burnt stones beside pit [124] in the foreground and the sites of
post-built structures in the middle ground.
202
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
with changing attitudes to space, as prior to this period both settlement and
ceremonial activities were largely unbounded. Up to this point, only certain tasks,
such as the metalworking in Roundhouse 1 are likely to have taken place in a
closely bounded, well-defined space.
This pattern of change is matched elsewhere and Joanna Brück (2007), for
example, has pointed out that across Britain generally the later Bronze Age sees
major changes both in the settlement record and in roundhouse architecture. She
suggests that greater complexity may have been present in house design with, for
example, porches being more commonplace, and in Wessex there is more evidence
for the renewal of houses.
Changes also occurred in settlement layout and form as well. Small, fairly
standardized Middle Bronze Age settlements made up of relatively unenclosed
roundhouses were superseded by a diversity of settlement types, which include
comparable open settlements but also a diversity of other site types. Elsewhere in
Britain enclosed sites become apparent, with smaller enclosures known as ringworks or ring-forts often encircling roundhouses in the north and east of England
and a few larger hilltop enclosures in, for example, the Welsh Marches and the west
of England (for example, Brown 1988; Musson 1991; Needham and Ambers 1994;
Guttmann and Last 2000; Manby 2007; Brown and Medlycott 2013). Across
the Irish Sea, both small and large-scale enclosures began to be constructed (for
example, Ginn 2012). Both ring-forts and the Irish enclosures have potential links
with Tremough and these will be discussed below.
At the same time there is also increasing evidence for large-scale feasting and the
formation of large midden mounds (Parker Pearson and Richards 1994; McOmish
1996). Repetitive social acts at community level appear have led to the formation
of very large midden heaps, symbolically linked to consumption, fertility, affluence
or success (Needham and Spence 1996, 85). At the same time there is increasing
evidence for the production, circulation and deposition of metalwork on a scale
which was not evident in the Middle Bronze Age (for example, Bradley 1991,
chapter 3; Ginn 2012, 94).
This pattern could be taken to suggest that there was a developing social
hierarchy in the later Bronze Age. However, several writers have cautioned against
this interpretation (Brück 2007; Davis 2012, 67; Ginn 2012, 310), as although
some small groups of people may have enjoyed higher status in the shorter term,
there is little to indicate widespread or sustained formation of elite power.
Enclosure 1 and the regional Late Bronze Age settlement context in
the south west of Britain
The evidence for Late Bronze Age settlement in the South West peninsula has
been rather slighter than has been found in some other parts of southern Britain.
Until recently, indications of Late Bronze Age activity have been confined to
stray metalwork finds and chance discoveries of isolated features (Pearce 1983;
Penhallurick 1986; Miles et al 1977). Since the 1990s, however, developer-funded
work has led to the discovery of a small but significant number of sites, especially
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
203
in Cornwall, which although relatively few, represent much more diversity than
has been found for the Middle Bronze Age, for which there is a far greater number
of sites.
Most of the newly-discovered sites have been post-ring roundhouses. The
largest number of these was found at the Richard Lander School site, near Truro
(Gossip, forthcoming); four post-ring buildings with diameters of 5-7.7m were
uncovered and have been securely dated to the tenth-ninth centuries cal BC. As
discussed elsewhere, this form of roundhouse architecture represents a break with
the traditional hollow-set houses of the Middle Bronze Age and is likely to reflect
contacts with communities to the east (Jones and Taylor 2010, 82). As suggested
below, such contact may also have resulted in the construction of Enclosure 1.
Diversity is also evident in the settlement record. At Scarcewater, a post-ring
roundhouse approximately 8m in diameter with a porched entrance on the south
east was partly encircled by a palisaded enclosure. The palisade was probably not
heavily defensive, as it was only wide enough to support split timbers or planks and
was open on its western side. The porch and palisade together are likely to have
formed a grand façade for the roundhouse when approached from lower ground to
the south east (Jones and Taylor 2010, 83). The radiocarbon determinations from
the site fell in the range 1130-890 cal BC.
Investigation and radiocarbon dating of stone-walled roundhouses in the
uplands has also demonstrated that they could be reused in the later Bronze Age.
Recent analysis of the finds from the Middle Bronze Age roundhouse settlement
at Bosiliack in Penwith revealed that at least one house was reoccupied in the Late
Bronze Age (Jones and Quinnell 2011), and radiocarbon dating of roundhouses 1
and 23 at Leskernick on Bodmin Moor provided evidence for occupation dating to
the later Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (Bender et al 2007, 88-9). On Dartmoor
several sites have also shown evidence for reuse, as at Teigncombe and the nearby
Round Pound at Kestor (information S Gerrard and H Quinnell).
A deeply-ditched enclosure, dating to circa 1400-850 cal BC, was excavated at
Liskeard. Unfortunately truncation of the site made it uncertain whether the ditch
encircled a settlement (Jones 1998-9b) and its full extent is unknown; it is likely to
be much larger than enclosure 1 and was located on the end of a spur overlooking
lower lying ground to the west. As will be discussed in the next section, a series of
other enclosures may belong to this period but are undated.
Beyond Cornwall, there are no immediate securely-dated parallels for
Enclosure 1 in the wider region. To date no sites are known in Devon but there are
a few later Bronze Age enclosures in Somerset. At Norton Fitzwarren the hilltop
enclosure was associated with Late Bronze Age metalworking; although no internal
features have been identified which relate to the Bronze Age occupation, earlier
Middle Bronze Age Trevisker pottery and a hoard of newly-cast Taunton-period
bracelets were obtained from the enclosure ditch (Ellis 1989). It was suggested
that the site may not have been a settlement but was instead used for ceremonial
purposes (ibid). Metalworking was also associated with another enclosure at
Sigwells, near Cadbury Castle. This enclosure was rectangular and there was a
post-built structure at one end associated with a large number of mould fragments.
204
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
The site is not is not currently closely dated, although the moulds suggest a Middle
to Late Bronze Age date (Tabor 2008, 61-7; Skowranek 2007), and they include a
large number of fragments from sword moulds. Interestingly, both of the Somerset
enclosures were associated with metalworking and sword moulds, and this point
will be returned to below.
Evidence for moulds and metalworking has also been found in non-settlement
contexts in the South West. At Dainton in eastern Devon, several cairns were
found, one of which was found to cover a pit containing mould fragments from
two swords as well as pottery (Needham 1980; Silvester 1980), and at Higher
Besore a pit containing part of a Wilburton sword mould was found not far from
the Late Bronze Age settlement (Gossip, forthcoming).
Enclosure 1 and its wider relationships to other enclosures
Cornish parallels?
To date, Enclosure I represents the first site of its type to be identified and securely
dated to the earlier first millennium in the south west of England. This picture
is, in reality, unlikely to be correct, as there are several unexcavated very circular,
enclosures and an ever-growing number of cropmark sites which have been
located across Cornwall. Most of the latter sites have been interpreted as enclosed
farmsteads or ‘rounds’ and assigned to the Late Iron Age or Romano-British period
(for example, Young 2006; 2012), but it is very possible that some will prove to
be of earlier date.
Several of the identified sites would happily sit either within the Late Bronze
Age or the Early Iron Age. They include Bartinney and the primary phases of Caer
Bran and possibly Castle an Dinas west in Penwith, Godolphin Hill, Hay Close
at St Newlyn East, the first phase of Castle an Dinas east in central Cornwall, and
Trecrogo in east Cornwall (Figure 11.17).
These enclosures are, like Tremough Enclosure 1, located in elevated positions,
predominantly on hilltops and spurs. They range in diameter from approximately
60m to more than 100m and include the multiple-ditched enclosure at Trecrogo in
east Cornwall (Figure 11.18) and the embanked hilltop site at Bartinney in West
Penwith (Figure 11.19).
Several of the sites in this group, including Caer Bran, Bartinney, Castle an
Dinas east and possibly Castle an Dinas west contain Early Bronze Age round
barrows or cairns, and this raises the possibility that they were constructed to
encircle and contain earlier monuments (Jones 2010). It is, however, possible
that the barrows and the enclosures are contemporary with one another and the
enclosures also belong to the Early Bronze Age (Herring 2011).
Unfortunately, only one potentially early first millennium cal BC enclosure has
been investigated, that at Hay Close, St Newlyn East. There the basal fill of the
ditch was radiocarbon dated to circa 750-450 cal BC, namely the Early Iron Age
(Jones, forthcoming b), a few centuries later than Enclosure 1. It is therefore also
likely that that not all of these sites are of one period.
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
205
Figure 11.17 The distribution of possible late second – earlier first millennium cal BC
enclosures in Cornwall referred to in the text.
The form of Hay Close is worthy of further comment. It had an external bank
and prior to excavation had been identified as possible a Late Neolithic henge. This
was proved not to be the case but it highlights the issues of dating sites by their
morphology. The bank did not survive at Tremough Enclosure 1, which means
that its position is unknown; however, Enclosure 2 (see below) appears to have
had external banks, which again rendered it morphologically similar to henges.
Elsewhere in Britain the circular form of the enclosure has been specifically agued
to have derived from earlier henge sites which would have survived as grassed-over
earthworks in the landscape (for example, Manby 2007). Indeed, the two Mucking
Rings enclosures, for example, were first identified as henges prior to excavation
(Jones and Bond 1980). By contrast, at Springfield Lyons the Late Bronze Age
ring-fort enclosure was constructed beside an even earlier Neolithic monument, a
causewayed enclosure, and the segmented character of the earlier enclosure ditch
was adopted by the builders of the Late Bronze Age enclosure. This again has been
argued to represent a drawing upon a mythological history or ancestral connections
(Brown and Medlycott 2013, 155-9).
206
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 11.18 The multiple-ditched enclosure at Trecrogo from the air (Historic Environment,
Cornwall Council).
Figure 11.19 Bartinney from the air with central cairns visible (Historic Environment,
Cornwall Council).
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
207
The South West region has, however, very few henge monuments and to date,
although a few have been recorded in Devon, no causewayed enclosures are known
in Cornwall (Oswald et al 2001; Jones 2005, chapter 3). In light of this it therefore
seems likely that parallels for Enclosure 1 have to be sought further afield, in
particular with the ring-forts of southern and eastern Britain and with a variety of
enclosure forms found in eastern Ireland.
Ring-forts of eastern England
As discussed above, the Late Bronze Age saw the development of a diversity of
settlement types across Britain and Ireland, of which enclosures represent a significant
new development. A major element of this enclosure tradition is represented by
circular sites, for which the term ring-fort has been adopted to distinguish them
from other larger forms of enclosure, such as hillforts (Figure 11.20).
Ring-fort enclosures are predominantly found on the eastern side of England,
with most examples being documented in the south-east counties of Essex, Kent
and Surrey. Morphologically similar enclosures are, however, also known in
western Britain, as at Meillionydd on the Llŷn Peninsula in northwest Wales,
although current dating places them in the earlier Iron Age (Alcock 1960; Karl
and Waddington, forthcoming).
Most are less than 200m in diameter and occupy eminent positions overlooking
valley floors (Needham 1992). They are usually deeply ditched as at Thwing, in
the East Riding of Yorkshire (Manby 2007), or Springfield Lyons but sometimes
defined by post-rings as at Hornchurch enclosure D in Essex or have palisades set
within external ditches as at Cliffs End Farm, Kent (Guttmann and Last 2000;
Needham et al 2015).
In common with Tremough Enclosure 1, many ring-forts have east-facing
entrances (Guttmann and Last 2000). In the case of Tremough this is also of
interest as it represents a significant change in orientation from the preference
for south-facing entrances found for both ‘domestic’ roundhouses and ceremonial
post-rings during the Middle Bronze Age.
Some ring-forts contain single large buildings inside them, as at Thwing
(Manby 2007), or multiple roundhouses as at the Mucking sites. However, the
internal layouts of these sites are very variable and, as Richard Bradley (2007,
208-9) has pointed out, they may have served a variety of purposes including
defence and communal gatherings involving feasting. Evidence for specialized
activity has been found at some sites, including salt production at Mucking (Bond
1988); evidence for metalworking has also been recovered from some, including
Springfield Lyons and Mucking North Ring and South Ring, in Essex (Jones and
Bond 1980; Bond 1988; Brown and Medlycott 2013), although this is generally of
a small-scale nature. The most substantial metalwork deposit recorded from a ringfort so far, has been the large number of mould fragments from the ditch terminal
at Springfield Lyons (Needham and Bridgford 2013, 66). Stuart Needham (1992)
has, however, cautioned against assuming that ring-forts were associated with
control of metalwork production, and has pointed out that metalworking occurs
at many different types of Late Bronze Age site. Likewise, most ring-forts are not
208
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Great Baddow
Mucking North
Ring, Phase 2
Mucking North
Ring, Phase 1
Thwing
Springfield Lyons
0
Mill Hill, Deal
Highstead
Mucking South Rings
South Hornchurch
Tremough
Enclosure 1
Tremough
Enclosure 2
100
metres
Figure 11.20 Comparative ring-forts and Tremough Enclosures 1 and 2 (After Manby 2007
and Brown and Medlycott 2013).
associated with artefactual assemblages which distinguish them from other forms
of Late Bronze Age settlement. Special deposits, such as those found at Springfield
Lyons are, however, fairly commonly found, and the terminals of enclosure ditches
do seem to have been the foci for special deposits (see below).
By contrast, other enclosures have been found to have very little inside them
in terms of coherent structural features, or simply have clusters of pits. For
example, at Cliffs End Farm in east Kent two or possibly three palisaded enclosures
associated with pits and midden deposits have been interpreted as not being used
for settlement but instead possibly having held a ceremonial purpose linked to
mortuary rites associated with adjacent Late Bronze Age burials and evidence of
feasting (Needham et al 2015).
Enclosure form may not therefore have been important in determining
function. Some ring-forts are likely to have been used for settlement and others for
more specialized purposes such as communal gatherings and high-status activities,
and many may have been regarded as special, possibly non-secular places, that lay
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
209
within settled areas but were clearly separated from the adjacent settlements (for
example, Needham 1992).
