Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast 9781407312484, 9781407322759

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acknowledgements
Summary
Chapter 1: Introduction and overview to two pipeline projects
PART 1: The North Cornwall pipeline: Tintagel to Boscastle pipeline
Chapter 2: Introduction and background to the project
Chapter 3: Smaller sites recorded along the pipeline
Chapter 4: The Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga
Chapter 5: Forrabury compound Iron Age site
Chapter 6: The pottery from the North Cornwall pipeline
Chapter 7: Stonework from the North Cornwall pipeline
Chapter 8: Lithics from the North Cornwall pipeline
Chapter 9: Human skeletal remains from the North Cornwall pipeline
Chapter 10: Charcoal from the North Cornwall pipeline
Chapter 11: Charred plant macrofossils from the North Cornwall pipeline
Chapter 12: Animal bone from the North Cornwall pipeline
Chapter 13: The molluscs from the North Cornwall pipeline
Chapter 14: Radiocarbon determinations from the North Cornwall pipeline
Part 2: The Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline
Chapter 15: Introduction and background
Chapter 16: Results from the pipeline
Chapter 17: Pottery from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline
Chapter 18: Prehistoric and Roman stonework from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline
Chapter 19: Lithics from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline
Chapter 20: Faunal remains from Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline
Chapter 21: Radiocarbon determinations from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline
PART 3: Discussion and synthesis
Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR 594 2014

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

JONES & QUINNELL

Andy M. Jones Henrietta Quinnell

LINES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

B A R

Jones and Quinell 594 cover.indd 1

BAR British Series 594 2014

15/02/2014 15:57:57

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Andy M. Jones Henrietta Quinnell with contributions from Dana Challinor, Tim Gent, James Gossip, Lorraine Higbee, Joanna Higgins, Julie Jones, Anna Lawson-Jones, Ian Longworth, Brendan O’Connor, Clare Randall, Roger Taylor and Tom Walker

BAR British Series 594 2014

ISBN 9781407312484 paperback ISBN 9781407322759 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407312484 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Contents Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................................. viii Summary............................................................................................................................................................................. ix Chapter 1: Introduction and overview to two pipeline projects............................................................................................1 PART 1: The North Cornwall pipeline: Tintagel to Boscastle pipeline Chapter 2: Introduction and background to the project........................................................................................................4 Chapter 3: Smaller sites recorded along the pipeline............................................................................................................7 Field 39: Early medieval cist grave [350]....................................................................................................................... 7 Field 35: A Mesolithic flint scatter.................................................................................................................................. 8 North of Field 35: Bronze Age cairn 327........................................................................................................................ 8 Fields 35, 31 and 29: Bronze Age field systems and other features.............................................................................. 10 Field 27: Neolithic pits and rubbing / standing stone.................................................................................................... 15 Field 22: Prehistoric pits............................................................................................................................................... 17 Field 6: Recumbent standing stone and ditches............................................................................................................ 17 Field 3: Prehistoric pits?................................................................................................................................................ 20 Field 16: stone-lined pit [210]....................................................................................................................................... 20 Field 17: Prehistoric pit? .............................................................................................................................................. 21 Field 21: Neolithic pit [185].......................................................................................................................................... 22 Field 11: Stone-lined Beaker pit [113].......................................................................................................................... 22 Field 9: Early Bronze Age pit [101].............................................................................................................................. 24 Chapter 4: The Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga..........................................................................................................26 Background................................................................................................................................................................... 26 The roundhouse (Figures 28 – 36)................................................................................................................................ 26 The stone walling and cut terrace.................................................................................................................................. 26 The internal post-ring ................................................................................................................................................... 32 Other internal features................................................................................................................................................... 33 The entrance features ................................................................................................................................................... 33 Post-occupation deposits............................................................................................................................................... 33 Outside the roundhouse................................................................................................................................................. 35 Stratigraphic discussion................................................................................................................................................. 35 Comment on the origin of the infill material within the roundhouse ........................................................................... 36 Chapter 5: Forrabury compound Iron Age site...................................................................................................................38 Background................................................................................................................................................................... 38 The results..................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Chapter 6: The pottery from the North Cornwall pipeline.................................................................................................51 Forrabury Compound Iron Age site.............................................................................................................................. 51 Field 11 Beaker, Stone-lined pit [113], fill (116).......................................................................................................... 53 Field 16 stone-lined pit [210] Trevisker........................................................................................................................ 54 Trevalga roundhouse..................................................................................................................................................... 54 Discussion of the Trevalga ceramics............................................................................................................................. 55 Field 22 Early Neolithic pit [287] ................................................................................................................................ 55 Field 27 Early Neolithic pit [235] ................................................................................................................................ 55 Field 29 Bronze Age wall complex............................................................................................................................... 56 Field 36 Grooved Ware ................................................................................................................................................ 56 Chapter 7: Stonework from the North Cornwall pipeline...................................................................................................58 Field 9 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 58 Field 21.......................................................................................................................................................................... 58 Trevalga roundhouse..................................................................................................................................................... 59 Discussion..................................................................................................................................................................... 62 i

Racloir mould, S7.......................................................................................................................................................... 64 Discussion of the racloir mould.................................................................................................................................... 64 Field 27.......................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Field 29.......................................................................................................................................................................... 66 Chapter 8: Lithics from the North Cornwall pipeline.........................................................................................................67 Raw material ................................................................................................................................................................ 67 Local pebble flint.......................................................................................................................................................... 67 Quartz............................................................................................................................................................................ 67 Nodular flint.................................................................................................................................................................. 68 The Mesolithic flint scatter........................................................................................................................................... 69 Neolithic material.......................................................................................................................................................... 70 The Bronze Age material............................................................................................................................................... 71 The Trevalga roundhouse.............................................................................................................................................. 72 Unstratified Neolithic and Bronze Age flint................................................................................................................. 73 Forrabury ...................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Chapter 9: Human skeletal remains from the North Cornwall pipeline.............................................................................75 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Methodology................................................................................................................................................................. 75 Results........................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Chapter 10: Charcoal from the North Cornwall pipeline....................................................................................................76 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Methodology................................................................................................................................................................. 76 Results........................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Chapter 11: Charred plant macrofossils from the North Cornwall pipeline.......................................................................78 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 78 Results........................................................................................................................................................................... 78 Chapter 12: Animal bone from the North Cornwall pipeline.............................................................................................80 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Methods......................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Results........................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Species representation................................................................................................................................................... 80 Element representation.................................................................................................................................................. 80 Taphonomy.................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Species – age and metrics.............................................................................................................................................. 80 Butchery and fragmentation.......................................................................................................................................... 81 Pathology....................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Discussion..................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Chapter 13: The molluscs from the North Cornwall pipeline.............................................................................................82 Chapter 14: Radiocarbon determinations from the North Cornwall pipeline.....................................................................84 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 84 Results........................................................................................................................................................................... 86 Part 2: The Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline Chapter 15: Introduction and background..........................................................................................................................87 Chapter 16: Results from the pipeline................................................................................................................................90 Field B: Probable prehistoric ditch [784] and pit [780]................................................................................................ 90 Field C: Iron Age and Romano-British settlement........................................................................................................ 90 Field E: Bronze Age field wall 1004/1007.................................................................................................................... 98 Field R: Grooved Ware pit [523] and other features..................................................................................................... 98 Field S: Bronze Age ditch [552] and boundary [532]................................................................................................. 101 Field Y, Treator: Grooved Ware pits [711] and [713], ‘cairn / platform’ and Iron Age features ................................ 102