Returning to the South West, it would seem that ring-fort enclosures of the kind
found in the south east of England would provide the most obvious inspiration for
Enclosure 1. There is certainly evidence for inspiration from the east influencing
a variety of traditions at around 1000 cal BC. As has already been touched upon
above, roundhouse forms change from the hollow-set type around the turn of the
first millennium cal BC, and the newly adopted post-ring roundhouse form is very
likely to have spread from the east into Cornwall.
The same is true of for artefacts. The extraordinarily long-lived regional
Trevisker ceramic tradition finally disappears at around 1000 cal BC, with some
overlap with use of the simpler forms of Late Bronze Age Plain ware during the
eleventh century cal BC (Quinnell 2012). Although Late Bronze Age settlements
are still comparatively scarce, excavations of sites at Scarcewater and Higher Besore
have shown the establishment of a diverse range of Late Bronze Age ceramics
(Jones and Taylor 2010, 81-4; Gossip, forthcoming). These have parallels with
some ceramic forms from the south of England (Barrett 1980; Woodward 1990;
Fitzpatrick et al 1999, 111-12). At the same time, later Bronze Age metalwork
hoards and individual finds from various locations across Cornwall, including St
Erth in west Cornwall and Mylor, not far to the east of Tremough on Carrick
Roads (Department of Culture Media and Sport 2004; 2008), show that either
side of the millennium people in the South West were using artefacts which had a
far wider currency.
One the other hand, these forms of evidence only point to contacts with
southern England generally but not necessarily direct links with the east coast of
England, where ring-fort enclosures are found. To date, the most direct evidence
for contact with the east of England is a Trevisker-style vessel which was found in a
barrow at Monkton on the Isle of Thanet, Kent, which has been radiocarbon dated
to 1600-1300 cal BC, the Middle Bronze Age (Bennett et al 2008, 61).
Of course given that seaborne movement along the coast and around the Atlantic
façade has been documented (for example, Needham et al 2013, chapter 5), it is
more than likely that seafaring members of communities in Cornwall were aware
of enclosures which were found in eastern England and the fact that they were
special places in the landscape.
Irish Sea zone
Alternatively, it is possible that the inspiration for Enclosure 1 lies to the west
of Britain, across the Irish Sea. Since at least the Neolithic period, the Atlantic
seaways have played an important, if intermittent and shifting, role in creating
connections between communities around the Irish Sea zone. This can be seen
in monument forms such as portal dolmens, in rock art and a range of material
culture, including certain forms of goldwork and copper-alloy artefacts including
swords and rapiers (Waddell 1991/2; Bradley 1997, chapter 2; 2007, chapter 1;
Sheridan 2004; Gibson 2013). It seems unlikely, however, that there was any kind
of overarching ‘Atlantic’ identity (Henderson 2007, 297), as although there is
210
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
a broad level of archaeologically detectable correspondences in material culture
between areas along the Atlantic façade, there are significant differences between
them both geographically and temporally, which are likely to reflect changing
alliances and exchange networks, as well as the differing localised traditions of
far-flung communities.
In Cornwall, the archaeological record provides evidence for at least intermittent
seaborne contacts between Cornwall and Ireland throughout the span of the
Bronze Age, so it is worth considering the evidence for relationships between these
two areas as a potential source of inspiration for Enclosure 1 and more generally
for the Cornish enclosures discussed above.
Several waves of contact between these two areas are demonstrated in the later
third to middle second millennium cal BC. It is worth noting, however, that as
Richard Bradley (2007, 24) has pointed out, the artefacts which have been found
represent only the visible remnant of an exchange of personnel which is likely
to have taken place to bolster alliances between widely separated communities.
To this we may add the perishable goods such as textiles and pelts which, from
accounts from ancient history and anthropological study, are likely to have
been highly valuable objects but which have only survived in very exceptional
conditions (Jenness 1977, 116-7; Randsbourg 2011, 116-8; Jones, in preparation).
Connections across the Irish Sea are therefore likely to have been more frequent
than the surviving evidence suggests.
The earliest of the Bronze Age contacts, at the start of the second millennium
cal BC are demonstrated by four gold lunulae, which were all found in coastal
parts of Cornwall, and which are likely to have been made by Irish goldsmiths
(Taylor 1980, 40; Mattingly et al 2009). Moving forward to the latter half of the
second millennium cal BC, a Ballintober-type sword was found at Carnpessack
on the Lizard in west Cornwall (Pearce 1983, 412), with one more example from
Devon and two from Somerset. The greatest concentration of these swords is
found in the Thames Valley. However, numerous examples have also been found
in Ireland, and indeed the type takes its name from a site in Mayo (Burgess 1968;
Waddell 1998, 204-5). The Cornish find (Figure 11.22) is an outlier, being
situated between the two concentrations and as such could have been obtained
via contact with communities to the east or the west. Nonetheless, it must have
been a valued, status item and shows a connection with wider exchange networks.
At this juncture it is also worth noting that a flow of ideas influencing material
culture in the opposite direction during the later second millennium cal BC may be
demonstrated by Trevisker features on pottery found on Dalkey Island, near Dublin
on the east coast of Ireland (ApSimon and Greenfield 1972). This find reveals that
the exchanges which took place were not just in one direction. As noted above, it
has been suggested that similarities are found between Trevisker Ware and some
ceramic assemblages found in Normandy during this period (Marcigny et al 2007).
There is also a small group of diagnostic metalwork finds which reflect contact
with Ireland during the Late Bronze Age (Figure 11.21). These include the Irish
gold penannular bracelets from Morvah in Penwith and a dress fastener from the
Lizard peninsula in west Cornwall (Hawkes and Clarke 1963, 230–1; Eogan 1994,
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
211
Figure 11.21 The distribution of Irish (or possibly Irish) metalwork in Cornwall.
145, 152; Needham and Hook 1989). In addition to the goldwork finds, there is
also the Late Bronze Age Gundlingen-type sword of possible Irish variant which
was found in the sea near Sennen Cove, in Penwith (Needham et al 2013, 115-6)
(Figure 11.22). This sword type is widely found along the Atlantic sea zone and
although not necessarily reflecting direct contacts with Ireland is more broadly
indicative of the links which existed between Britain, northern France and Ireland
in the Late Bronze Age, and of the exchange of prestigious items (Cunliffe 2009).
As with the lunulae, the Ballintober-type sword and the Trevisker-influenced
pottery, it is noticeable that all of the Late Bronze Age find spots are in coastal
locations, and it may be noteworthy that the bracelets and the Sennen sword
are also situated near to the largest concentration of suggested late second early
first millennium prehistoric enclosures in Penwith (Fig 11.17). Enclosure 1 and
Enclosure 2 at Tremough also, of course, occupy a coastal position overlooking the
Fal estuary.
Given the available evidence for long-term contacts, it is reasonable to expect
that some individuals or groups would have periodically crossed the Irish Sea
throughout the later second and early first millennium cal BC. The likelihood
of the eastern seaboard of Ireland providing a potential source of comparanda for
212
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Figure 11.22 Photograph of the Ballintober-type sword
from Carnpessack (left) and the Gundlingen-type sword
from Sennen Cove (right). (Image by Anna Tyacke,
reproduced with permission of the Royal Cornwall
Museum). The Royal Cornwall Museum accession
numbers for the finds are: Sennen Cove (TRURI: 1992.29);
Carnpessack (TRURI: 1923.190).
the Cornish enclosures has been discussed elsewhere (Jones 2010), but it is worth
reviewing the potential range of enclosure types in eastern Ireland which could
have provided inspiration for Tremough Enclosures I and 2, and other Cornish
enclosures.
Morphologically, it is the group of Irish enclosures known as ‘royal’ sites
which perhaps provides the closest parallels with Tremough Enclosure 2. They
can comprise single or groups of multiple-ditched enclosures, as at the Tlaghta
(Hill of Ward) or the Rath of Synods (Tara) in Co Meath. These sites are located
close to the eastern seaboard and therefore may have been encountered by people
moving between Ireland and South West Britain. However, they have been found
to have their origins in the later Iron Age, and to continue in use into the postRoman period (Newman 1998; Roche 2002). This extended chronological span
means that there is a broad overlap between the ceramic dating from the upper
ditch fills of Enclosure 2 and the Irish ‘royal’ sites, although they would post-date
Enclosure 1 by several centuries.
There is, however, evidence for a variety of circular Late Bronze Age enclosures
in Ireland, some of which are associated with the production and deposition of
metalwork (Mallory 1995; Raftery 1997, 58; Ginn 2012, 188). These include a
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
213
range of embanked enclosures, including circle-henges under 20m in diameter
(O’Brien 2004), to Emain Macha (Navan Fort), with a diameter of 47m, through
to very large enclosures, such as Haughey’s Fort, which is approximately 150m
in diameter (Mallory 1995; Roche 2004; O’Brien 2004) and hillforts such as
Rathgall, the outer rampart of which has a diameter of 310m (Raftery 1976).
These sites are very much bigger than Enclosure 1 or indeed any of the Cornish
enclosures mentioned above. The smaller embanked sites, however, such as Emain
Macha or Grange, which has an internal diameter of approximately 47m, are of a
similar scale to Enclosure 1 and have distinct morphological similarities to hilltop
enclosures such as Bartinney and Caer Bran, which have internal diameters of
around 60m. It may be significant that some Irish enclosures, including Grange, in
common with both Bartinney and Caer Bran also enclose Early Bronze Age cairns.
It would not be difficult to push the hunt in Ireland for direct parallels for
Enclosure 1 beyond the available evidence. It is sufficient to recognise that Late
Bronze Age communities in Ireland and Cornwall were engaged in intermittent
long-distance interactions which are likely to have led to the sharing of cosmological
ideas and architecture.
East or west?
From the foregoing discussion, Enclosure 1 and a number of other Cornish
enclosures could be argued to have arisen or been influenced through seaborne
contacts with communities along the eastern Irish coastline or through contacts
with people along the east coast of England. This raises the question of the character
of those connections; namely, were they unidirectional from the east or the west,
did they arise through domination by one community over another or were they
more subtle interactions over a long period of time?
The low numbers of Irish objects, or artefacts which are specifically from the
east coast of England suggests that there was not a wave of settlers from either
direction into the South West. Instead it is more likely that, as Stuart Needham
(2009) has argued for the earlier Bronze Age, there was a network of interconnected
communities around the seaboard who exchanged prestigious items with one
another.
Jon Henderson (2007, 297) has suggested that there are detectable similarities
between areas around the Atlantic façade but that there is there is little evidence for
any kind of overarching ‘Atlantic identity’ in the later second or first millennium
cal BC. Rather, resemblances arose between communities who were linked by the
sea and who had engaged with each other and exchanged high-status objects, with
one another over several millennia. The biographies of the exchanged objects is
also likely to have been important and the swords and the goldwork may have had
established ‘histories’ before they reached their final destinations (for example,
Pearce 2013).
There is also a symbolic dimension to exchange. Crossing the sea in search of
prestigious metal items may have led to obtaining the gold bracelets from Morvah
or the Gundlingen-type sword from Sennen Cove, as well as other forms of material
culture, but it is also very likely that, as has been demonstrated by ethnographical
214
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
studies (for example, Weiner 1987, 154-7) that not all objects were ‘equal’ and had
their own layered biographies. Obtaining these items was probably bound up with
shared ideologies and religious beliefs.
The journey itself may have also have enhanced the status of those who braved
the unknown danger of crossing the sea. Added to this, Mary Helms (1988,
chapter 4; 1993, 81) has also made the case that, at certain times, foreign people
and objects, especially those that are valued or have symbolic capital, can be valued
over the insular and the traditional, and it is possible that we can see a similar trend
in the Cornish later Bronze Age. The mythologization of the journeys involved by
those who undertook them may have led some to pursue long-distance voyages in
search of exotic and magical items which could be taken home and displayed or
used in ritualized contexts.
Portable objects were not the only things which are likely to have held symbolic
meaning in the later Bronze Age. As Henderson (2007, 299-300) has argued,
the landscape and features within it are also likely to have been embedded with
meanings and myths, and they are likely to have been renegotiated through the
construction of monuments. With this in mind, it might be possible to add that
the circular form of Enclosures 1 and 2 may itself have been making reference to
distant special places and a more widely held circular cosmology (cf Bradley 2012).
Considered in this way, Enclosure 1 and the diverse range of other enclosures
under discussion do not require precise parallels. Their existence could suggest
that knowledge of a number of different ‘exotic’ forms of enclosure emerged from
engagement with an east–west flow of ideas. These links could have led to the
emergence of circular enclosures, such as those found at Tremough and possibly
elsewhere in Cornwall, on the western seaboard of Britain. In other words,
widespread contacts resulted in a spread of ideas that were adapted and readapted
to fit the traditions and needs of local communities, such as those who occupied
the plateau at Tremough.
The organization of space and activity within Enclosure 1
Aside from establishing the possible origins of Enclosure 1, there is also the question
of the character of the occupation and activities which took place within it.
The full extent of Enclosure 1 is likely to have been approximately 60m to 65m
in diameter, with a 5.5m wide entrance on its eastern side. The ditch was 1.7m
wide and deeply cut to a depth of 1.35m. There was no trace of a bank and the
tip lines in the ditch layers did not indicate a clear direction from which the infill
deposits came (chapter 2). Likewise, there were no signs of any posts around the
entranceway which may have supported a gate or gatehouse, and the only trace of
any activity close to the entranceway was a very shallow linear deposit which could
not be phased. It is therefore probable that the entrance was not gated and that
access into the enclosure was not blocked with a barrier.
Maintenance of the enclosure perimeter does, however, seem to have been
important as there is evidence that the ditch had been recut, and by so doing the
space would have remained well-defined. Most of the finds from the ditch came
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
215
Figure 11.23 Photograph of Post Structure 4 taken from the east.
from the upper fills, and it is possible that it had been kept open for some time
until the upper layers were finally deposited into it.
No roundhouses were exposed within the enclosure, but it did reveal a number
of other structures: two rectilinear buildings were uncovered together with pit
groups and features containing burnt stones. In common with many excavated
enclosures there were also a large number of pits and postholes which could not be
easily assigned to a structure or given a function (Bond 1988, 13-14; Guttmann
and Last 2000; Brown and Medlycott 2013, 41-43).
Evidence for residential structures within Enclosure 1 was not immediately
obvious; in part this might be due to the fact that the entirety of the interior could
not be exposed. Unlike many other Late Bronze Age enclosures, such as Thwing in
North Yorkshire and Hornchurch, Mucking South Rings and Springfield Lyons in
Essex (Manby 2007; Guttmann and Last 2000; Jones and Bond 1980; Brown and
Medlycott 2013), Enclosure 1 was not associated with a large central structure, and
there were no certain domestic dwellings. Two of the structures, Post Structure 3
and Post Structure 4, however, were rectangular (Figure 11.23) and were large
enough to have been domestic structures or used for other purposes such as storage.
Although less common than roundhouses, rectilinear buildings of later Bronze
Age date are known elsewhere in Britain, both on open sites, as at the Tower
Works site, Fengate, near Peterborough (Pryor 2001, 35), for example, or within
enclosures, such as those at Mucking and Springfield Lyons in Essex (Bond 1988,
14; Brown and Medlycott 2013, 40). Rectangular buildings have often been
interpreted as utilitarian grain stores or animal barns, as at Rams Hill in Berkshire
and Reading Business Park in the Thames Valley (Bradley and Ellison 1975, 212;
Brossler et al 2004, 122-3). A centralised storage role was suggested for structure
216
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
5050 found within the ring-fort enclosure at Hornchurch in Essex (Guttmann
and Last 2000). By contrast, rectangular structure 2 at the Boreham Interchange
in Essex was interpreted as a shrine (Brown and Medlycott 2013, 153). Smaller
structures referred to as ‘four posters’ are also known at later Bronze Age and
Iron Age sites in southern Britain (for example, Moore and Jennings 1992, 140;
Bradley and Ellison 1975, 55-9). These are also usually interpreted as being used
for storage (for example, Coles 1973, 62).
However, ‘four-posters’ and comparable larger later Bronze Age structures
are extremely uncommon in the South West peninsula, although a rectangular
building, structure [129], was uncovered at Trenowah, near St Austell (Johns 2008,
fig 9). This building was 5m long by 3.4m wide and comprised six postholes. It
was radiocarbon dated to 980-800 cal BC and was therefore broadly contemporary
with activity within Enclosure 1 at Tremough. It was not, however, associated with
any artefacts or any other directly related settlement or occupation activity and
its interpretation is therefore open to question. A Higher Besore, two possible
rectilinear structures were recorded near to the Late Bronze Age roundhouses.
However, these were not closely dated and could be of Late Bronze Age or Early
Iron Age date (Gossip, forthcoming).
Post Structures 3 and 4 at Tremough, and the possible post structure, contained
very little in the way of associated artefacts (chapters 3 and 4), although interestingly
Post Structure 4 was associated with larger amounts of charred grain than many of
the other features inside the enclosure (chapter 8).
Either of the rectangular post-structures could therefore have been used for
domestic occupation, ceremonial activity or storage, but perhaps as we have
discussed in relation to the Middle Bronze Age roundhouses it is not necessarily
important to make these kinds of rigid distinction. Instead, it is possible that the
architecture rather than function is key to their interpretation, and to realise that
one role need not negate another. Anthropological study has revealed numerous
examples where structures could be used for a variety of purposes, combining both
mundane and ritual. For example, Torajan houses in South Sulawesi, Indonesia,
embody cosmological schemes and are used for ceremonies, but are also occupied
as domestic residences and used for storage (Kis-Jovak et al 1988). Similarly, in
Papua New Guinea, yam houses, which are used for storage, also have a wider
significance: they are associated with marriage and act as a symbol of significant
political accomplishment, and their filling is accompanied by rituals and display
(Weiner 1987, 91-6).
As we have seen, Richard Bradley (2012) has suggested that in later prehistory
the circular architectural form may have embodied widely held cosmological
beliefs, and indeed this may have been reflected by the overall form of Enclosure 1.
The rectangular buildings inside may therefore have been designed to create a
contrast. Evidence for the purposeful use of differing forms of architecture has
been noted elsewhere. Adrian Chadwick (2012) has argued in relation to fourpost structures that some at least were imbued with greater social significance.
For example, at South Elmsall, near the county boundary between South and
West Yorkshire, archaeological investigations revealed part of a field system and an
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
217
unenclosed Middle to Late Bronze Age roundhouse settlement. To the east were at
least ten four-post structures, arranged in two north–south rows which may have
been constructed on either side of a path. This arrangement was perhaps designed
so that they and their contents could be displayed and viewed from the settlement.
By constructing rectangular buildings within the circular Enclosure 1, a contrast
may have been deliberately designed to create a distinction which would make
them visually memorable to onlookers. In this way, their use and / or contents
could be bought to the fore. It is perhaps as important to recognize the distinction
which was being made between different architectural forms as to assign a domestic
or non-domestic role.
The remaining features within Enclosure 1 are more difficult to disentangle. A
third possible post structure may have stood near to the entrance but, it is equally
possible that this was an unrelated group of features.
The most substantial cluster of features was associated with Pit / Posthole
Group 1. It is not possible to make a convincing building from it, and the
double L-shaped arrangement of pits is likely to relate to successive rectangular
structures and pits. The limited radiocarbon dating, 2822±30 BP, 1071-899
cal BC (SUERC-47288), from pit [114] and 2766±29 BP, 997-835 cal BC
(SUERC-47291), from posthole [156], although partially overlapping, might
support the suggestion that there was a sequence of structures in this part of the
site. To the east of this group of structures, were two linear features, [209] and
[213]. These features were not deeply cut, and may in fact have been depressions
caused by the weight of objects such as timber beams pressing down into the
ground. As such, it is possible that some kind of windbreak, screen or partition had
been erected to shield whatever activities were taking place within the area of Pit /
Posthole Group 1. This is also implied by the break between the two depressions
which might have formed an east-facing entrance into the area. Screens and linear
settings of posts are, of course, known from other later Bronze Age enclosures.
During phase one of Mucking North Ring (Bond 1988, 14-19), for example, a
screen was erected between the entrance of the enclosure and the roundhouses,
and it has been argued that the screen was a device to block the roundhouses from
view when approached from the east entrance (Parker Pearson and Richards 1994).
This could have reinforced distinctions between areas of the enclosure which were
associated with different tasks. It is possible that the same was true at Tremough
Enclosure 1, with the screen acting to visually separate the structures from people
entering the enclosure through the entrance to the east.
The uses to which the structure or more probably structures represented by
Pit / Posthole Group 1 were put remains unknown, as there were few finds, only
small quantities of charred plant macrofossils and a very small number of burnt
bone fragments. The same remains true for the amorphous group of pits forming
Pit Alignment 2; although burnt stones were included within some of their fills
and this might be suggestive of cooking or other activities involving heating.
Mould fragments A-D from metalworking were found in posthole [144]. In fact,
the heating of stones was particularly evident in two features located to the south
of Pit / Posthole Group 1 and these will be discussed in the next section.
218
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Structured deposition and burnt stone
Evidence for the formalized, structured deposition of artefacts was less than has
been found at other Late Bronze Age enclosures, where the ditch terminals, for
example, could be focal points for major episodes of deposition. At Springfield
Lyons, Essex, the enclosure ditch terminal was the focus for a substantial deposit
of sword moulds, and at Hornchurch a ceramic vessel was deposited into the north
terminal and cremated human remains found in and near to entranceways. At
Mucking North Ring there was a concentration of artefacts in the ditch terminals
and two gold rings were found near the entranceway (Brown and Medlycott 2013,
20; Guttmann and Last 2000; Bond 1988; Needham 1992).
By contrast, finds from the ditch of Enclosure 1 were limited to one muller S1,
two unworked stones (a flint pebble and a vein quartz fragment), and a relatively
small quantity of pottery, mostly recovered from the upper fill of the southern
ditch terminal (Quinnell, chapters 3 and 4). The fresh condition and large sherd
size of this pottery might suggest that it had been placed into the ditch soon
after breakage occurred but there did not appear to have been any structuring to
this material. Unlike Roundhouse 1, most of the post structures and pits noted
above cannot clearly be identified as being associated with the deliberate placing of
ritualized deposits either during construction or the abandonment phase.
However, the large sherd size and generally fresh condition of much of the
ceramic assemblage found within the pits and posthole structures (chapter 3),
suggest the possibility that the pottery entered into these features soon after
breakage. Alternatively, it could have been stored elsewhere on site, perhaps in a
midden, and the material subsequently used to infill open cut features. This, of
course, would have parallels with the main infilling of Roundhouse 1, and could
show some kind of continuity with regard to the perceived symbolic properties of
midden material and the most appropriate way to deploy it across the site.
Two features, Structure 205 and pit [124] do, however, stand out within the
enclosure as foci for specialized activity and structured deposition.
Structure 205 was located on the western edge of the site. It comprised
a carefully built cairn of stones, which had been built over a slight depression.
Immediately to the east was a very large circular pit [119]. The cairn was made
from burnt stones suggesting a burning / heating episode. It is possible that it was
constructed from material derived from a burnt mound with an associated pit,
although it is likely to have been related to very short-term activity as the mound
was quite small and carefully built. A second pit [124] was located to the south.
Burnt stones were found within this pit, and during topsoil stripping further burnt
stone had also been found in this area, which suggests that a mound of burnt
stones had also existed beside it.
One possibility is that both features were associated with cooking, with the
heated stones being used to heat water held in the adjacent pits, or for roasting
meat in them. Burnt mounds are widely found in Britain and Ireland and examples
have been securely dated to the Middle and Late Bronze Age (see papers in Buckley
1990; Ladle and Woodward 2009, 128; Cuttler et al 2012, 122-9).
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
219
Comparatively few burnt mounds have been identified in the south west of
Britain (for example, Wilson-North and Carey 2011) and only one burnt mound
has been identified and excavated in Cornwall. This site, at Boscaswell in West
Penwith was much older, and associated with Beaker pottery (Jones and Quinnell
2006). In Devon two more sites have been excavated, a burnt mound on Woodbury
Common in Devon has recently been radiocarbon dated to the Early Bronze Age
(Tilley 2009) and two burnt mounds at Burlescombe in east Devon have been
dated to the Middle Bronze Age (Best and Gent 2007). Other sites have been
recently identified in the Exeter area (H Quinnell, pers comm.).
Burnt mound sites typically consist of three components: a pit or large trough,
a mound of burnt stone and charcoal, and a hearth or fire pit, although as at
Tremough, the hearths are not always found. The pits or troughs are frequently
well-defined rectangular features, which can be lined with stone or timber, to
circular or irregular pits, which do not usually show any signs of heating. The sizes
are similarly variable with some measuring more than 2m long and over 1m deep
and others under 1m in diameter and only 0.2m deep (Kelly 1992; Beamish and
Ripper 2000; Barber et al 2006; Best and Gent 2007). Both pits [119] and [124]
would fit within this size range.
The associated mounds are made up of large heaps of fire-cracked stones and
charcoal and generally lack the careful construction evident in Structure 205. The
stones are likely to have cracked by being heated in a fire before being immersed
in water within the trough to bring it to the boil (Buckley 1990, 170-2), although
heating to high temperatures may itself have also caused stones to fracture. Some
sites may have been associated with roasting rather than boiling and in this
case stones would not have been placed in water. Excavation has indicated that
some sites were used on several occasions and that their use could extend over
considerable periods of time (Kelly 1992; Topping 1998). The mound often takes
the form of a kidney-shaped arrangement around the trough or pit. This does not
appear to have been the case at Tremough, at least in the case of Structure 205,
which was carefully built, and this point will be returned to later.
Unlike at Tremough, most burnt mounds are located away from settlement areas
and are frequently devoid of artefactual associations (Kelly 1992; Topping 1998;
Halsted 2005, 66). This pattern contrasts with Structure 205 and particularly with
pit [124], both of which were associated with pottery.
Structure 205 and pit [124] contained a small number of charred cereals and a
small amount of burnt bone was also found in the latter pit, which could support
the cooking interpretation. However, alternative hypotheses have been put forward
for the functions of burnt mound and pit complexes, including their use as saunas,
or for tanning or brewing beer (Barfield and Hodder 1987; Drisceoil 1988; Jeffrey
1991; Quinn and Moore 2007). Another suggestion is that some burnt mound
sites were associated with metalworking and Skowranek (2007, 28) has noted
that metal residues and moulds are frequently found with burnt stone. Examples
include Tre-wyn Lllandfydog on Anglesey, where a stone-filled pit was associated
with residue from copper working (Lynch 1991, 363-4); at Shorncote Quarry in
Gloucestershire mould fragments from a socketed axe were recovered from a large
220
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
pit which also contained burnt limestone fragments (Herne and Heaton 1994). At
the Sigwells enclosure in Somerset (Tabor 2008, 64), mould fragments were found
with large amounts of burnt stone, although these were from the enclosure ditch.
At Tremough, pit [124] was found to contain fragments from moulds, including
a sword tip and fragments from a probable axe mould (below). The quantity of
the mould fragments are, however, quite small, and there is no evidence for largescale metalworking on the site. There is evidence for deliberate closure at both pit
[124] and Structure 205, and this means that the deposits within them may not be
directly related to their use and therefore require closer consideration.
Structure 205, which was associated with a deeply cut pit [119], and pit [124]
provide the best evidence for formalized structured deposition within Enclosure 1.
Both were associated with burnt stones and were comparatively rich in artefacts.
Pit [119] did not appear to have been the focus for any structured deposition,
although it is worth noting that organic material or unburnt bone placed inside the
open cut would not have survived. Instead, the fill may have been associated with
its last use: it was full of burnt stone and charcoal. The pile of burnt stones forming
Structure 205 beside it was, however, carefully built and had the appearance of
a small cairn, with a large flat stone capping it. The stones covered a hollow
which produced sherds of Late Bronze Age pottery, including vessels P14 and
P15. The former was a large storage vessel, which again may have been associated
with cooking. A radiocarbon determination of 2808±29 BP, 1048-896 cal BC
(SUERC-47289), from the layer within which the pottery was found is consistent
with the date suggested by the pottery. The fact that the stones had been carefully
constructed over this layer might suggest that, rather than simply being a burnt
mound which had accumulated over time, the intention may have been to mark
an area of the enclosure where significant activities, such as communal cooking or
other events had taken place.