ii

Tank trench: Mesolithic horizon................................................................................................................................. 105 Chapter 17: Pottery from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline........................................................................................108 Grooved Ware.............................................................................................................................................................. 108 Middle Bronze Age Trevisker Ware............................................................................................................................ 113 Iron Age and Roman period pottery from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline......................................................... 116 Chapter 18: Prehistoric and Roman stonework from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline..............................................118 Chapter 19: Lithics from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline.........................................................................................119 Chapter 20: Faunal remains from Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline.................................................................................121 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 121 Description by Area..................................................................................................................................................... 121 Condition of Assemblage............................................................................................................................................ 121 Summary conclusions................................................................................................................................................. 121 Chapter 21: Radiocarbon determinations from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline.......................................................122 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 122 Results......................................................................................................................................................................... 122 PART 3: Discussion and synthesis Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast..............................................................................125 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 125 Contrasts and connections........................................................................................................................................... 125 The Mesolithic: a scattered picture............................................................................................................................. 127 Pits Neolithic and later: a long-term practice ............................................................................................................. 127 Early Neolithic pits...................................................................................................................................................... 127 Late Neolithic pits....................................................................................................................................................... 131 The Bronze Age........................................................................................................................................................... 132 Into the post-Roman period......................................................................................................................................... 133 Summary and Implications.......................................................................................................................................... 133 The Middle Bronze Age: settlement, fields, and burial?............................................................................................. 134 The Iron Age: from settlement to cemetery................................................................................................................ 146 Conclusions: something borrowed something new, looking backwards facing forwards, the archaeology of long-term practices................................................................................................................................................................. 153 Bibliography.....................................................................................................................................................................156

iii

List of Figures Figure 1 Location map showing routes of North Cornwall pipeline and the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline ..................1 Figure 2 Photograph of Harlyn to Padstow pipeline Bay Field C from the west showing eastern end of stripped corridor and depth of covering sand...................................................................................................................................................2 Figure 3 Field 16, near Trevalga being stripped of topsoil...................................................................................................3 Figure 4 Map showing the route of the Tintagel to Boscastle pipeline and areas of significant archaeological features with their Field numbers...............................................................................................................................................................4 Figure 5 Aerial photograph showing the landscape around Tintagel with the site at Tintagel in the distance.....................5 Figure 6 Aerial photograph showing the landscape around Boscastle looking inland ........................................................6 Figure 7 Plan of early medieval cist grave [350] in Field 39................................................................................................7 Figure 8 Photograph of early medieval cist grave [350] taken from the west showing remaining in situ covering slabs...8 Figure 9 Plan showing area of Mesolithic flint scatter (335) and cairn 327, with an inset detailed drawing of cairn 327: Field 35.................................................................................................................................................................................9 Figure 10 Plan showing prehistoric field walls and archaeological features in Field 31...................................................10 Figure 11 Plan showing field wall 313 in Field 31.............................................................................................................11 Figure 12 Photograph of wall 270 fully exposed viewed from the south...........................................................................12 Figure 13 Plan showing walls in Field 29 (top) and a detailed plan of wall 270 and section across it (bottom)...............13 Figure 14 Plan showing prehistoric field walls and archaeological features in Fields 29, 30, 31 and 32..........................13 Figure 15 Plan showing location of pits and rubbing / standing stone in Field 27.............................................................14 Figure 16 Photograph from showing rubbing / standing stone 531 in Field 27.................................................................15 Figure 17 Photograph of pit [287] in Field 22 after excavation.........................................................................................16 Figure 18 Plan showing archaeological features in Field 6 (left) and detail of excavated features (right)........................18 Figure 19 Photograph of recumbent standing stone 32 viewed from the north west.........................................................19 Figure 20 Photograph from south west of recumbent standing stone showing its position in ditch [30] and the rounded end; also shows quartz block 35 to its east.................................................................................................................................19 Figure 21 Photograph of ‘Arthur’s Quoit’ a large ‘capstone-like’ stone located in the verge near to Field 6 looking north.......................................................................................................................................................................20 Figure 22 Plan (top) and section across (bottom) stone-lined pit [210].............................................................................21 Figure 23 Photograph of stone-lined pit [210] taken from south........................................................................................22 Figure 24 Photograph of pit [185] after excavation............................................................................................................23 Figure 25 Plan (top) and section across (bottom) stone-lined Beaker pit [113].................................................................23 Figure 26 Photograph of stone-lined Beaker pit [113] taken from the south.....................................................................24 Figure 27 Photograph of pit [101] after excavation............................................................................................................25 Figure 28 Plan of the Trevalga roundhouse, showing excavated features. ........................................................................27 Figure 29 Detailed drawings showing orthostatic slate walling 102 in the Trevalga roundhouse.....................................28 Figure 30 Photograph of orthostatic walling inside the Trevalga roundhouse (north west quadrant) taken from the north............................................................................................................................................................29 Figure 31 Photograph of entrance area into the Trevalga roundhouse taken from the south east......................................29 Figure 32 Photograph showing wall 155, located on the west side of the entrance into the Trevalga roundhouse...........30 Figure 33 Photograph showing in situ door jamb stone on the west of the entrance into the Trevalga roundhouse..........30 Figure 34 Photograph showing the collapsed wall 156 in the entrance to the Trevalga roundhouse taken from the south east......................................................................................................................................................................................31 Figure 35 Photograph showing the Trevalga roundhouse and the excavated internal post-ring taken from the south east.............................................................................................................................................................................31 Figure 36 Sections across the Trevalga roundhouse, east facing (top) and north facing (bottom).....................................34 Figure 37 Plan showing survey features at Forrabury........................................................................................................38 Figure 38 Detailed drawings of Forrabury Features 1, 16, 12 and 26................................................................................39 Figure 39 Detailed drawings of Forrabury Features 15, 13 and 2......................................................................................40 Figure 40 Post excavation photograph of Forrabury Feature 1..........................................................................................41 Figure 41 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 2 with stone capping in-situ..........................................................................41 Figure 42 Post excavation photograph of Forrabury Feature 4 with quartz pebble in-situ................................................42 Figure 43 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 8 after cleaning.............................................................................................43 Figure 44 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 11 after cleaning............................................................................................44 Figure 45 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 12 after cleaning...........................................................................................45 Figure 46 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 13 after cleaning, with stone capping in-situ................................................45 Figure 47 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 15 after cleaning, with stone capping in-situ ...............................................46 Figure 48 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 17 after cleaning, with stone capping in-situ, with Feature 16 in the background (small ‘cist’ visible in top right hand side of picture) ........................................................................................................47