Pit [124] is also likely to have had a mound of burnt stones beside and very
possibly over it as well (chapter 2), but it is not possible to say if it was as wellmade as Structure 205. The contents of the pit are, however, unlikely to represent a
fortuitous assemblage. This pit had been infilled with burnt stones which are likely
to have been derived from activities associated with it. The cut also contained a
variety of artefacts, which make it stand apart from all the other features within
the enclosure. These finds include the greatest quantity of Late Bronze Age pottery
to be recovered from the site, including P17, one of the large vessels which may
have been associated with communal cooking (chapter 3, above). As discussed
above, there were small quantities of charred cereal grains and fragments from
moulds associated with metalworking including mould 10, the sword tip. A
cushion / finishing stone S7, was also placed into the pit and this too may have
been associated with the production of copper-alloy artefacts.
The assemblage from pit [124] therefore represents a collection of materials
which was conceivably associated with notable events, including the communal
sharing of food and metalworking, although there is nothing to suggest that the
pit was directly associated with this transformative process. It is, however, worth
noting that the metalworking debris seems to have been more integrated and
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
221
intermixed with other materials (for example, burnt stone and pottery) than was
the case in the Middle Bronze Age Roundhouse 1. Comparable assemblages of
mould fragments have been found elsewhere in the South West. At Higher Besore,
near Truro (Gossip, forthcoming), part of a Late Bronze Age sword mould was
found within a pit and at Dainton in Devon (Needham 1980), mould fragments
from two swords and other objects were found within and around a pit which
had been covered by a stony mound. This site also produced sherds of pottery;
although the assemblage was far richer than that from Tremough the similarities are
noteworthy. Later Bronze Age mould fragments from metalworking are, of course,
well documented within enclosures and pits across Britain and these have usefully
recently been drawn together by Needham and Bridgford (2013, 68-74). Sword
mould fragments are relatively frequently found and at Springfield Lyons formed a
substantial structured deposit. However, as Needham and Bridgford (2013, 72-3)
point out, they are, as at Tremough, usually found with fragments of moulds for
other forms of object, and are not found in large quantities. Nonetheless, they may
have been redolent of the specific artefact functions which came out of them and
of the production of metalwork. As such, they may have been very suitable items
for inclusion within ritualized deposits (ibid).
As noted above, at Tremough there is no evidence for large-scale metalworking
and the mould fragments and cushion / finishing stone in pit [124] are likely to
have been associated with a ‘one-off ’ or a very small number of events. Given
the incomplete nature of the moulds, and the freshness of the accompanying
ceramics, it is probable that the by-products from these activities, together with
those from cooking and food storage may again have been set aside, perhaps within
a midden mound, until it was time to infill the pit. Not enough is known about
any accompanying mound or cairn of burnt stone, but it too could have helped
memorialise events in the way that Structure 205 is likely to have done beside pit
[119].
The setting of Enclosure 1
There is little evidence for the character of the broader settlement pattern
around Enclosure 1. Elsewhere in Britain, as at Hornchurch and Springfield
Lyons (Guttmann and Last 2000; Brown and Medlycott 2013), Late Bronze Age
enclosures have been found to be situated close to areas of fields and to open
roundhouse settlements. At Tremough, to date, evidence for Late Bronze Age
occupation outside Enclosure 1 has been limited to the sherds of pottery found in
the soil over the infilled hollows for Roundhouse 1 and especially Roundhouse 2
(chapter 3); a Late Bronze Age radiocarbon determination came from residue on
one of the sherds of pottery from over Roundhouse 2. This implies that activity
in the area of the disused Middle Bronze Age roundhouses might have occurred,
possibly in the form of middening, but the extent or location of any contemporary
open settlement is unknown.
Enclosure 1 may not, however, have been the only enclosed space in the
immediate landscape and it is at this point that we need to consider its relationship
with Enclosure 2, which lay to the south (Figure 11.24).
222
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Enclosure 1
Intervention
prior to 2008
Tremough College
complex
Excavated areas
2008 onwards
Trench 7
Enclosure 2
This map is based upon the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office
© Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Cornwall Council (100049047) 2014
Geophysical survey
0
100
metres
Figure 11.24 Late Bronze Age Enclosure 1 and later prehistoric Enclosure 2.
In other parts of Britain some Late Bronze Age enclosures were constructed in
close proximity to one another, as for example at Cliffs End Farm on the Isle of
Thanet, Kent, where up to three enclosures may have been built in close proximity
to one another. At Hornchurch a timber Late Bronze Age post-ring enclosure may
have stood near to the ring-fort (Needham et al 2015; Guttmann and Last 2000).
More widely spaced are the enclosures at Mucking, although these are likely to
have been contemporary with one another and conceived as a pair (Jones and
Bond 1980). By contrast, at Springfield Lyons (Medlycott and Brown 2013, 159)
the ring-fort enclosure was sited beside a much older Early Neolithic causewayed
enclosure, and here the authors suggest that Late Bronze Age communities may
have been attempting to draw upon or manipulate a mythological or ancestral past.
At Tremough it is not possible to be certain about the chronology of Enclosure 2.
Given the lack of finds from primary fills in its ditches it could be contemporary
with or significantly later than Enclosure 1. The small-scale of the evaluation trench
on Enclosure 2 meant that activity within it was not well characterised, although a
very large hole for a ‘totem-pole’ sized post was located within the trench and this
hints at the possibility of rather different activity to what was found at Enclosure 1.
If we hypothesize that the two enclosures were contemporary with one another it is
possible that one held structures and features associated with storage, the cooking
of foodstuffs, the sharing of food and possibly small-scale metalworking. The other
had multiple ditches and a much smaller interior which held at least one massive
post. This might imply that one could have been used for communal activity the
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
223
other was a more bounded space, which was perhaps more rarely entered. Both,
however, are likely to have been special places.
Much later activity is, however, certainly apparent at Enclosure 2, from the
small amount of pottery of Late Iron Age – Romano-British date which came
from the upper ditch fills. It is of interest that there is some evidence for Late
Iron Age activity at Enclosure 1 too, where a sherd of Late Iron Age pottery P19
was recovered (probably from topsoil) from close to the cairn which formed
Structure 205. This sherd is likely to have been imported from Brittany and is
indicative of long-distance contact between distant communities. It does not,
however, appear that Enclosure 1 was a major focus of activity during the Iron
Age, and even if there was some overlap in their use Enclosure 2 was certainly used
long after Enclosure 1 grassed over.
Although we cannot establish a direct link between the construction or first
usage of the two enclosures, it is very likely that Enclosure 1 would have still
have been a significant place in the Iron Age landscape. As Stuart Needham
(2007b) has pointed out, Late Bronze Age enclosures could have been important
foci in the Iron Age, even if their original function had been lost in time, and
there is certainly evidence for Iron Age engagement with earlier sites. John Barrett
(1999) has suggested that Bronze Age barrows would have had significance in
the cultural landscape of Iron Age communities in southern Britain and argued
that their monumental forms would have provided physical evidence to support
a connection with a mythological past. Likewise, Richard Hingley (2009) has
observed the occurrence of Bronze Age artefacts on Iron Age sites and conversely
the evidence for Iron Age activity in older enclosures, which he has suggested could
have been connected with a desire to establish genealogies. Later activity at older
enclosures is also evident in Ireland, where several later earthwork monuments
were situated near to Late Bronze Age enclosures, and these sites arguably became
ancestral elements within long-lived complexes (Mallory 2005; Raftery 1976). In
the centuries after it had passed out of use it is likely that Enclosure 1 survived as
a monumental earthwork in the landscape, and as such, in common with other
Bronze Age monuments, to have attracted stories and become a mythologized
place (Gosden and Lock 1998).
Enclosure 1, a summary
In summary, Enclosure 1 represented a departure from the previous activity which
has been uncovered on the Tremough plateau. The architecture was of a type
which had not been found in the South West peninsula as a whole before and the
enclosure itself represents the first large-scale monument to be constructed on
the plateau. Although the site was not fully exposed, it has been argued that the
form of the enclosure is likely to have resulted from contacts with other regions,
where similar sites dating to the Late Bronze Age are found. These include eastern
Britain and Ireland, and it is possible that it was constructed by a group of people
who wanted to demonstrate their knowledge and links with distant architectural
traditions and wider cosmologies. As such, it was probably an important focal
point for the surrounding community.
224
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
The special character of the enclosure is perhaps also suggested by the features
found inside it. This included rectangular structures that are unusual in south west
Britain. Numerous pits were also found and the largest two of these are likely to
have been associated with communal events, possibly associated with the cooking
of foodstuffs, and this is also implied by the large ceramic vessels which may have
been used to store or share food. In addition, other transformative activity was
identified involving small-scale episodes of metalworking. Both of the pits appear
to have been memorialized, in one case with a well-made cairn of burnt stones.
In light of this, it is suggested that it was probably regarded as a special place. If
Enclosure 2 is considered to post-date Enclosure 1, it is possible that it lived on as a
mythologized earthwork long after it had ceased to be occupied into the Iron Age.
discussion: pits, deposition metalworking and circularity
225
Bibliography
AC Archaeology. 2013. AC Archaeology in Devon; Hemerdon. Devon Archaeological
Society Newsletter 116, 6-7.
Alcock, L. 1960. Castell Odo: an embanked settlement on Mynydd Ystum, near
Aberdaron, Caernarvonshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 109, 78-135.
Aldhouse-Green, M. 2000. Seeing the wood for the trees: the symbolism of trees and wood
in ancient Gaul and Britain. Aberystwyth: University of Wales.
Allen, M.J. 2005. Beaker settlement and environment on the chalk downs of southern
England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71, 219-245.
Allen T, Barclay, A. & Lamdin-Whymark H, 2004. Opening the wood, making the
land: the study of a Neolithic landscape in the Dorney area of the Middle
Thames Valley. In J. Cotton and D. Field, eds, Towards a new stone age:
Aspects of the Neolithic in south-east England. London: Council for British
Archaeology, 82-98.
Anderson-Whymark, H. 2011. Intentional breakage in the British Neolithic: some
comments and examples. Lithics 32, 16-21.
Andrefsky, W. 1998. Lithics: macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Anon. 2014. The Ockham hoard: unexpected artefacts. Current Archaeology 295, 9.
ApSimon, A.M. & Greenfield, E. 1972. The excavation of the Bronze Age and Iron
Age settlement at Trevisker Round, St Eval, Cornwall. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 38, 302-381.
Archaeological Surveys Ltd. 2008. Tremough Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, Cornwall:
survey ref: 235. Chippenham: Archaeological Surveys Ltd.
Balaam, N.D., Smith, K. & Wainwright, G. 1982. The Shaugh Moor project: fourth
report – environment, context and conclusion. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 48, 203-279.
Barber, A., Pannett, A., Fairburn, N., Cullen, K., Evans, D., Saunders, K. &
Thorogood, S. 2006. Archaeological investigations along the Milford Haven
to Aberdulais natural gas pipeline: a preliminary report. Archaeology in Wales
46, 79-86.
Barfield, L. & Hodder, M. 1987. Burnt mounds as saunas and the prehistory of
bathing. Antiquity 61, 370-379.
Barrett, J. 1980. The pottery of the Later Bronze Age in lowland England. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 46, 297-320.
Barrett, J. 1999. The mythical landscapes of the British Iron Age. In W. Ashmore
and A.B. Knapp, eds, Archaeologies of landscape: contemporary perspectives.
Oxford: Blackwell, 253-265.
Barrett, J., Bradley, R. & Green, M. 1991. Landscape, monuments and society: the
prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
bibliography
227
Beamish, M. & Ripper, S. 2000. Burnt mounds in the east Midlands. Antiquity 74,
37-38.
Bell, M. 1990. Brean Down excavations 1983-1987. London: English Heritage.
Bender, B. (ed). 1993. Landscape: politics and perspectives. Oxford: Berg.
Bender, B., Hamilton, S. & Tilley, C. 2007. Stone worlds: narrative and reflexivity in
landscape archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Bennett, P., Clark, P., Hicks, A., Rady, J. & Riddler, I. 2008. At the great crossroads:
Prehistoric, Roman and medieval discoveries on the Isle of Thanet 1994-95.
Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeological Trust.
Benson, D.G., Evans, J.G. & Williams, G.H. 1990. Excavations at Stackpole Warren,
Dyfed. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56, 179-246.
Bertsch, K. 1941. Fruchte und samen. Handbucher der praktischen Vorgeschichtsforschung
1. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke.
Best, J. & Gent, T. 2007. Bronze Age burnt mounds and early medieval timber
structures at Town Farm Quarry, Burlescombe Down, Devon. Archaeological
Journal 164, 1-79.
Bond, D. 1988. Excavation at the North Ring, Mucking, Essex. Chelmsford: East
Anglian Archaeology.
Bonnemere, P. 1998. Trees and people: some vital links. Tree products and other agents
in the life cycle of the Ankave-Anga of Papua New Guinea. In L. Rival, ed,
The social lives of trees: Anthropological perspectives on tree symbolism. Oxford:
Berg, 113-132.
Bradley, R. 1970. The excavation of a Beaker settlement at Belle Tout, East Sussex,
England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, 312–379.
Bradley, R. 1991. The passage of arms: archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and
votive deposits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bradley, R. 1997. Rock art and the prehistory of Atlantic Europe. London: Routledge.
Bradley, R. 2003. A life less ordinary: the ritualization of the domestic sphere in later
prehistoric Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13, 5-23.
Bradley, R. 2005. Ritual and domestic life in prehistoric Europe. London: Routledge.
Bradley, R. 2007. The prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bradley, R. 2012. The idea of order: the circular archetype in prehistoric Europe. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bradley, R. 2013. Houses of commons, Houses of Lords: domestic dwellings and
monumental architecture in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 79, 1-18.