iv

Figure 49 Feature 18 after cleaning, with stone edging in situ. .........................................................................................47 Figure 50 Feature 25 after cleaning, with remaining stone capping in situ . .....................................................................48 Figure 51 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 26 after cleaning ..........................................................................................49 Figure 52 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 27 after cleaning with remnant in situ stones visible on surface )................49 Figure 53 Pottery: P1 small shouldered Iron Age vessel from Forrabury Feature 1, Trevisker P9 and P10 from Field 29...............................................................................................................................................................................52 Figure 54 Pottery: P3 unstratified rim sherd from Forrabury, Bronze Age P5 neck sherd from Trevalga Roundhouse, Early Neolithic P8 bowl from Pit [235]........................................................................................................................................52 Figure 55 Pottery: P4a Beaker sherds from stone-lined pit [113] and P4b Beaker sherds from stone-lined pit [113].......53 Figure 56 Stonework: Trevalga Roundhouse S1 hammerstone / pestle, S2 pestle, S4 weight and S5 hammer / pestle....60 Figure 57 Stonework: Trevalga Roundhouse S3 saddle quern...........................................................................................60 Figure 58 Stonework: Trevalga Roundhouse S6 ‘pot lid’ and S8 weight...........................................................................61 Figure 59 Stonework: Trevalga Roundhouse S7 Racloir mould........................................................................................62 Figure 60 Stonework: Trevalga Roundhouse S9 bevelled pebble and early medieval cist grave [350] S11 spindle whorl. .....................................................................................................................................................................62 Figure 61 Stonework: Trevalga Roundhouse Photograph of cup-marked stone S10 . ......................................................63 Figure 62 Lithic artefacts....................................................................................................................................................68 Figure 63 Photograph of Nucella lapillus shells from pit [308].........................................................................................83 Figure 64 Radiocarbon determinations from the North Cornwall pipeline........................................................................85 Figure 65 Map showing the route of the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline and Fields with significant archaeological features................................................................................................................................................................................88 Figure 66 Photograph of the eastern end of Sandy Lane, Harlyn looking west.................................................................89 Figure 67 Plan of archaeological features in Field B, with detailed inset of pit [780] (bottom left) and ditch [784] (bottom right)....................................................................................................................................................................................90 Figure 68 Geophysical survey results from the Harlyn Bay pipeline. Settlement in Field C (Area 3) is located on the right hand side of the image (note North is pointing to the bottom of the page) .......................................................................91 Figure 69 Detailed of geophysical survey results from Field C (Area3) showing settlement related features .................92 Figure 70 Plan showing overall distribution of features in Field C. All of Field C (top), and the area of the Iron Age settlement (bottom).............................................................................................................................................................93 Figure 71 Plan excavated features in western end of Field C.............................................................................................93 Figure 72 Plan excavated features in eastern end of Field C .............................................................................................94 Figure 73 Section across excavated features in Field C.....................................................................................................94 Figure 74 Photograph of Early Neolithic pit [844] and pit [846] following excavation....................................................95 Figure 75 Photograph of Iron Age ring-gully [824] taken from the west following excavation.......................................96 Figure 76 Photograph of slate surface [827] taken from the east following exposure.......................................................96 Figure 77 Photograph of Iron Age ditch [749] looking north west following excavation..................................................97 Figure 78 Photograph of ditch [675] looking north west during excavation......................................................................97 Figure 79 Photograph of Iron Age pit [744] following excavation (right) and pit [742] (left)...........................................98 Figure 81 Plan of archaeological features in Field R. The whole of field R (top), ditches [516] and [518] (middle), and Grooved Ware pit [523] and other features (bottom)..........................................................................................................99 Figure 80 Photograph of wall 1004/1007 in section (sealed beneath sand) viewed from south........................................99 Figure 83 Plan of archaeological features in Field S. All of field S (top) and Middle Bronze Age ditch [552] (bottom).............................................................................................................................................................................100 Figure 82 Photograph of Grooved Ware pit [523] following excavation.........................................................................100 Figure 84 Photograph of ditch [552] fully excavated taken from the south.....................................................................101 Figure 85 Photograph of ditch [552] in section taken from the south..............................................................................102 Figure 86 Plan of archaeological features at northern end of Field Y. Ditches [715], [717] and [719] (top), Grooved Ware pits [711] and [713] (middle), and ditch [654] (bottom)...................................................................................................103 Figure 87 Photograph of Grooved Ware pit [711] fully excavated...................................................................................103 Figure 88 Plan of archaeological features at the southern end of Field Y, including features below layer (729) (shaded), pit [908] and trimmed slate outcrop 910................................................................................................................................104 Figure 89 Photograph of the eastern side of layer (729) becoming exposed....................................................................105 Figure 90 Photograph of ‘stone’ 910 fully exposed, pit [908] in the foreground. ...........................................................106 Figure 91 Photograph of ‘grave-shaped’ Iron Age pit [908] beside ‘stone’ 910 prior to excavation ..............................106 Figure 92 Photograph of ‘grave-shaped’ Iron Age pit [908] under excavation, with slate block 910 on right................107 Figure 93 Photograph of buried layers beneath sand in the tank trench, Trevone Bay car park......................................107 Figure 94 Pottery: Grooved Ware vessels P1 and P2, pit [522] Field R, Trevone (2)......................................................109 Figure 95 Pottery: Grooved Ware Vessel P3, pit [522] Field R, Trevone (2)...................................................................110 Figure 96 Pottery: Grooved Ware vessels P4 and P5, pit [522] Field R, Trevone (2)......................................................111

v

Figure 97 Pottery: Trevisker vessels P6 and P1, ditch [555] Field S................................................................................114 Figure 98 Pottery: Trevisker vessels P7, P8, P9, and P10, ditch [555] Field S................................................................115 Figure 99 Stonework: Ditch [552] S1grooved slate whetstone........................................................................................118 Figure 100 Scraper in non-local flint from [713] (upper): pebble flint blades with use wear from [711] (lower): broken blade with use wear on both edges, shown proximal end at top (left); fine serration on left edge, shown proximal end at top (middle; use wear on lower right edge (right)............................................................................................................119 Figure 101 Scraper in non-local flint from [713]..............................................................................................................120 Figure 102 Radiocarbon determinations from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline........................................................123 Figure 103 Radiocarbon determinations from contexts with Grooved Ware in Cornwall...............................................124 Figure 104 Photograph of Harlyn Bay from Cataclews looking east...............................................................................126 Figure 105 The distribution of pits with Early Neolithic pottery in Cornwall.................................................................130 Figure 106 Radiocarbon determinations from contexts with Early Neolithic open bowl and carinated pottery in Cornwall and Devon.........................................................................................................................................................................130 Figure 107 The distribution of Bronze Age pits, cists and barrows along the north Cornish coast.................................132 Figure 108 Photograph of the rocky outcrop to the north of the pipeline corridor. This feature may have been a focus for boundary alignments and cairn 32....................................................................................................................................136 Figure 109 The distribution of lowland roundhouses in Cornwall...................................................................................138 Figure 110 Photograph of the propped outcropping stone covered with cup-marks at Hendraburnick ..........................140 Figure 111 Photograph of cup-marked an in situ cup-marked stone at Tintagel Island...................................................140 Figure 112 Photograph of cup-marked stone from Feature 15 at Forrabury....................................................................143 Figure 113 Photograph of cup-marked stone from Feature 17 at Forrabury....................................................................143 Figure 114 Racloir from Lansdown, Bath in Somerset ...................................................................................................144 Figure 115 Racloir found at Phillack, near Hayle, Cornwall............................................................................................144 Figure 116 The distribution of Iron Age burials around the south west peninsula...........................................................150

vi

List of Tables Table 1: Postholes forming the internal post-ring within the Trevalga roundhouse...........................................................32 Table 2: Pottery from Forrabury: total nine sherds weighing 484 grams........................................................................... 51 Table 3: Pottery from Field 16............................................................................................................................................ 54 Table 4: Pottery from the Trevalga roundhouse: total sherds 46 weighing 419 grams.......................................................54 Table 5: Early Neolithic sherds from pit [235]................................................................................................................... 55 Table 6: Pottery from Field 29............................................................................................................................................ 56 Table 7: Stonework from Forrabury compound.................................................................................................................. 58 Table 8: Stonework from Field 21...................................................................................................................................... 58 Table 9: Stonework from the Trevalga roundhouse............................................................................................................ 59 Table 10: Stonework from pits in Field 27......................................................................................................................... 65 Table 11: Mesolithic flint....................................................................................................................................................69 Table 12: Mesolithic flint by type.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 69 Table 13: Field 21 flint.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 70 Table 14: Field 22 flint.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 71 Table 15: Field 27 flint.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 71 Table 16: Field 9 flint.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 72 Table 17: Field 29 flint.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 72 Table 18: Trevalga roundhouse flint.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 73 Table 19: Summarised results of the charcoal analysis.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 76 Table 20: Charred plant macrofossils from the pipeline.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 78 Table 21: charred plant macrofossils from the Trevalga roundhouse.������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 79 Table 22: Species representation by feature / context. ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 80 Table 23: Cattle metrics.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 80 Table 24: Results from the North Cornwall pipeline radiocarbon dating.������������������������������������������������������������������������� 85 Table 25: Details of Grooved Ware, by sherd numbers and weight in grams. ���������������������������������������������������������������� 108 Note: about 40 crumbs of Fabric 1 are included in the weight.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 108 Table 26: Details of Middle Bronze Age Trevisker by sherd numbers and weight in grams. ���������������������������������������� 113 Total quantity in ditch [552] 117 sherds weighing 872 grams.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 113 Table 27: Pottery from Fields C, F and Y in context number order. ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 Table 28: Number identified specimens from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline per species (NISP).������������������������ 121 Table 29: Results from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline radiocarbon dating.����������������������������������������������������������� 122 Table 30: Pits with Early Neolithic pottery with closely associated radiocarbon determinations from Cornwall and Devon................................................................................................................................................129

vii

Acknowledgements The North Cornwall Pipeline The authors would like to thank South West Water Ltd for funding the archaeological investigations. The fieldwork along the route of the pipeline was undertaken by Carl Thorpe, Nigel Thomas, Francis Shepherd, Sean Taylor, Charlie Johns and Jo Sturgess. The roundhouse excavations were directed by James Gossip and Andy Jones with onsite assistance from Tim Carter, Fiona Fleming, Stuart Randall, Francis Shepherd and Helen Thomas. The pottery and stonework was drawn by Carl Thorpe except for the racloir mould which was by Jane Read and the flints which were by Anna Lawson-Jones. Site location maps and sections were produced by James Gossip. We would also like to thank Brendan O’Connor for providing information about racloirs, Neil Wilkin, curator of the Bronze Age collections at the British Museum, for supplying us with Figure 114, and Anna Tyacke for taking the picture of the Phillack racloir, Charlie Johns for permission to update Figure 116 and Graeme Kirkham for discussions on cupmarks and Iron Age cemeteries. The Harlyn Bay to Padstow Pipeline The archaeological investigations were commissioned and funded by South West Water Ltd. Steve Hartgroves, Sites and Monuments Record Officer for Cornwall County Council, provided the archaeological brief for the project. The Geophysical survey was undertaken by Oxford Archaeotechnics and we would like to thank them for allowing us to reproduce Figures 68 and 69. The archaeological fieldwork was undertaken by Exeter Archaeology in 1997 and directed by the Tim Gent, with the assistance of A J Sage and Olaf Bayer. Illustrations for the Harlyn Bay section were produced by S Blackmore. We would like to thank Sean Taylor for updating the location maps, plans and sections. The ceramics were drawn by Jane Read. The radiocarbon dating was undertaken at the University of Arizona and we would like to thank them for resending the project information to us. In addition to those producing specialist reports contained within this report, we would like to thank Jan Light for identifying the marine shells found within ditch [552] in Field S and G I Langman for comment on the later historic pottery sherds produced by the project. The authors would also like to thank Charlotte Coles of Exeter Archaeology for making the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline archive available to us. The Ordnance Survey mapping included within this article 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 the Ordnance Survey if they wish to licence Ordnance Survey mapping for their own use.

viii

Summary This publication presents the results of archaeological recording during the construction of South West Water pipelines in 1997 and 2009-10. Both pipelines were located along the north coast of Cornwall and uncovered archaeological features of exceptional importance. Archaeological recording in 2009 to 2010 was undertaken by Historic Environment Projects, Cornwall Council along the route of a new South West Water sewage transfer pipeline between Tintagel and Boscastle in north Cornwall: this uncovered a number of archaeological features spanning the last 10,000 years. Securely dated sites include a Mesolithic flint scatter, Early Neolithic pits, and a Middle Bronze Age roundhouse which had been buried beneath a Bronze Age episode of flooding. Significantly the house contained a mould for a copper alloy racloir, an artefact type more commonly found in Continental Europe. Prehistoric field systems were also recorded near to Tintagel and Early Iron Age cists at Forrabury, possibly the earliest in the south west. In addition a pit filled with bone and shell and a cist burial of early medieval date were also uncovered. Between January and March 1997 Exeter Archaeology monitored the installation of the South West Water, Trevone Regional Sewage Treatment Scheme pipeline between Cataclews Point, on the north-west side of Harlyn Bay, and Padstow. A programme of monitoring and excavation followed a geophysical survey of the scheme, resulting in the identification of a range of significant archaeological remains. These include Neolithic pits including three containing Grooved Ware, Bronze Age field walls, and a ‘natural’ stone which became a long-term focus for prehistoric activity that may have ended with an Iron Age burial. Finally a well-preserved and long-lived settlement of Iron Age and Romano-British date was recorded at Harlyn Bay, not far from the famous Iron Age cemetery. As part of the projects, 25 radiocarbon determinations spanning the Mesolithic to the early medieval period were obtained. As a group, these have greatly enhanced our understanding of the prehistoric chronology of the north Cornwall coastal zone. This monograph draws together the key results from the two schemes and presents a synthesis which places the findings within their wider landscape context, the coastal zone, into which the individual sites are found. Consideration is also given to long-term traditions of practice which were discovered through the recording process.

ix

x

Chapter 1: Introduction and overview to two pipeline projects Andy M Jones

This volume draws together the results from two archaeological projects which were undertaken separately for South West Water Ltd along the north coast of

Cornwall (Figure 1). Despite being geographically close to one another, just 19.5 kilometres apart, they were separated in time by more than a decade and were subject

Figure 1 Location map showing routes of North Cornwall pipeline and the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline (Padstow to Harlyn bottom left and North Cornwall pipeline top right). 1

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast to different constraints and working practices. Sections of the pipeline along Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline tended to be narrower and deeper (Figure 2) than those on the north Cornwall pipeline. In places the overlying sands were calcareous enough to preserve organic deposits, but the working width of the pipeline was constrained, which meant that areas with more complex clusters of features were more difficult to interpret. By contrast, much of the north Cornwall pipeline corridor was stripped to a greater width (Figure 3) and two of the excavated sites were located in open area compounds. However, preservation of organic deposits was not as good and in several areas there was evidence of later truncation by ploughing. Nonetheless, despite the differences in methodology and preservation, both projects are usefully linked together, as they each involved the sampling of an area along the north Cornish coastline, providing an opportunity to examine areas which have seen comparatively little archaeological investigation in recent years. The number of archaeological sites uncovered by the pipelines has done much to enhance our knowledge of the archaeology of the north coast of Cornwall beyond well-known sites, such as Tintagel Island and the Iron Age cemetery at Harlyn Bay. The first piece of fieldwork reported on here was carried out by the Historic Environment Projects team, Cornwall Council along the route of the north Cornwall pipeline between Tintagel and Boscastle in 2009 and early 2010. This pipeline did not directly impact upon the wellknown sites in the area (see for example, Thomas 1993; Barrowman, et al 1999). It did, however, lead to the discovery of a large number of previously unknown sites, which include a Mesolithic flint scatter, a scattering of Neolithic pits, a Middle Bronze Age roundhouse, fragmentary prehistoric field systems and a site likely to be the earliest known Iron Age cist grave cemetery in the south west. These discoveries, as well as other individual sites, revealed a density of later prehistoric and to a lesser extent early medieval activity along the coastal plain, which was unsuspected prior to the fieldwork.

Figure 2 Photograph of Harlyn to Padstow pipeline Bay Field C from the west showing eastern end of stripped corridor and depth of covering sand.

The remainder of this publication will be split into three parts. Part one presents the results from the north Cornwall pipeline and part two presents those from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline. The final section will draw together the results from both campaigns of fieldwork and provide a synthesis setting out their wider context and significance, especially in relation to long-term patterns of landscape inhabitation.

The second project reported on in this monograph was undertaken along the route of the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline in 1997 by Exeter Archaeology. The pipeline crossed an area which, because of its calcareous sands, is well-known for its good preservation of buried archaeological deposits, which include organic remains that seldom survive elsewhere in Cornwall, and for its high density of archaeological sites (Bullen 1912; Crawford 1921; Jones et al 2011). The excavations along the pipeline confirmed the archaeological richness of the area and extended the range of site types to include Late Neolithic Grooved Ware pits, Bronze Age boundaries and an enigmatic cairn which had become a focal point for Iron Age activity.