Bradley, R. & Ellison, A. 1975. Rams Hill: A Bronze Age defended enclosure and its
landscape. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 19.
228
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Brossler, A., Early, R. & Allen, C. 2004. Green Park (Reading Business Park), phase 2
excavations 1995: Neolithic and Bronze Age sites. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology
Unit.
Brown, A. 2000. Flood plain vegetation history: clearings as potential ritual spaces.
In A. Fairbairn, ed, Plants in Neolithic Britain and beyond. Oxford: Oxbow
Books, 49-62.
Brown, L. & Durham, E. 2005. Typologie des vases prehistoriques, tardo-lateniennes
et romaines. In B. Cunliffe and P. Galliou, Annexe C5 online. www.arch.
ox.ac.uk/research_projects/Le_Yaudet.
Brown, N. 1988. A Late Bronze Age enclosure at Lofts Farm Essex. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 54, 249-302.
Brown, N. & Medlycott, M. 2013. The Neolithic and Bronze Age enclosures at Springfield
Lyons, Essex. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology.
Brück, J. 1995. A place for the dead: the role of human remains in Late Bronze Age
Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 245-278.
Brück, J. 1999a. Houses, lifecycles and deposition on Middle Bronze Age settlements
southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65, 245-278.
Brück, J. 1999b. Ritual and rationality: Some problems of interpretation in European
Archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology 2, 313-344.
Brück, J. 1999c. What’s in a settlement? Domestic practice and residential mobility
in Early Bronze Age Southern England. In J. Brück and M. Goodman, eds,
Making places in the prehistoric world. London: UCL Press, 145-166.
Brück, J. 2000. Settlement, landscape and social identity: the Early-Middle Bronze
Age transition in Wessex, Sussex and the Thames Valley. Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 19, 273-301.
Brück, J. 2001. Body metaphors and technologies of transformation in the English
Middle and Late Bronze Age. In J. Brück, ed, Bronze Age landscapes tradition
and transformation. Oxford: Oxbow, 149-160.
Brück, J. 2007. The character of Late Bronze Age settlement in southern Britain. In
C. Haselgrove and R. Pope, eds, The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the near
Continent. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 24-38.
Brudenell, M. & Cooper, A. 2008. Post-middenism: depositional histories on later
Bronze Age settlements at Broom, Bedfordshire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology
27, 15-36.
Buckley, V. 1990. Experimentation. In Buckley, V, ed, Burnt offerings: International
contributions to burnt mound archaeology. Bray: Wordwell, 170-172.
Buckley, V. (ed). 1990. Burnt offerings: International contributions to burnt mound
archaeology. Bray: Wordwell.
Budd, P. & Taylor, T. 1995. The faerie smith meets the bronze industry: magic versus
science in the interpretation of prehistoric metal working. World Archaeology
27, 133-143.
bibliography
229
Burgess, C. 1968. The later Bronze Age in the British Isles and north western France,
Archaeological Journal 125, 1-45.
Burgess, C. 1976. Appendix II: The Gwithian mould and the forerunners of the South
Wales axes. In C. Burgess and R. Miket, eds, Settlement and economy in
the third and second millennia BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports,
British Series 33, 69-81.
Butcher, S.A. 1978. Excavations at Nornour, Isles of Scilly, 1969-73: The pre-Roman
Settlement. Cornish Archaeology 17, 29-112.
Butler, C. 2005. Prehistoric flintwork. Stroud: Tempus.
Butler, J. 1997. Dartmoor atlas of antiquities, volume 5. Tiverton: Devon Books.
Butterworth, C. 1999. Long Range. In A. Fitzpatrick, C.A. Butterworth and J.
Grove, Prehistoric and Roman Sites in east Devon: The A30 Honiton to Exeter
Improvement DBFO scheme, 1996-9. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology,
138-159.
Campbell, G. & Straker, V. 2003. Prehistoric crop husbandry and plant use in southern
England: development and regionality. In K.A. Robson Brown, Archaeological
sciences 1999. Proceedings of the archaeological sciences conference, University of
Bristol, 1999. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series
1111.
Cappers, R.T.J. Bekker, R.M. & Jans, J.E.A. 2006. Digital seed atlas of the Netherlands.
Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library.
Carruthers, W. 2007. Charred plant remains. In J. Gossip and A.M. Jones, Archaeological
investigations of a later Prehistoric and a Romano-British landscape at Tremough,
Penryn, Cornwall. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 443,
100-106.
Cartwright, C.R. 1988. The charcoal from Davidstow Moor. In P.M. Christie, A
barrow cemetery on Davidstow Moor, Cornwall, wartime excavations by C
K Croft Andrew. Cornish Archaeology 27, 27-169.
Case, H. & Whittle, A. (eds). 1982. Settlement patterns in the Oxford region: excavations
at the Abingdon causewayed enclosure and other sites. London: Council for
British Archaeology.
Chadwick, A.M. 2012. Routine magic, mundane ritual: towards a unified notion of
depositional practice. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31, 283–316.
Champion, T. 2011. Later prehistory. In P. Booth, T. Champion, S. Foreman, P.
Garwood, H. Glass, J. Munby and A. Reynolds, eds, On track. The archaeology
of High Speed 1 Section 1 in Kent. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology, 151-241.
Challinor, D. forthcoming. The charcoal. In P. Clark and S. Foreman, The archaeology
of the A30 Bodmin to Indian Queens road scheme. Cornish Archaeology.
230
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Clapham, A.J. & Stevens C.J. 1999. The charred plant remains: Environmental
and economic evidence. In A. Fitzpatrick, C.A. Butterworth and J. Grove,
Prehistoric and Roman sites in east Devon: The A30 Honiton to Exeter
Improvement DBFO scheme, 1996-9. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology,
196-207.
Clark, P. 2004. The Dover boat, ten years after its discovery. In P. Clark, ed, The Dover
Bronze Age boat in context: society and water transport in prehistoric Europe.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1-12.
Clarke, D.V., Cowie, T.G., & Foxon, A. 1985. Symbols of power at the time of Stonehenge.
Edinburgh: National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, Edinburgh.
Cleal, R. 1984. The later Neolithic in the east of England. In R.J. Bradley and J.
Gardener, eds, Neolithic studies. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports,
British Series 133, Oxford, 135-158.
Clough, T. & Cummins, W.A. (eds). 1979. Stone axe studies. London: Council for
British Archaeology.
Cole, R. 1999. Liskeard to Maudlin pipeline. Truro: Cornwall Archaeological Unit.
Cole, R. & Jones, A.M. 2002-3. Journeys to the Rock: archaeological investigations at
Tregarrick Farm, Roche. Cornish Archaeology 41-22, 107-144.
Coles, B. 1998. Wood species for wooden figures: a glimpse of a pattern. In A. Gibson
and D. Simpson, eds, Prehistoric religion and ritual. Stroud: Sutton, 163-175.
Coles, J. 1973. Archaeology by experiment. London: Hutchinson.
Connerton, P. 1989. How societies remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cornish, T. 1880-81. Bronze celts. Penzance Natural History and Antiquarian Society,
75.
Cornwall County Council. 1996. Cornwall landscape assessment 1994. Truro: Cornwall
County Council.
Cunliffe, B. 1970. A Bronze Age settlement at Chalton, Hants (Site 78). Antiquaries
Journal 50, 1-14.
Cunliffe, B. 1987. Hengistbury Head, Dorset. Vol I; The Prehistoric and Roman Settlement,
3500 BC – AD 500. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.
Cunliffe, B. 1988. Mount Batten, Plymouth. A prehistoric and Roman port. Oxford:
Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.
Cunliffe, B. 2009. Looking forward: Maritime contacts in the first millennium BC.
In P. Clark, ed, Bronze Age connections, cultural contact in prehistoric Europe.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 12-37.
Cunliffe, B. & Galliou, P. 2005. Les Fouilles du Yaudet en Ploulec’h, Cote-d’Armor.
Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology.
Cuttler, R., Davidson, A. & Hughes, G. 2012. A corridor through time: The archaeology
of the A55 Anglesey road scheme. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
bibliography
231
Davis, A. 2012. Beyond the horizon: ornaments in the British Late Bronze Age and
Early Iron Age. Unpublished MA Thesis: University of Cardiff.
De la Beche, H.T. 1839. Report on the geology of Cornwall, Devon and west Somerset.
London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Greene and Longmans.
Department of Culture Media and Sport. 2004. Treasure annual report 2002. London:
Department of Culture Media and Sport.
Department of Culture Media and Sport. 2008. Treasure annual report 2005/6. London:
Department of Culture Media and Sport.
Drewett, P. 1982. Later Bronze Age downland economy and excavations at Black
Patch, East Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 48, 321-400.
Drisceoil, M. 1988. Burnt mounds: cooking or bathing? Antiquity 62, 671-68.
Dudley, D. 1956. An excavation at Bodrifty, Mulfra, near Penzance, Archaeological
Journal 113, 1-32.
Dudley, P. 2011. Goon, hal, cliff and croft, the archaeology and landscape history of west
Cornwall’s rough ground. Truro: Cornwall Council.
Edmonds, M. 1987. Rocks and risk: Problems with lithic procurement strategies. In
A.G. Brown and M.R. Edmonds, eds, Lithic analysis and later British prehistory.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 162, 155-179.
Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone tools and society. Working stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age
Britain. London: Batsford.
Eliade, M. 1998. Shamanism, archaic techniques of ecstasy. London: Routledge
Ellis, P. 1989. Norton Fitzwarren Hillfort: a report on the excavations by Nancy
and Philip Langmaid between 1968 and 1971. Proceedings of the Somerset
Archaeological and Natural History Society 133, 1-74.
Ellison, A.B. 1981. Towards a socioeconomic model for the Middle Bronze Age in
southern Britain. In I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond, eds, Patterns of
the past -studies in honour of David Clarke. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 413-438.
Eogan, G. 1983. Hoards of the Irish Later Bronze Age. Dublin: University College
Dublin.
Eogan, G. 1994. The accomplished art: gold and goldworking in Britain and Ireland
during the Bronze Age. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Evans, C., Pollard, J. & Knight, M. 1999. Life in woods: tree-throws, ‘settlement’ and
forest cognition. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, 241-254.
Evans, J.G. 1990. Notes on some Late Neolithic and Bronze Age events in long barrow
ditches in southern and eastern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
56, 111-116.
Evans, J.G., Limbrey, S., Mate, I. & Mount, R. 1993. An environmental history of the
upper Kennet valley, Wiltshire, for the last 10,000 years. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 59, 139-196.
232
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Fitzpatrick, A.P. Butterworth, C.A. & Grove, G. 1999. Prehistoric and Roman sites in
east Devon: the A30 Honiton to Exeter Improvement DBFO Scheme, 1996-9.
Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.
Fleming, A. 1988. The Dartmoor reaves: Investigating prehistoric land divisions. London:
Batsford.
Fowler, C. 2004. The archaeology of personhood: an anthropological approach. London:
Routledge.
Fowler, C. 2013. The emergent past. A relational realist archaeology of Early Bronze Age
mortuary practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fowler, P.J. 1983. The farming of prehistoric Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Fox, A. 1957. Excavations at Dean Moor. Report of the Transactions of the Devonshire
Association 89, 21-62.
Fox, C. 1959. Life and death in the Bronze Age. London: Routledge.
Gale, R. 2006. The charcoal. In A.M. Jones and H. Quinnell, Cornish Beakers: new
discoveries and perspectives. Cornish Archaeology 45, 31-70.
Gale, R. 2007. Charcoal. In J. Gossip and A.M. Jones, Archaeological investigations
of a later prehistoric and a Romano-British landscape at Tremough, Penryn,
Cornwall, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 443,
107-111.
Gale, R. & Cutler, D. 2000. Plants in archaeology: identification manual of vegetative
plant materials used in Europe and the southern Mediterranean to c. 1500.
Otley: Westbury and Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Garrow, D. 2007. Placing pits: Landscape occupation and depositional practice during
the Neolithic in East Anglia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73, 1-24.
Garrow, D. 2012a. Concluding discussion: pits and perspective. In H. AndersonWhymark and J. Thomas, eds, Regional perspectives on Neolithic pit deposition.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 216-225.
Garrow, D. 2012b. Odd deposits and average practice. A critical history of the concept
of structured deposition. Archaeological Dialogues 19, 85-115.
Garwood, P. 2011. Early prehistory. In P. Booth, T. Champion, S. Foreman, P. Garwood,
H. Glass, J. Munby and A. Reynolds, eds, On track. The archaeology of High
Speed 1 Section 1 in Kent. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology, 37-150.
Geological Survey of Great Britain. 2005. Map sheet 21 and 25.
Gerloff, S. 2007. Reinecke’s ABC and the chronology of the British Bronze Age. In
C. Burgess, P. Topping and F. Lynch, eds, Beyond Stonehenge. Essays on the
Bronze Age in honour of Colin Burgess. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 117-161.
Gibson, A. 1999. The Walton Basin Project: excavation and survey in a prehistoric
landscape 1993-7. York: CBA Research Report 118.
bibliography
233
Gibson, T. 1995. Having your house and eating it: houses and siblings in Ara, South
Salawesi. In J. Carsten and S. Hugh-Jones, eds, About the house: Levi-Strauss
and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129-138.
Gingell, C. 1992. The Marlborough Downs: a later Bronze Age landscape and its origins.
Devizes: Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society.
Ginn, V. 2012. Settlement structure in Middle–Late Bronze Age Ireland. Unpublished
MA Thesis: University of Belfast.
Ginn, V. & Rathbone, S. 2012. Corrstown, a coastal community: excavations of a Bronze
Age village in Northern Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Gosden, C. & Lock, G. 1998. Prehistoric histories. World Archaeology 30, 2-12.
Gosden C. & Marshall, Y. 1999. The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology
31, 169-178.
Gossip, J. 2008a. An archaeological evaluation report on phase 3 enabling development
works, Tremough, Penryn, Cornwall. Truro: Historic Environment Service,
Cornwall Council.