NB. The radiocarbon dating probability distributions (Tables 24 and 29) have been calculated using OxCal (v4.1). Except where stated otherwise, the 95 per cent level of probability has been cited throughout this report; calibrated determinations in the text may therefore differ from older published sources.

2

Chapter 1: Introduction and overview to two pipeline projects

Figure 3 Field 16, near Trevalga being stripped of topsoil (looking west).

3

PART 1: The North Cornwall pipeline: Tintagel to Boscastle pipeline Chapter 2: Introduction and background to the project Andy M Jones The Cornwall Council Historic Environment Projects team was commissioned by South West Water Ltd to undertake a programme of archaeological recording along the 5.5 kilometre route of the Tintagel to Boscastle Sewage Treatment Scheme (Figures 1 and 4), which ran from Tintagel (SX 0531 8851) in the west to Boscastle (SX 0951 9080) in the east. The fieldwork programme followed an archaeological assessment of the route (Parkes 2008) and a geophysical survey (Wessex Archaeology 2009). The results from these projects highlighted the possibility of

archaeological features within the pipeline corridor and the associated haul roads and compounds which were excavated as part of the scheme. This potential was demonstrated during ensuing fieldwork project. Archaeological recording along the pipeline corridor identified a large number of significant new sites, including a Mesolithic flint scatter in Field 35 at Gavercoombe Farm (Tintagel), up to 30 scattered prehistoric pits, a fallen standing stone, stone-lined pits,

Figure 4 Map showing the route of the Tintagel to Boscastle pipeline and areas of significant archaeological features with their Field numbers. 4

Chapter 2: Introduction and background to the project Landscape character and background

a Middle Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga, probable Bronze Age field boundaries, an earlier Iron Age cemetery at Forrabury, and an early medieval cist grave at Tintagel. The overall results of the pipeline project have been set out in an archive report (Historic Environment Projects 2011), and a separate report contains full archive details for the Trevalga roundhouse (Gossip 2011). This volume focuses on the most significant archaeological features and finds recorded during the fieldwork project.

The pipeline corridor ran roughly west to east, at a distance of between approximately 200m and 900m to the south of the north Cornish coast (Figure 4). The current agricultural landscape is a mixture of pastoral and arable farmland and is composed of mostly small, irregular, stone-walled, fields. The agricultural land is bisected by deep, northsouth aligned valleys, as at Tintagel and Boscastle, as well as by smaller wooded valleys, as at Rocky Valley and St Nectan’s Glen. In contrast to the landscape crossed by the Harlyn to Padstow pipeline, the coastal zone in this area is predominantly marked by sheer cliffs and the narrower steep-sided valleys provide more restricted access to the sea (Figures 5 and 6).

The fieldwork was undertaken as a continuous watching brief under archaeological supervision with controlled investigations taking place where significant features were uncovered. At Trevalga full excavation took place and at Forrabury detailed survey and sample excavation was followed by the reburial of the site.

The underlying geology in the western end of the corridor was comprised of Upper and Middle Devonian slates, which gave way to the upper and lower Culm Measure slates and mudstones at the eastern end of the pipeline (Bristow 1996, 6; Geological Survey of Britain 2005). These slates are known locally as ‘killas’ or ‘shillet’. Geologically, the coastal area between Tintagel and Boscastle also contains various basic volcanic rocks of

Each of the fields along the route of the pipeline was allocated a unique field number as work progressed. Fields were numbered 1 to 39. These do not run concurrently in any one direction, but reflect the order in which they were stripped. Field numbers have been retained in this paper as a means of assisting the identification of recorded archaeological features.

Figure 5 Aerial photograph showing the landscape around Tintagel with the site at Tintagel in the distance (Copyright Historic Environment, Cornwall Council). 5

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 6 Aerial photograph showing the landscape around Boscastle looking inland (Copyright Historic Environment, Cornwall Council).

a major outburst of extrusive volcanism. These volcanic rocks were found to have been used for worked stone artefacts (see below). The underlying geology was covered by loam soils, although in the valleys there were also colluvial deposits which sealed archaeological features.

remains such as pits and ditches and the potential for these features to survive within the pipeline corridor was suggested by the geophysical survey, which had identified a large number of ditch and pit-type anomalies (Wessex Archaeology 2009).

No archaeological sites were known within the immediate vicinity of the pipeline. However, the historic character of the landscape through which the pipeline passed is for the most part Anciently Enclosed Land, that is land which has been settled and farmed since the medieval period or before (Cornwall County Council 1996). This type is comprised of fields that are associated with settlements of medieval origin, as are found for example around the settlements at Boscastle, Trevalga, Trethevey and Bossiney. This zone is also frequently associated with buried archaeological

A second landscape character zone was encountered closer to the coastline. Coastal Rough Ground skirted the northern length of the pipeline. This zone often contains upstanding archaeological sites, in the form of later prehistoric field systems, Early Bronze Age barrows, an Iron Age cliff castle at Willapark, and most famously, the iconic early medieval settlement at Tintagel. These sites were avoided by the pipeline; however, buried archaeological remains of mostly prehistoric date were encountered in several locations within this zone.

6

Chapter 3: Smaller sites recorded along the pipeline Andy M Jones and Anna Lawson-Jones

The following section outlines the most significant results from the pipeline recording project, which include a Mesolithic flint scatter, a probable Bronze Age cairn, three areas of early, possibly Bronze Age field system, Neolithic and Early Bronze Age pits, a recumbent standing stone and associated ditches, a Middle Bronze Age roundhouse, Bronze Age stone-lined pits and part of an Iron Age cemetery Forrabury, an early medieval pit and a cist grave. These sites are discussed from west to east, running from Tintagel Castle valley to Forrabury near Boscastle. Artefacts recovered from other fields and features are discussed in the pottery, stonework and flint sections (see Quinnell and Lawson-Jones below).

of the Tintagel Castle valley. The pipeline corridor ran directly down the hill in a north-westerly direction to connect with a pumping station being constructed within the valley itself. The corridor was approximately 12m wide in this area. An approximately 8m wide access road was also constructed. This was done as a ‘dog leg’ following the northern and then western boundaries of the field. No archaeological features were recorded along the pipeline corridor. However, at the beginning of the access road, close to the southern baulk, a stone-lined cist [350] was uncovered. This feature measured 1.9m by 0.6m with the long axis orientated approximately east-north-east to westsouth-west. The cist edge was lined with vertical edge-set slates (Figures 7 and 8) and at least two capstones were still in situ at the west end. Although human bone would not have survived in the acidic soil conditions, the near east-west orientation of the cist suggests a Christian burial

Field 39: Early medieval cist grave [350] This site was situated within a large triangular field that sloped very steeply to the south-west on the eastern side

Figure 7 Plan of early medieval cist grave [350] in Field 39. 7

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast greater during the Mesolithic period, with estimates for sea levels at the very end of the Mesolithic being up to 10m lower than their current level (Stapleton and Pethick 1996, 43). The topography allows for wide ranging views in all directions from the site. Located approximately 120m to the north-north-east of the scatter site is a distinctive rocky outcrop, likely to have attracted attention and varied activity throughout the prehistoric period. The flint scatter, consisting of 116 pieces, was closely focussed within an unusually small 5m diameter area of remnant old land surface exposure (355). It was sealed beneath an approximate 0.25m deep topsoil and clayey subsoil, and overlay killas bedrock. The scatter contained pebbles, cores, flakes (with and without blade scarring), complete and snapped blades of various size, various tools and utilized pieces and two microliths (see LawsonJones below). The small size of the spread might suggest a single episode of activity, while the notable presence of burnt flints indicates a fire or hearth. Activity on the site certainly involved primary knapping of locally acquired pebble flint, while variously modified and / or utilized pieces, including points and minimally worked cutting pieces, indicates more focussed activity, which was perhaps associated with short-term settlement. It is possible that this scatter represents just one of a series of repeated visits strung along this contour, reflecting a nonsedentary way of life. Three of the pieces in the scatter show clear evidence for subsequent reuse for which the analysis (Lawson-Jones below) suggests a much later (later Neolithic / Bronze Age) date. Three more flints were collected from elsewhere in the field, plus possibly utilized spatula-shaped pebble and a quartz crystal.

Figure 8 Photograph of early medieval cist grave [350] taken from the west showing remaining in situ covering slabs. of early medieval date. It lay at the edge of the access road and was not directly affected by the pipe trench, and was therefore not excavated. After cleaning for photography and planning, it was covered over and preserved in situ. A partly worked spindle whorl S11 was recovered during the cleaning of the cist grave (Quinnell below).

This site adds to the current, strongly coastal, patterning of known Mesolithic sites in Cornwall (Wymer 1976, 3647). Other published examples of sites located along the northern coast of Cornwall include Trevelgue Head, near Newquay (Lawson-Jones 2011, 280), Trevose Head to the west of Padstow (Johnson and David 1982), Penhale Point, near Perranporth (Harding 1950) and Gwithian (Roberts 1987), while southern coastal examples includes Poldowrian on the Lizard (Smith and Harris 1982). However, none of these sites show the same small-scale focus of activity, all suggesting a larger, longer settlementrelated presence.

A sherd of unstratified Bi amphora was recovered from this field. The Bi amphora is an eastern Mediterranean import from Greece dating from the fifth to seventh centuries AD (Quinnell below) and unless the pottery was introduced as part of a manuring or soil improvement process (Kirkham 2013), it indicates that activity was occurring within this field at this time. Although this material is known to occur in quantity in the vicinity of Tintagel Castle, and Tintagel churchyard (Barrowman et al 2007; Nowakowski and Thomas 1990; 1992), this is the first time that this pottery has been recorded from the environs of Tintagel village itself.

North of Field 35: Bronze Age cairn 327 The cairn was located approximately 100m to the north of the pipeline corridor (SX 05786 89164) on the eastern flank of a prominent rocky outcrop formed by an igneous intrusion. It was positioned on or close to the 85m contour, with wide ranging views in all directions around it.

Field 35: A Mesolithic flint scatter A later Mesolithic flint scatter (335) was identified at the western end of Field 35 (SX 05806 89040) on Gavercoombe Farm, on the 85m contour line, at the eastern upper edge of a coombe which drops down north towards the sea (Figure 9). Today the site is located approximately 250m due south of the coast. This distance will have been

The area was gorse covered, but on close inspection a cairn was identifiable (Figure 9). The site was roughly circular, measuring approximately 5m in diameter, with a height of 0.5m. Several large stones appeared to form a rough kerb, which was especially well-defined on the 8

Chapter 3: Smaller sites recorded along the pipeline

Figure 9 Plan showing area of Mesolithic flint scatter (335) and cairn 327, with an inset detailed drawing of cairn 327: Field 35. southern side. At the centre of the mound was a subrectangular depression measuring 1.6m by 0.7m, the long axis of which is orientated north-west to south-east. The sides of this depression appear to be lined with stone, forming a possible cist.

site is comparable with other cairns in Cornwall, and its setting near to an outcrop is also typical of many Cornish barrows and cairns (Jones 2005, chapter 5; Tilley 1995). Its shape and siting suggests a probable Early Bronze Age date. The discovery of the site is of interest, as although Bronze Age cairns and barrows are well-documented in the wider coastal zone (for example, Christie 1985) they are comparatively scarce in the immediate stretch of coast

The cairn was not excavated and consequently there are no artefacts associated with it. However, morphologically the

9

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast around Tintagel. It also indicates that further sites await discovery. Fields 35, 31 and 29: Bronze Age field systems and other features Field 35 At the north-eastern end of the corridor, in Field 35 traces of stone walling 332 were recorded as lying below the ploughsoil (not illustrated). This walling consisted of carefully laid shillet and quartz blocks with a matrix of yellow clay between them. The walling appeared to be between 0.5m and 1m thick and had been heavily truncated by ploughing, at best surviving to only a couple of courses and 0.1m high. The main line of walling ran in a north-east to south-west direction surviving for a length of 20m with a side arm some 7m from the northern end that branched off perpendicular to the main stretch of walling in a north-west direction. Only 2m in length was seen before disappearing into the baulk. However, its line appeared to be continued by a very slight lynchet that could be seen heading towards the prominent intrusive igneous rocky outcrop near to cairn 327. A further length of walling 549 was recorded approximately 16m to the southwest of 332. Identical in nature to the structure of walling 332, this was very heavily truncated by ploughing with only a length of some 4m traceable in a northeast to southwest direction. It is possible that this wall may have been part of wall 332 but that a gap had formed between the walls through truncation. Beyond the baulk a very slight lynchet could be seen running perpendicular to wall 549 which again headed towards the rocky outcrop. Differing from the current patterning of field walls, this walling is likely of prehistoric origin, and the apparent orientation on the rocky outcrop might suggest it took its axis from a landscape feature which was already important (Jones 2008a). However, no finds were recorded from the walling, so its date is unproven. Field 31 The walling in Field 31 was a relatively flat field located on the 85m contour, circa 120m from the coastal cliffs (Figure 14). Within this field the haul road and pipeline corridor ran alongside each other in a north-westerly direction. The haul road was 4m wide, the pipeline 8.5m wide with a 1.5m baulk separating the two (Figure 10).

Figure 10 Plan showing prehistoric field walls and archaeological features in Field 31.

Approximately 35m to the east of the existing field boundary with Field 30 (Figures 10 and 11) was wall complex 313. It was similar to possible prehistoric walling 298 and 332 found in Fields 29 (below) and 35 (above). The longest 13.5m length of wall ran roughly north to south across both the corridor and haul road. It measured approximately 0.75m wide and survived to at least three courses of flat laid slates with a maximum height of 0.3m. The short, east to west aligned section of wall 313 ran at right angles across the main wall (extending circa 4m east and 0.5m west from it), and had an approximate 5m length

(Figure 11). This wall was also approximately 0.75m wide. Both elements had been constructed of carefully laid shillet blocks bonded together by yellow or grey-brown clay. In terms of stratigraphy the shorter east to west length of wall is later than the underlying, longer walling. No diagnostic finds were found to date either length of walling. However, its similarity with the walling in Field 29 is indicative of a prehistoric, possibly Bronze Age date. About 25m west of this walling was single ditch [314] running in a roughly north-east to south-westerly direction. 10

Chapter 3: Smaller sites recorded along the pipeline

Figure 11 Plan showing field wall 313 in Field 31.

Slightly curvilinear in plan (gently curving towards the south-west) this ditch was 0.4m wide and 0.1m deep. It had a shallow ‘U’ shaped profile and was infilled with grey-brown clay loam and some shillet fragments. No dating evidence was found for this ditch (Figure 10).

uneven base. The fill was dark black-brown clay with a few fragments of burnt shillet and plenty of charcoal; however, no artefacts were recovered from the pit. Pit [306] lay 2m to the east and north of pit [305]. It was sub-rectangular, measuring 1.4m by 0.94m. The edge of the cut for the pit had vertical slates set on edge and a large portion of the pit was covered by large flat slate slabs which appeared to be capping stones. The fill of the pit was of red-brown sticky clay. The long axis was orientated north-east to south-west. As this feature lay within the haul road and was not threatened by the pipeline, it was decided to preserve it in situ and to not investigate it further. No dating evidence was recovered for this feature.