Gossip, J. 2008b. Penryn College, Penryn, Cornwall: archaeological evaluation and open
area recording. Truro: Historic Environment Service, Cornwall Council.
Gossip, J. 2008c. Excavations at Boden Vean, Manaccan 2008. CBA Archaeology SouthWest Journal 22, 29-31.
Gossip, J. 2009. Tremough PAC Building, Penryn, Cornwall: Archaeological recording
following controlled topsoil strip archive report. Truro: Historic Environment
Service, Cornwall Council.
Gossip, J. 2011. Archaeological excavations at the AIR Building and Car Park 4 Tremough,
Cornwall: Archive report. Truro: Historic Environment Service, Cornwall
Council.
Gossip, J. 2013. The evaluation of a multi-period prehistoric site at Boden Vean, St
Anthony in Meneage, Cornwall 2003, Cornish Archaeology 52, 1-98
Gossip, J. forthcoming. Life outside the round - Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement
at Higher Besore and Truro College, Threemilestone, Truro. Cornish
Archaeology.
Gossip, J. In preparation. A medieval structure at Tremough, Mabe, Cornwall.
Gossip, J. & Jones, A.M. 2007. Archaeological investigations of a later prehistoric and
a Romano-British landscape at Tremough, Penryn, Cornwall. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports, British Series 443.
Gossip, J. & Jones A.M. 2008. A Bronze Age roundhouse at Carnon Gate, Feock.
Cornish Archaeology 47, 101-115.
Gossip, J. & Jones, A.M. 2009-10. Excavations at Tremough, Penryn, Cornwall, 20006. Cornish Archaeology 48-9, 1-66.
Gossip, J., Jones, A.M. & Quinnell, H. 2012. Early Neolithic activity and an Iron Age
settlement at Penmayne, Rock, St Minver. Cornish Archaeology 51, 165-190.
234
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Green, S. 1984. Flint arrowheads: typology and interpretation. Lithics 5, 19-39.
Greig, J.R.A. 1991. The British Isles. In W. Van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa, & K. Behre,
Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany. A retrospective view on the occasion
of 20 years of the international work group for palaeoethnobotany. Rotterdam/
Brookfield: A.A. Balkema/Rotterdam/Brookfield, 299-334.
Griffith, F., Healy, F., Jones, A.M., Lawson, A., Lewis, J., Mercer, R., Mullin, D.,
Nowakowski, J., Pollard, J., Wickstead, H. and Woodward, P. 2008. Neolithic
and Early Bronze Age. In C. Webster, ed, South West Archaeological Research
Framework: The archaeology of South West England. Taunton: Somerset
County Council, 75-102.
Guttmann, E.B.A. & Last, J. 2000. A Late Bronze Age landscape at South Hornchurch,
Essex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 319-384.
Hall, A. 2003. Recognition and characterisation of turves in archaeological occupation
deposits by means of macrofossil plant remains. Swindon: English Heritage.
Halsted, J. 2005. Bronze Age settlement in the Welsh Marches. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports, British Series 384.
Halsted, J. 2007. Bronze Age settlement in Shropshire: research potential and
frameworks for settlement studies in the West Midlands. In P. Garwood, ed,
The undiscovered country: The earlier prehistory of the West Midlands. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, 166-181.
Harding, J. 2006. Pit-digging, occupation and structured deposition on Rudston
Wold, Eastern Yorkshire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25, 109-126.
Harris, D. 1977. Bodwen, Lanlivery: a multi-period occupation. Cornish Archaeology
16, 43-46.
Harris, O. 2009. Making places matter in early Dorset. Oxford Journal of Archaeology
28, 111–124.
Hassan, N.M., Rasmussen, P.E., Dabek-Zlotorzynska, E., Celo, V., & Chen, H. 2007
Analysis of environmental samples using microwave-assisted acid digestion
and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry: Maximizing total
element recoveries. Water Air Soil Pollution 178, 323-334.
Hather, J.G. 2000. The identification of northern European woods; a guide for
archaeologists and conservators. London: Archetype Publications.
Hawkes, C.F.C. & Clarke, R.R. 1963. Gahlsdorf and Caistor-on-Sea: two finds of
Late Bronze Age Irish gold. In I.L.L. Foster and L. Alcock, eds, Culture and
environment. London: Routledge, 193-250.
Healy, F. 1985. And to Cornwall. Lithics 5, 18-20.
Healy, F. 1988. Spong Hill, part VI: 7th to 2nd Millennia BC. Dereham: East Anglian
Archaeology.
Healy, F. 1989. Afterthoughts. In I. Brooks and P. Phillips, eds, Breaking the stony
silence. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 213, 187-198.
bibliography
235
Healy, F. & Harding, J. 2004. Reading a burial: the legacy of Overton Hill. In A.
Gibson and A. Sheridan, eds, From sickles to circles: Britain and Ireland at the
time of Stonehenge. Stroud: Tempus, 176-193.
Helms, M. 1988. Ulysses’ sail: ethnographic odyssey of power, knowledge and geographical
distance. Princeton: Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Helms, M. 1993. Craft and the kingly ideal: art, trade and power. Austin: University
of Texas.
Henderson, J. 2007. The Atlantic Iron Age: Settlement and identity in the first millennium
BC. London: Routledge.
Herbert, E.W. 1993. Iron, gender and power; rituals of transformation in African societies.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Herne, C. & Heaton, M. Excavations at a Late Bronze Age settlement in the Upper
Thames Valley at Shorncote Quarry, near Cirencester, 1992. Transactions of
the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 112, 17-57.
Herring, P. 2011. Hilltop enclosures. In P. Dudley, Goon, hal, cliff and croft, the
archaeology and landscape history of west Cornwall’s rough ground. Truro:
Cornwall Council, 84-86.
Hills, C. & Lucy, S. 2013. Introduction and background. In C. Hills and S. Lucy, Spong
Hill, part IX: Chronology and synthesis. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, 1–26.
Hillman, G.C. 1981. Reconstructing crop husbandry practises from charred remains
of crops. In R. Mercer, ed, Farming practice in British prehistory. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Hillman, G.C. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: the application
of ethnographic models from Turkey. In W. van Zeist and W.A. Caspaire,
eds, Plants and ancient man. Studies in palaeoethnobotany. Rotterdam, A.A.
Balkema, 1-41.
Hingley, R. 2009. Esoteric knowledge, ancient bronze artefacts from Iron Age contexts.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 75, 143-166.
Hood, A. 2009a. Land adjacent to Tresprison, Helston, Cornwall, post excavation
assessment: report 629. Swindon: Foundations Archaeology.
Hood, A. 2009b. Later Iron Age and Early Roman Settlement at Willand Road,
Cullompton, Devon. Swindon: Foundations Archaeology (Unpublished
publication proposal).
Jacomet, S. 2006. Identification of cereal remains from archaeological sites. Archaeobotany
Lab IPAS: Basel University www.ipna.unibas.ch/archbot/pdf
Jeffrey, P. 1991. Burnt mounds, fulling and early textiles. In M.A. Hodder and L.H.
Barfield, eds, Burnt mounds and hot stone technology. Sandwell: Sandwell
Borough Council, 97-107
Jenness, D. 1977. The Indians of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (1st
pub 1932).
236
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Johns, C. 2008. The excavation of a multi-period archaeological landscape at Trenowah,
St Austell, Cornwall, 1997. Cornish Archaeology 47, 1-48.
Johnson, N. & Rose, P, 1994. Bodmin Moor: an archaeological survey, volume 1: the
human landscape to c 1800. London: English Heritage.
Jones, A.M. 1998-9a. The excavation of a later Bronze Age structure at Callestick.
Cornish Archaeology 37-8, 5-55.
Jones, A.M. 1998-9b. The excavation of a Bronze Age enclosure at Liskeard Junior and
Infant School. Cornish Archaeology 37-8, 56-71.
Jones, A.M. 2005. Cornish Bronze Age ceremonial landscapes, c.2500-1500 BC. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports, British Series 394.
Jones, A.M. 2008. Houses for the dead and cairns for the living: a reconsideration of
the Early to Middle Bronze Age transition in south-west England. Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 27, 153–174.
Jones, A.M. 2013. Memory, myth, place and landscape inhabitation: a perspective
from the south west peninsula. In A. Chadwick and C. Gibson, eds, Memory,
myth, place and long-term landscape inhabitation. Oxford: Oxbow Books,
55-75.
Jones, A.M. forthcoming a. Ritual, rubbish or everyday life? Evidence from a Middle
Bronze Age settlement in mid Cornwall. Archaeological Journal.
Jones, A.M, forthcoming b. Hay Close, St Newlyn East: excavations by the Cornwall
Archaeological Society, 2007. Cornish Archaeology.
Jones, A.M. & Quinnell, H. 2006. Cornish Beakers: new discoveries and perspectives.
Cornish Archaeology 45, 31-70.
Jones, A.M. & Quinnell, H. 2008. The Farway barrow complex in East Devon
reassessed. Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 66, 27-58.
Jones, A.M. & Quinnell, H. 2011. Bosiliack: a later prehistoric settlement in Penwith,
Cornwall. Archaeological Journal 168, 80-117.
Jones, A.M. & Quinnell, H. 2013. Daggers in the west: Early Bronze Age daggers and
knives in the south west peninsula. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 79,
165-191.
Jones, A.M. & Quinnell. H. 2014. Lines of archaeological investigation along the North
Cornish coast. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 594.
Jones, A.M. & Reed, S. 2006. By Land, sea and air: an Early Neolithic pit group
at Portscatho, Cornwall, and consideration of coastal activity during the
Neolithic. Cornish Archaeology 45, 1-30.
Jones, A.M. & Taylor, S.R. 2004. What lies beneath . . . St Newlyn East and Mitchell
archaeological investigations 2001. Truro: Cornwall Archaeological Unit.
Jones, A.M. & Taylor, S.R. 2010. Scarcewater, Pennance, Cornwall, archaeological
excavation of a Bronze Age and Roman landscape. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports, British Series 516.
bibliography
237
Jones, A.M., Taylor, S.R. & Sturgess, J. 2012. A Beaker-associated structure and
other discoveries along the Sennen to Porthcurno SWW pipeline. Cornish
Archaeology 51, 1-69.
Jones, A.M. & Tinsley, H.M. 2000-1. Recording ancient environments at De Lank, St
Breward, Cornwall. Cornish Archaeology 39-40, 145-160.
Jones, J. 1999. Charred plant remains from Bronze Age features associated with
the Maudlin to Liskeard pipeline. Unpublished report for Cornwall
Archaeological Unit.
Jones, J. 2004. Analysis of the charred plant macrofossil remains. In A.M. Jones and
S.R. Taylor, What lies beneath . . . St Newlyn East and Mitchell archaeological
investigations 2001. Truro: Cornwall Archaeological Unit, 73-81.
Jones, J. 2005. Charred plant macrofossil remains from Boden Vean, St. Anthony-inMeneage, Cornwall. Unpublished report for Cornwall Archaeological Unit.
Jones, J. 2010. Plant remains. In A.M. Jones and S.R. Taylor, Scarcewater, Pennance,
Cornwall, archaeological excavation of a Bronze Age and Roman landscape.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 516, 142-149.
Jones, M.U. & Bond, D. 1980. Later Bronze Age settlement at Mucking, Essex. In
J. Barrett and R. Bradley, eds, The British Later Bronze Age. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports, British Series 83, 471-482.
Karl, R & Waddington, K. Forthcoming. Excavations in a Late Bronze and Iron Age
double ringwork enclosure at Meillionydd, Gwynedd. In J. Zeidler and S.
Junges, eds, Akten des ersten europäischen Keltologensymposiums in Trier.
Kelly, R.S. 1992. The excavation of a burnt mound at Graeanog, Clynnog. Archaeologia
Cambrensis 141, 74-79.
Kis-Jovak, J., Nooy-Plm, H., Schefold, R. & Schultz-Dornburg, U. 1988. Banua
Toraja: Changing patterns in the architecture and symbolism among the Sa’dan
Toraja, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.
Knight, J. 1991. Technological analysis of the anvil (bipolar) technique. Lithics 12,
57-80.
Ladle, L. & Woodward, A. 2009. Excavations at Bestwall Quarry, Wareham, 1992-2005,
volume 1: The prehistoric landscape. Dorchester: Dorset Natural History and
Archaeological Society.
Lawson, A.J. 2007. Chalkland: an archaeology of Stonehenge and its region. Salisbury:
Hobnob Press.
Lawson-Jones, A. 2007. Flint. In J. Gossip and A.M. Jones, Archaeological investigations
of a later prehistoric and a Romano-British landscape at Tremough, Penryn,
Cornwall. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 443, 88-96.
Lee, K. 2001. Experimental heat-treatment of flint. Lithics 22, 39-44.
Leverett, M. & Quinnell, H. 2010. An Early Neolithic assemblage from Waylands,
Tiverton. Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 68, 1-20.
238
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Loring, D.H. 1991. Normalization of heavy-metal data from estuarine and coastal
sediments. Journal of Marine Science 48, 115-215.
Lynch, F. 1991. Prehistoric Anglesey (second edition). Llangefni: The Anglesey
Antiquarian Society.
Lynch, F. 1993. Excavations in the Brenig Valley: a Mesolithic and Bronze Age landscape
in North Wales. Bangor: Cambrian Monographs 5.
Lynch, F., Aldhouse-Green, S. & Davies J.L. 2000. Prehistoric Wales. Stroud: Alan
Sutton.
Macphail, R.I. & Linderholm, J. 2004. Neolithic land use in south-east England: a
brief review of the soil evidence. In J. Cotton and D. Field, eds, Towards a
New Stone Age: aspects of the Neolithic in south-east England. London: Council
for British Archaeology, 29-37.
Mallory, J.P. 1995. Haughey’s Fort and the Navan complex in the Late Bronze Age. In
J. Waddell, J. and E. Shee Twohig, eds, Ireland in the Bronze Age. Wordwell:
Dublin, 97-112.
Manby, T. 2007. Continuity of monumental traditions into the Late Bronze Age?
Henges to ring-forts, and shrines. In C. Burgess, P. Topping and F. Lynch,
eds, Beyond Stonehenge, essays on the Bronze Age in honour of Colin Burgess.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 403-424.