Within the haul road immediately west of removed field boundary 539 was ditch [307], which ran south-east to north-west (Figure 10). The ditch terminated just before it reached the removed field boundary, so their relationship is unclear. The terminal was sectioned and emptied. It was found that the ditch was 1m wide, with a ‘U’ shaped profile reaching a depth of 0.44m. There were two fills. The lower fill was recorded as yellow silty clay. The upper fill was a grey-brown clay loam. Neither fill produced any diagnostic finds suitable material for dating, so it cannot be phased.

Four metres south of pit [306], within the pipeline corridor, but right up against the baulk was another pit [311]. Oval in shape it measured 0.8m by 0.6m. It was filled with grey-brown clay with flecks of charcoal. This pit was not investigated further but left in situ as it would be unaffected by the digging of the pipeline. A similar pit [312] was uncovered some 5m to the south-west. Oval in shape, measuring 1m by 0.7m and orientated roughly north-west to south-east this feature again was not investigated further but left in situ.

Approximately 16m west of the field boundary, again within the haul road (Figure 10) was pit [304] and 5m further on another two pits [305] and [306]. Pit [304] was small and near-circular, measuring 0.36m by 0.34m and 0.12m deep. It was steep sided, with a flat bottom. The fill was greybrown clay with charcoal and vein quartz fragments. No artefacts were recovered. Pit [305] was sub-oval, measuring 0.7m by 0.62m and 0.18m deep. It was steep sided, with an 11

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast To the west of pit [312] was pit [308]. Pit [308] was cut out of the solid shillet bedrock. It was oval in shape, measuring 1.06m by 0.9m. In profile it was a steep sided ‘U’ shape, although the sides were ragged in places due to the solid nature of the bedrock into which it was cut. The pit reached a depth of 0.44m. There were two fills. The lower 0.22m thick context (310) was a grey-brown clay loam containing large stony blocks up to 0.2m in length, charcoal, and animal bones including the jaw of a pig and cattle bone (Randall below). A large worked flint identified as a probable Neolithic multi-platform core with use as a chopper tool (see Lawson-Jones below) was also recovered from this layer. The upper layer, context (309) again some 0.22m thick, was of dark black-brown organic and charcoal-rich clay loam with large numbers of sea shells (see Walker below). This was the only pit to produce significant animal bone. Two radiocarbon determinations were obtained on the animal bone in layer (309), 1505 ± 35 BP, cal AD 435–639 (SUERC-39366) and 1510 ± 35 BP, cal AD 434–635 (SUERC-39367). The radiocarbon dates are contemporary with one another, and therefore suggest that the pit belongs to the fifth to sixth centuries cal AD and that the multi-platform core was redeposited. It is possible that the other pits in this group are of the same date although this cannot be proven. At the western end of the corridor a further stretch of possible prehistoric walling 545 was recorded (Figure 10). It survived in a very fragmentary condition, measuring 1m wide, with a matrix of yellow grey-brown clay between the stones. No dating material was recovered for this feature, which means that although it may be of prehistoric date, this could not be verified.

Figure 12 Photograph of wall 270 fully exposed viewed from the south. Wall 270 (Figures 12 and 13) was located at the northern end of the complex. It was oriented in a north-west to south-easterly direction and was constructed of carefully laid stone with up to five courses surviving to a maximum height of 0.5m. The stones had a matrix of yellow greybrown clay between them (271) that bonded the stones together. Bronze Age Trevisker pottery P9 (Quinnell below), and a hammerstone were recovered from this material.

Finally at the very end of the corridor a highly truncated ditch [546] was uncovered. As it ran parallel with the current hedge boundary it is likely to be a ditch associated with the current boundary. It was up to 1m wide and infilled with grey-brown clay loam. Field 29

The wall was built directly on top of the natural grey clay (272), and there was no indication of a preserved old land surface, suggesting that the ground may have been stripped of soil before the wall was constructed. On either side of the wall overlying natural clay (272) was layer (273). This material was up to 0.08m thick and was a charcoal flecked grey-brown silty clay with small vein quartz fragments. A flint flake was recovered from it (Lawson-Jones below). It is possible that (273) was an old land surface which had been removed along the line of wall 270.

This relatively flat field lay to the north-west of Bossiney Caravan Park. Within this field the haul road and pipeline corridor ran alongside each other in a south-westerly direction. The haul road was 4m wide, and the pipeline was 8.5m wide with a 1.5m baulk separating the two (Figures 13 and 14). At the north eastern end of the corridor a complex of walls 298 were uncovered (Figure 13). This complex was situated at a depth of approximately 0.5m below the current ground surface. The walling formed an ‘h’ shape complex running in a south-westerly direction for a distance of approximately 25m. This complex was composed of three walls, the length of one them wall 270 crossed into the haul road. In this section it was possible to investigate the walling in more detail.

On the north-eastern side of wall 270 (Figure 13) layer (273) was overlain by a 0.23m thick deposit of hard compacted pale grey-brown silty clay with shillet fragments, context (274), which produced Bronze Age Trevisker pottery P10 and flint including a thumbnail scraper (see Quinnell and Lawson-Jones below). Above (274) was deposit (275), which had built up against the walling to a thickness

12

Chapter 3: Smaller sites recorded along the pipeline

Figure 13 Plan showing walls in Field 29 (top) and a detailed plan of wall 270 and section across it (bottom).

Figure 14 Plan showing prehistoric field walls and archaeological features in Fields 29, 30, 31 and 32. 13

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast of 0.23m, reducing to 0.08m half a metre to the east. It consisted of grey-green, brown clay with a few shillet fragments, and was overlain by up to 0.14m of silty greybrown clay with a few shillet fragments, context (276).

Wall 270 was overlain by 0.3m of grey-brown clay loam with few shillet inclusions, context (280), which was in turn overlain by 0.16m of grey-brown clay loam ploughsoil, context (281). Above this was 0.05m of roots and humic soil, context (282).

On the south-western side of wall 270, layer (273) was overlain by up to 0.23m of pale grey-brown clay with numerous shillet and quartz fragments and other stony rubble, context (277). This almost had the appearance of a destruction layer, the stony rubble having been derived from the wall. This was overlain by up to 0.11m of brown silty clay with very few stony inclusions, context (278), which overlay the south-western side of the wall footings. Thinning towards the west, the top of this layer was marked by a fractured shillet tip line. This layer was in itself overlain by up to 0.3m of dark grey-green, brown clay with occasional shillet fragments, context (279). This pinched out at its north-eastern end level with the top of wall 270.

Walling complex 298 seems to define small square or rectilinear fields (Figures 13 and 14) that bear no relation to the current field pattern which is of medieval origin. Only prehistoric artefacts, including Bronze Age pottery, and later Neolithic / Bronze Age flints were found in association, which suggests a prehistoric, potentially Bronze Age origin. This accords with findings from the Harlyn Bay pipeline, and indicates that there were extensive Bronze Age field systems comparable with stone-walled field systems found in upland areas of the south west (for example, Fleming 1988; Herring 2008; Jones and Quinnell 2011a) (see below).

Figure 15 Plan showing location of pits and rubbing / standing stone in Field 27.

14

Chapter 3: Smaller sites recorded along the pipeline Field 27: Neolithic pits and rubbing / standing stone

However, as stone 531 was situated within the body of a stone-built field boundary wall 236 and it was to be left in situ, the area around the socket was not examined. This meant it was not possible to determine from where the socket was cut or how tall the stone actually was.

This was a large long field to the north of Bossiney Caravan Park (Figure 15). The field sloped steeply to the north-west. Within this field a compound area was stripped at the south-eastern end. A 4m wide haul road was also constructed, which ran across the field from the compound in a north-westerly direction to the village to the west.

When wall 236 was removed from the area of the haul road and pipeline corridor it was found that there was a grouping of five pits (Figure 15). Three of the pits lay close to or directly underneath the removed wall, approximately 5m to the north-east of the rubbing stone. These were pits [235], [237] and [238].