Marcigny, C., Ghesquiere, E. & Kinnes, I. 2007. Bronze Age cross-channel relations.
The Lower-Normandy (France) example: ceramic chronology and first
reflections. In C. Burgess, P. Topping and F. Lynch, eds, Beyond Stonehenge,
essays on the Bronze Age in honour of Colin Burgess. Oxford: Oxbow Books,
255-267.
Marshall, W.A. Clough, R. & Gehrels, W.G. 2009. The isotopic record of atmospheric
lead fall-out on an Icelandic salt marsh since AD 50. Science of the total
environment 407 (8), 2734–2748.
Mattingly, J., Marley, J. & Jones, A.M. 2009. Five gold rings? Early Bronze Age gold
lunulae from Cornwall. Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, 95-114.
McOmish, D. 1996. East Chisenbury: ritual and rubbish at the British Bronze AgeIron Age transition. Antiquity 267, 68-76.
Mercer, R.J. 1970. The excavation of a Bronze Age hut-circle settlement, Stannon
Down. Cornish Archaeology 9, 17-46.
Mercer, R.J. 1981. Excavations at Carn Brea, Illogan, Cornwall 1970-73. Cornish
Archaeology 20, 1-204.
Miles, H., Davey, U., Harris, D., Hooper, S., Moreton, P., Padel, O. & Staines,
S., 1977. Excavations at Killibury hillfort, Egloshayle 1975-6, Cornish
Archaeology 16, 89-121.
Moffett, L. 1988. The Archaeobotanical evidence for Saxon and medieval agriculture
in central England circa 500 AD to 1500 AD. Unpublished Master of
Philosophy Thesis: University of Birmingham.
bibliography
239
Moore, J. & Jennings, D. 1992. Reading Business Park: a Bronze Age landscape. Oxford:
Oxford Archaeological Unit.
Morigi, A., Schreve, D., White, M., Hey, J., Garwood, P., Robinson., M., Barclay, A.
& Bradley, P. 2011. Thames through time, the archaeology of the gravel terraces
of the Upper and Middle Thames; Early prehistory to 1500 BC. Oxford: Oxford
Archaeology.
Muckelroy, K. 1981. Middle Bronze Age trade between Britain and Europe. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 47, 275-297.
Mullin, D. 2012. The river has never divided us: Bronze Age metalwork deposition in
the west of Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31, 47-57.
Musson, C. 1991. The Breiddin Hillfort. A later prehistoric settlement in the Welsh
Marches. London: Council for British Archaeology
Needham, S. 1980. An assemblage of Late Bronze Age metalworking debris from
Dainton, Devon. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46, 177-215.
Needham, S. 1981. The Bulford-Helsbury Manufacturing Tradition. The production of
Stogursey socketed axes in the later Bronze Age in southern Britain. London:
British Museum Occasional Paper 13.
Needham, S. 1988. Selective deposition in the Early British Bronze Age. World
Archaeology 20, 229-248.
Needham, S. 1992. Special features in the Late Bronze Age Landscape. In C. Mordant
and A. Richard, eds, L’ habitat et l’occupation du sol a’ l’age du Bronze en
Europe. Paris: Editions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques,
49-69.
Needham, S. 2007a. Bronze makes a Bronze Age? Considering the systemics of Bronze
Age metal use and the implications of selective deposition. In C. Burgess,
P. Topping and F. Lynch, eds, Beyond Stonehenge, essays on the Bronze Age in
honour of Colin Burgess. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 276-287.
Needham, S. 2007b: 800 BC, the great divide. In C. Haselgrove and R. Pope, eds, The
earlier Iron Age in Britain and the near Continent. Oxford: Oxbow Books,
39-63.
Needham, S. 2009. Encompassing the sea: ‘maritories’ and Bronze Age interactions.
In P. Clark, ed, Bronze Age connections, cultural contact in prehistoric Europe.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 12-37.
Needham, S. & Ambers, J. 1994. Redating Rams Hill and reconsidering Bronze Age
enclosure. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60, 225-244.
Needham, S. & Bridgford, S. 2013. Deposits of clay refractories for casting bronze
swords. In N. Brown and M. Medlycott, The Neolithic and Bronze Age
enclosures at Springfield Lyons, Essex. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology,
47-74.
Needham, S. & Hook, D.R. 1989. A compare of recent analyses of British Late Bronze
Age goldwork with Irish parallels. Jewellery Studies 3, 15-22.
240
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Needham, S., McKinley, J.I. & Leivers, N. 2015. Discussion and concluding remarks.
In J.I. McKinley, M. Leivers, J. Schuster, P. Marshall, A. Barclay and N.
Stoodley, Cliffs End Farm, Isle of Thanet, Kent: A mortuary and ritual site of
the Bronze Age, Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon period with evidence for long-distance
maritime mobility. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 208-236.
Needham, S., Parham, D. & Frieman, C. 2013. Claimed by the sea: Salcombe, Langdon
Bay and other marine finds of the Bronze Age. York: Council for British
Archaeology Research Report 173.
Needham, S. & Spence, T. 1996. Refuse and disposal at Area 16 East, Runneymede.
London: British Museum Press.
Newberry, J. 2002. Inland flint in prehistoric Devon: Sources, tool-making quality and
use. Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 60, 1-36.
Newman, C. 1998. Reflections on the making of a ‘royal site’, in early Ireland. World
Archaeology 30, 127-141.
Nowakowski, J.A. 1991. Trethellan Farm, Newquay: the excavation of a lowland Bronze
Age settlement and Iron Age cemetery. Cornish Archaeology 30, 5-242.
Nowakowski, J.A. 2001. Leaving home in the Cornish Bronze Age: insights into
the planned abandonment process. In J, Brück, ed, Bronze Age landscapes
tradition and transformation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 139-148.
Nowakowski, J.A. 2009. Living in the sands – Bronze Age Gwithian revisited. In M.J.
Allen, N. Sharples and T. O’Connor, eds, Land and people: papers in memory
of John G Evans. Oxford: Prehistoric Society, 115-125.
Nowakowski, J.A. & Johns, C. 2015. Bypassing Indian Queens. Archaeological
excavations 1992-1994. Investigating prehistoric and Romano-British settlement
and landscapes in Cornwall. Historic Environment, Cornwall Council & The
Highways Agency.
Nowakowski, J.A., Quinnell, H. Sturgess, H. Thomas, C. & Thorpe, C. 2007. Return
to Gwithian: shifting the sands of time. Cornish Archaeology 46, 13-76.
O’Connor, B., Jones, A.M., Quinnell, H. & Taylor, R. 2014. Racloir mould, S7. In
A.M. Jones and H. Quinnell, Lines of archaeological investigation along the
North Cornish coast. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 594, 64-65.
O’Brien, W. 2004. (Con)fusion of tradition. In A. Gibson and A. Sheridan, eds, From
sickles to circles: Britain and Ireland at the time of Stonehenge. Stroud: Tempus,
323-339.
O’Mhaolduin, R. 2014. Saechtain i ndaingean an umha aois (a week in Bronze Age
Dingle): A personal experience. Archaeology Ireland 108, 40-43.
Oswald, A., Dyer, C. & Barber, M. 2001. The creation of monuments: causewayed
enclosures in the British Isles. Swindon: English Heritage.
Pannett, A. 2011. Burning issues: fire and the manufacture of stone tools in Neolithic
Britain. In A. Saville, ed, Flint and stone in the Neolithic period. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, 247-255.
bibliography
241
Pannett, A. 2012. Pits, pots and plant remains: Trends in Neolithic deposition in
Carmarthenshire, South Wales. In H. Anderson-Whymark and J. Thomas,
eds, Regional perspectives on Neolithic pit deposition. Oxford: Oxbow Books,
126-143.
Parker Pearson, M. 1990. The production and distribution of Bronze Age pottery in
south-west Britain. Cornish Archaeology 29, 5-32.
Parker Pearson, M. 1996. Food, fertility and front doors. In T. Champion and J. Collis,
eds, The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends. Sheffield: University
of Sheffield, 117-132.
Parker Pearson, M. & Richards, C. 1994. Architecture and order: spatial representation
and archaeology. In M. Parker Pearson and C. Richards, eds, Architecture and
order, approaches to social space. London: Routledge, 38-72.
Parker Pearson, M. & Sharples, N. 1999. Between land and sea: Excavations at Dun
Vulan, South Uist. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Pearce, M. 2013. The spirit of the sword and spear. Cambridge Archaeological Journal
23, 55-67.
Pearce, S. 1974. The finds of Bronze Age material from Kent’s Cavern, Torquay.
Transactions and Proceedings of the Torquay Natural History Society 16,
176-194.
Pearce, S. 1976. The Middle and Late Bronze Age metalwork of the South-West and
its relationship to settlement. Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society
34, 17-40.
Pearce, S. 1983. The Bronze Age metalwork of south western Britain. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports, British Series 31.
Pearce, S. & Padley, T. 1977. A Bronze Age Find from Tredarvah, Penzance. Cornish
Archaeology 16, 25-41.
Penhallurick, R. 1986. Tin in antiquity: its mining and trade throughout the ancient
world with particular reference to Cornwall. London: The Institute of Metals.
Pollard, J. 2001. The aesthetics of depositional practice. World Archaeology 33, 315-333.
Pope, R. 2007. Ritual and the roundhouse: a critique of recent ideas on the use of
domestic space in later British prehistory. In C. Haselgrove and R. Pope,
eds, The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the Near Continent. Oxford: Oxbow
Books, 204-229.
Pryor, F. 1998. Farmers in prehistoric Britain. Stroud: Tempus.
Pryor, F. 2001. The Flag Fen Basin; archaeology and environment of a fenland landscape.
London: English Heritage.
Quinn, N. & Moore, D. 2007. Ale, brewing and fulachta fiadh. Archaeology Ireland
21, 8-11.
Quinnell, H. 2002-3. Early Neolithic pottery. In D. Cole and A.M. Jones, Journeys to
the Rock: archaeological investigations at Tregarrick Farm, Roche, Cornwall.
Cornish Archaeology 41-42, 113-121.
242
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Quinnell, H. 2004-5. The prehistoric pottery. In A.M. Jones, Settlement and ceremony:
Archaeological investigations at Stannon Down, St Breward, Cornwall.
Cornish Archaeology 43-44, 72-87.
Quinnell, H. 2006. Neolithic pottery. In A.M. Jones and S. Reed, By Land, sea and air:
an Early Neolithic pit group at Portscatho, Cornwall, and consideration of
coastal activity during the Neolithic. Cornish Archaeology 45, 5-9.
Quinnell, H. 2007. Prehistoric, Roman and early medieval pottery. In J. Gossip
and A.M. Jones, Archaeological investigations of a later prehistoric and a
Romano-British landscape at Tremough, Penryn, Cornwall. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports, British Series 443, 51-79.
Quinnell, H. 2007. Stonework. In J. Gossip and A.M. Jones, Archaeological investigations
of a later prehistoric and a Romano-British landscape at Tremough, Penryn,
Cornwall. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 443, 81-88.
Quinnell, H. 2009. The pottery. In A. Hood, Land adjacent to Tresprison, Helston,
Cornwall, post excavation assessment: Report no 629. Swindon: Foundations
Archaeology, 18.
Quinnell, H. 2010a. Prehistoric and Roman pottery. In A.M. Jones and S.R. Taylor.
Scarcewater, Pennance, Cornwall, archaeological excavation of a Bronze Age
and Roman landscape. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series
516, 93-112.
Quinnell, H. 2010b. Prehistoric and Roman stonework. In A.M. Jones and S.R.
Taylor. Scarcewater, Pennance, Cornwall, archaeological excavation of a Bronze
Age and Roman landscape. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British
Series 516, 113-130.
Quinnell, H. 2011. The pottery. In J. Nowakowski and H. Quinnell, Trevelgue Head,
Cornwall: the importance of CKC Andrew’s 1939 excavations for prehistoric and
Roman Cornwall. Truro: Cornwall Council, 144-208.
Quinnell, H. 2012. Trevisker pottery: Some recent studies. In W. Britnell and R.J.
Silvester, eds, Reflections on the past: Essays in honour of Frances Lynch.
Welshpool: Cambrian Archaeological Association, 146-171.
Quinnell, H. 2014. ACD667 698 Butts Road, Ottery St Mary assessment of finds.
Unpublished assessment report.
Quinnell, H. forthcoming. The pottery and the stonework. In J. Gossip, Life outside
the round – Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement at Higher Besore and Truro
College, Threemilestone, Truro. Cornish Archaeology.
Raftery, B. 1976. Rathgall and Irish hillfort problems. In D.W. Harding, ed, Hillforts
later prehistoric earthworks in Britain and Ireland-studies. London: Academic
Press, 339-357.
Raftery, B. 1997. Pagan Celtic Ireland: the enigma of the Irish Iron Age. London: Thames
and Hudson.
Randsbourg, K. 2011. Bronze Age textiles: Men, women and wealth. London: Bristol
Classical Press.
bibliography
243
Rathbone, S. 2013. A consideration of villages in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain
and Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 79, 39-60.
Reynolds, A. 2006. An Early Bronze Age pit at Trenoweth, Portreath and other results
from the Reskadinnick to Portreath transfer pipeline. Cornish Archaeology
45, 71-96.
Richards, C. 2005. Dwelling among the monuments, the Neolithic village of Barnhouse,
Maeshowe passage grave and surrounding monuments at Stenness, Orkney.
Oxford: McDonald Institute.
Richards, C. 2014a. Interpreting stone circles. In C. Richards, ed, Building the great
stone circles of the north. Oxford: Windgather Press, 2–30.
Richards, C. 2014b. Wrapping the hearth: Constructing house societies and the tall
stones of Stenness. In C. Richards, ed, Building the great stone circles of the
north. Oxford: Windgather Press, 64–89.
Richards, C. & Thomas, J. 1984. Ritual activity and structured deposition in Later
Neolithic Wessex. In R. Bradley and J. Gardiner, eds, Neolithic Studies:
A review of some current research. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports,
British Series 133, 189–218.
Roberts, B. 2007. Adorning the living but not the dead: Understanding ornaments
in Britain c. 1400-1100 cal BC. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73,
135-167.
Robinson, G. 2013. Re-building memory, identity and place: the long-term re-use of
prehistoric settlements on the Isles of Scilly. In A. Chadwick and C. Gibson,
eds, Memory, myth and long-term landscape inhabitation. Oxford: Oxbow
Books, 146-164.
Robinson, M. 1988. The significance of tubers of Arrhenatherum elatius (L.) Beauv.
from Site 4, cremation 15/11. In G. Lambrick, The Rollright Stones:
megaliths, monuments and settlements in the prehistoric landscape. London:
English Heritage, 102.
Roche, H. 2002. Excavations at Raith Na Rig, Tara, County Meath, 1997. Discovery
Programme Reports 6, 19-82.
Roche, H. 2004. The dating of the embanked stone circle at Grange, Co. Limerick. In
H. Roche, E. Grogan, J. Bradley, J. Coles and B. Raftery, eds, From megaliths
to metals. Oxbow Books: Oxford, 109-116.
Rogers, W. 1923. The shingles and sands of Cornwall. Royal Cornwall Polytechnic
Society 5, 45-50.
Rots, V. & Vermeersch, P.M. 2004. Experimental characterisation of hafting traces, In
E.A. Walker, F.F Wenban-Smith and F. Healy, eds, Lithics in action. Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
Rodwell, J.S. 1998. British plant communities, volume 3: Grasslands and montane
communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
244
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Rowlands, M.J. 1976. The production and distribution of metalwork in the Middle
Bronze Age in southern Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports,
British Series 31.
Saville, A. 1981. The flint and chert artefacts. In R. Mercer, Excavations at Carn Brea,
Illogan, Cornwall, 1970-73 – a Neolithic fortified complex of the third
millennium bc. Cornish Archaeology 20, 101-152.
Schweingruber, F.H. 1990. Microscopic wood anatomy: Structural variability of stems and
twigs in recent and sub-fossil woods from Central Europe, Birmensdorf: Swiss
Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (3rd edition).
Sheridan, A. 2004. Neolithic connections along and across the Irish Sea. In V.
Cummings and C. Fowler, eds, The Neolithic of the Irish Sea, materiality and
traditions of practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 9-21.
Shotyk, W., Weiss, D., Kramers, J.D., Frei, R., Cheburkin, A.K., Gloor, M. & Rees, S.
2001. Geochemistry of the peat bog at Etang de la Grue`re, Jura Mountains,
Switzerland, and its record of atmospheric Pb and lithogenic trace metals (Sc,
Ti, Y, Zr, and REE) since 12,370 14C yr BP. Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta 65, 2337–2360.
Silvester, R. 1980. The prehistoric open settlement at Dainton, South Devon.
Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 38, 17-48.
Skowranek, C. 2007. Random places or organized industry - Middle to Late Bronze Age
metalworking in southwest England. Unpublished MA Thesis: University of
Bristol.
Smith, G. & Harris, D. 1982. The excavation of Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age
settlements at Poldowrian, St Keverne, 1980. Cornish Archaeology 21, 23-66.
Smith, I.F. 1981. The Neolithic pottery. In R. Mercer, Excavations at Carn Brea,
Illogan, Cornwall – a Neolithic fortified complex of the third millennium
bc. Cornish Archaeology 20, 161-184.
Smith, M.A. 1959. The Somerset hoards and their place in the Bronze Age of southern
England, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 25, 144-187.
Smith, M.A. (ed) 1959. Inventaria Archaeologica 7, Great Britain 42-47. Middle Bronze
hoards from Southern England. London: Garraway.
Smythe, J. 2014. Settlement in the Irish Neolithic: new discoveries at the edge of Europe.
Oxford: Prehistoric Society.
Soil Survey of England and Wales, 1983. Soils of England and Wales, Sheet 5, South
West England.
Sorenson, M-L.S. 1996. Sherds and pot groups as keys to site formation process. In
S. Needham and T. Spence, Refuse and Disposal at Area 16 East, Runnymede.
London: British Museum Press, 1-74.
Sorenson, M-L.S. 2010. Bronze Age bodiness – maps and coordinates. In K. RebaySalisbury, M-L.S. Sorensen and J. Hughes, eds, Body parts and bodies whole.
Oxford: Oxbow, 54–63.
Stace, C. 1991. New flora of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
bibliography
245
Straker, V. 1991. Charred plant macrofossils. In J.A. Nowakowski, Trethellan Farm,
Newquay: Excavation of a lowland Bronze Age settlement and Iron Age
cemetery. Cornish Archaeology 30, 162-179.
Straker, V., Brown, A., Fyfe, R., Jones, J. & Wilkinson, K. 2007. Later Bronze Age and
Iron Age environmental background. In C.J. Webster, ed, The archaeology
of South West England: South West archaeological research framework, resource
assessment and research agenda. Taunton: Somerset County Council, 103-116.
Tabor, R. 2008. Cadbury Castle: the hillfort and its landscape. Stroud: Tempus.
Talon, M. 2012. Trade within the English Channel/North Sea Region. In A. Lehoërff,
ed, Beyond the horizon: Societies of the Channel and North Sea 3,500 years ago.
Paris: Somogy Art Publishers, 74-81.
Tapper, R.Q. 2011. Middle and Late Bronze Age settlement on the South Downs: the
case study of Black Patch. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Sussex.
Taylor, J. 1980. Bronze Age goldwork of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge
University press.
Thomas, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
Thomas, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. London: Routledge.
Thomas, N. 2005. Snail Down Wiltshire, the Bronze Age barrow cemetery and related
earthworks, in the parishes of Collingbourne Ducis and Collingbourne Kingston;
excavations 1953, 1955 and 1957. Devizes: Wiltshire Archaeological and
Natural History Society/English Heritage.
Tilley, C. 2009. Jacob’s Well, Black Hill: a Bronze Age water shrine on Woodbury
Common. Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 67, 23-38.
Tingle, M. 1998. The prehistory of Beer Head: field survey and excavations at an isolated
flint source on the South Devon coast. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports,
British Series 270.
Topping, P. 1998. The excavation of burnt mounds at Titlington, Mount, north
Northumberland. Northern Archaeology 15/16, 3-26.
Townend, S. 2007. What have reconstructed roundhouses ever done for us. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 73, 97-111.
Tringham, R. 1991. Households with faces: the challenge of gender in prehistoric
architectural remains. In J.M. Gero and M. Conkey, eds, Engendering
archaeology, women and prehistory. London: Blackwell, 113-132.
Tringham, R. 1995. Archaeological houses, households, and housework and the home.
In D.N. Benjamin, D. Stea and D. Saile, eds, The home: Words, interpretations,
meanings and environments. Aldershot: Avebury, 79-107.
Trudgian, P. ApSimon, A.M. 1976. A Trevisker series Bronze Age urn from Largin
Wood, Broadoak. Cornish Archaeology 15, 112-14.
Tucker. C. 1852. Proceedings at the meeting of the Archaeological Institute, March 5,
1852. Archaeological Journal 9, 185-6.
246
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Turner, L. 2010. A re-interpretation of the Later Bronze Age metalwork hoards of Essex
and Kent. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 133.
Turton, A. 1978. Architectural and political space in Thailand. In G. Milner, ed,
Natural symbols in South East Asia. London: School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London, 113-132.
Waddell, J. 1991/2. The Irish Sea in prehistory. Journal of Irish Archaeology VI, 29-40.
Waddell, J. 1998. The prehistoric archaeology of Ireland. Galway: University of Galway
Press.
Waterson, R. 1997. The living house: an anthropology of architecture in South-East Asia.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Watts, S. 2014. The life and death of querns: the deposition and use-contexts of querns in
South-western England from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. Southampton: The
Highfield Press.
Webley, L. 2007. Using and abandoning roundhouses: a reinterpretation of the
evidence from Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age southern England. Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 26, 127-144.
Weiner, A.B. 1987. The Trobrianders of Papua New Guinea, Belmont: Wadsworth/
Thomson.
Whittle, A. 1997. Sacred mounds, holy rings: Silbury Hill and the West Kennet palisade
enclosures. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Whittle, A., Bayliss, A., Healy, F., Mercer, R., Jones, A.M. & Todd, M. 2011. The
south-west peninsula. In A. Whittle, F. Healy and A. Bayliss, eds, Gathering
time: dating the Early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 476-520.
Whittle, A., Rouse, A. & Evans, J.G. 1993. A Neolithic downland monument in
its environment: excavations at the Easton Down long barrow, Bishops
Cannings, north Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59, 197-240.
Wilkinson, K. & Straker. 2008. Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Environmental
Background. In C.J. Webster, ed, The archaeology of South West England:
South West Archaeological Research Framework, Resource Assessment and
Research Agenda. Taunton: Somerset County Council, 63-74.
Williams, C. 2003. Growing metaphors. The agricultural cycle as metaphor in the
later prehistoric period of Britain and north-west Europe. Journal of Social
Archaeology 3, 223–255.
Williams, D. 2005. Analyses petrographiques. In B. Cunliffe and P. Galliou, Les
Fouilles du Yaudet en Ploulec’h, Cote-d’Armor. In B. Cunliffe and P. Galliou,
Annexe C4 online. www.arch.ox.ac.uk/research_projects/Le_Yaudet.
Wilson-North, R. & Carey, C. 2011. A burnt mound on Brendan Common, Exmoor.
Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 69, 9-22.
Woodward, A. 1990. The Bronze Age pottery. In M. Bell, Brean Down excavations
1983-1987. London: English Heritage, 121-145.
bibliography
247
Woodward, A. & Cane, C. 1991. The Bronze Age pottery. In J.A. Nowakowski,
Trethellan Farm, Newquay: the excavation of a lowland Bronze Age settlement
and Iron Age cemetery. Cornish Archaeology 30, 103-131.
Woodward, A., Hunter, J., Ixer, R., Maltby, M., Potts, P., Webb, P., Watson, J. &
Jones, M. 2005. Ritual in some Early Bronze Age grave goods. Archaeological
Journal 163, 31-64.
Yates, D. 2007. Land, power and prestige: Bronze Age field systems in southern England.
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Young, A. 2006. The National Mapping Programme in Cornwall. Cornish Archaeology
45, 109-116.
Young, A. 2012. Prehistoric and Romano-British enclosures around the Camel estuary,
Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology 51, 69-124.
248
settlement and metalworking in the middle bronze age and beyond
Settlement and metalworking in
the Middle Bronze Age and beyond
Between 2008 and 2011 excavations were undertaken by the Cornwall
Archaeological Unit at Tremough, near Penryn, Cornwall. The site is
situated on a plateau overlooking the Carrick Roads, historically one
of the busiest waterways in Cornwall.
The excavations led to a large number of significant archaeological
features being uncovered ranging from Neolithic pits to Bronze Age
structures and late prehistoric enclosures. Foremost of these sites were
a Middle Bronze roundhouse (circa 1500-1300 cal BC) and a large
circular Late Bronze Age enclosure (circa 1000-800 cal BC).
Importantly, the roundhouse was found to contain stone moulds
associated with the production of socketed tools and pins, and traces of
metalworking were found inside the building. As such, the excavations
have provided the first evidence for metalworking inside a Middle
Bronze Age roundhouse in southern England, as well as radiocarbon
dating for a range of metalwork forms. As part of the project finds of
metalwork from other roundhouses in the South West region have
been reassessed.
The Late Bronze Age enclosure is the first of its type to found in the
South West of Britain. It encircled a large number of pits and postholes,
some of which were associated with rectangular post-built structures.
A carefully made cairn of burnt stone beside a large pit and a second
large pit containing burnt stone and pottery were also investigated.
These may have been associated with cooking or perhaps with a smallscale episode of metalworking, as the tip of a sword mould was found
in one of the pits.
The significance of the investigated sites is fully discussed with regard
to their relationships with other prehistoric sites on the plateau and
in terms of their wider context with other sites in the South West and
beyond.
Sidestone Press
ISBN: 978-90-8890-293-2
9 789088 902932
RELATED PAPERS
Jurnal Online Insan Akuntan
Dampak ED PSAK 71 Intrumen Keuangan Terhadap Pedoman Akuntansi Perbankan Terkait Kredit2017 •
American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture
Impact of Contemplative Spaces and Sacred Geometry on Spiritual Development2021 •
Cadernos Brasileiros de Terapia Ocupacional
Estigma hacia personas con enfermedad mental en estudiantes y profesores de terapia ocupacional2022 •
Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound
Splenic extramedullary hematopoiesis in dogs is frequently detected on multiphase multidetector‐row CT as hypervascular nodules2020 •
İşletme İktisat ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi
Hukukun Üstünlüğü ve Yasal Kalite ile Yolsuzlukla Mücadele ve Hesap Verebilirliğin İktisadi Refah Üzerine Etkileri: OECD Ülkelerine Yönelik Panel Veri Analizi2024 •
Proceedings of 8th Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU)
Relations Between Eco-Aesthetics and Biopolitics2015 •
2013 •
Journal of Water and Climate Change
Impacts of urban land use and land cover change on wetland dynamics in Jimma city, southwestern EthiopiaProducts to live with & Prototypes to imagine: Conceptual Design of Everyday Objects
Products to live with & Prototypes to imagine: Conceptual Design of Everyday Objects2018 •
2022 •
Chemistry of Heterocyclic Compounds
1,4-Dithiane-2,5-diol in the synthesis of thiophenes (microreview)2018 •
RELATED TOPICS
ArchaeologyPrehistoric ArchaeologyGeoarchaeologyBronze Age Europe (Archaeology)British Prehistory (Archaeology)Late Bronze Age archaeologyMiddle Bronze AgeBritish ArchaeologyLate Bronze AgeMiddle and Late Bronze AgePrehistoric MetallurgyBritish prehistoryCornish & Welsh ArchaeologyBritish Bronze AgeBronze Age MetalworkStructured Deposition (Archaeology)Cornish ArchaeologyBronze Age RoundhousesLate Bronze Age enclosure