Prior to the project, the only feature visible within this field was a small orthostat 531, a probable cattle rubbing stone (SX 06537 89075). The stone was a slate slab with veins of quartz which had been set vertically with the ground. It measured 1m wide and 0.12m thick and had a visible height of 1m. Its full height was not determined as the stone was left in situ. Its axis was orientated northeast to south-west. A hole of circa 0.08m diameter had been drilled through the western side perhaps for use as a gatepost (Figure 16).

Pit [235] was circular with a diameter of 0.6m. It was a shallow ‘U’ shaped bowl profile reaching a depth of 0.16m. It was cut into the decayed shillet bedrock. The fill consisted of a silty clay with charcoal and contained numerous fragments of white vein quartz. Sherds of Early Neolithic pottery were found (Quinnell below) from an

Figure 16 Photograph from showing rubbing / standing stone 531 in Field 27. (looking west) 15

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast open Western / Hembury bowl, P8 (Figure 54) and from a second round based vessel. Two utilized quartzite pebbles, a bladed sandstone cobble and 11 fresh flints including a Neolithic leaf-shaped arrowhead (Lawson-Jones below) were also recovered from the pit (Figure 62). Corylus charcoal recovered from pit [235] was dated to 4690 ± 23 BP, 3625 - 3372 cal BC (SUERC-42047).

The third pit in the group, pit [238] lay 0.9m to the northeast of pit [237]. It was sub-oval, measuring 0.7m by 0.5m. It was a steep sided ‘U’ shaped bowl profile reaching a depth of 0.12m. It was cut into the decayed shillet bedrock. The fill was a silty, yellow-brown clay, with a few fragments of white vein quartz. However, there were no artefacts within the fill.

Pit [237] lay 1.2m to the southeast of pit [235]. It was suboval, measuring 0.6m by 0.5m. It had a steep sided ‘U’ shaped bowl profile reaching a depth of 0.2m. It was cut into the decayed shillet bedrock. There were two fills. The lower fill (0.1m thick) consisted of silty, yellow brown clay with some flecks of charcoal and shillet fragments. The upper layer was of grey-brown silty clay with charcoal containing numerous fragments of white vein quartz. Six prehistoric flint flakes in fresh condition were recovered from this upper fill (Figure 62). Interestingly pits [235] and [237] both produced markedly similar looking Early Neolithic nodular waste. Corylus charcoal from pit [237] produced a radiocarbon determination of 4703 ± 23 BP, 3628 - 3375 cal BC (SUERC-42049).

A further feature, towards the western end of this field, pit [250] (not illustrated) also produced a well-made, uniformly thick flake of Neolithic character, with light use as a cutting flake (see Lawson Jones below); however, much later finds were also recovered from it and the flint was residual. It is also worth noting that pits [235], [237] and [238] were situated close to the 80m contour, on the southern edge of undulating land dropping north-north-west towards the coastal cliffs. There were, therefore, wide views out to the north and along the coastline and this may have influenced the siting of the group (see, for example Jones and Reed 2006).

Figure 17 Photograph of pit [287] in Field 22 after excavation. 16

Chapter 3: Smaller sites recorded along the pipeline Two further pits lay to the south-west of the rubbing stone. These were pits [290] and [291]. Pit [290] lay approximately 9m southeast of stone 531. It was suboval, measuring 0.5m by 0.3m. It had a steep sided ‘U’ shaped bowl profile and a depth of 0.12m. It was cut into the decayed shillet bedrock. The fill was grey-brown clay with a few fragments of white vein quartz. No artefacts were found.

The soil profile across this field consisted of 0.05m of roots and humic soil overlying 0.35m of grey-brown clay loam, 0.2m of reddish brown clay and 0.65m of red, greyish brown clay. At the base of the trench was the top of decayed natural bedrock. During the topsoil stripping a possible enclosure formed by ditches [30] and [34], and a large sub-oval stone, 32, were discovered. The stone was prone and was partly buried within the upper of the fills of ditch [30]. It had the appearance of a fallen, perhaps deliberately slighted standing stone or menhir so it was decided to investigate this area further with a small-scale excavation.

Pit [291] lay approximately 5m east of pit [290]. It was sub-oval, measuring 1.2m by 0.5m. It had a steep sided, flat bottomed profile reaching a depth of 0.1m. The fill was grey-brown clay with a few fragments of white vein quartz and charcoal flecks. A cobble hammerstone and a flint flake were recovered from the fill (Quinnell and Lawson-Jones below).

The northernmost ditch [34] ran from west-north-west to the east-south-east (Figure 18). It was 3.5m wide and reached a depth of 0.6m. It had a shallow ‘U’ shaped profile with concave edges. Two fills were recorded. The upper fill (35) consisted of mid to light brown coloured silty clay containing occasional stones and slate fragments. Running along the length of the ditch was a deposit of slate slabs and smaller stones. This was 0.5m wide and had the appearance of being the lower courses of a slate wall (36). This had been constructed after the ditch had been partially infilled as the lower course of the stones was located above (37), an approximately 0.3m thick deposit of mid to light brown coloured silty clay that contained occasional stones and very few slate fragments. No dating evidence for the ditch or wall was obtained.

Field 22: Prehistoric pits Field 22 was large triangular field lay to the north-east of Bossiney. An access road 10m wide was dug along side the hedge boundary close to the road in the southern part of the field. Several pits were uncovered in the field; however, only one, pit [287] at the southern end of the corridor, produced any diagnostic artefacts. Pit [287] was circular with a diameter of 0.6m (Figure 17). It had a shallow ‘U’ shaped bowl profile and was 0.2m deep. It was cut into the decayed shillet bedrock. The fill consisted of a very dark brown charcoal-rich clay loam, containing numerous fragments of white vein quartz. The fill of the pit contained several sherds of Early Neolithic pottery, which came from a Neolithic bowl P7 (see Quinnell below) and a retouched flint flake that is a possible tranchet arrowhead blank (Figure 62).

The south-western ditch [30] ran in a north-north-east to south-south westerly direction. It was traced for a length of approximately 45m. It was 4.5m wide and reached a maximum depth of 1.7m. The ditch was partially sectioned. This revealed that the profile of the ditch cut was steep sided, with a flat bottom. The ditch cut had two fills. The uppermost fill was a grey-brown silty clay with a few large stones marking tip lines. This overlay a grey-green brown clay up to 0.18m thick and yellow grey brown silt that reached a thickness of 0.11m. No artefactual or dating evidence was obtained for this ditch.

A second pit, [286], was located 1.8m to the south of pit [287]. It was circular with a diameter of 0.6m. It also had a shallow ‘U’ shaped bowl profile, but was shallower, reaching a depth of 0.12m. It was cut into the decayed shillet bedrock. The fill consisted of a very dark brown charcoal-rich clay loam, containing numerous fragments of white vein quartz. It is possible that it was contemporary with pit [287]. However, it did not contain any artefacts, and neither pit contained charcoal that was suitable for radiocarbon dating. The setting of the pits is again of interest as pits [286] and [287] were situated on the on the 90m contour, on an east-north-east facing slope with wide ranging views north and north-east to the sea, east along the coast and south across a north-east to south-west aligned valley.

Partially buried within the top fill of ditch [30] was large recumbent stone 32, (Figures 19 and 20). This was a large teardrop shaped quartzitic greenstone measuring 3.2m by 0.7m and 0.9m thick. The axis of the stone was orientated north-north-east to south-south-west, running parallel with the edge of ditch [30] with the tapered end of the stone pointing north-north-east. This stone was not local to the immediate site, where the natural bedrock was decayed shillet and slate. The stone seems to have been deliberately shaped, especially the rounded thicker end (Figure 20). To the southeast and protruding from the baulk was a large white quartz block 33 (Figure 18). This was fully uncovered and revealed to be a massive block measuring 1.1m by 0.9m and a minimum of 0.7m thick (the base of the stone was not determined). There were also several other smaller stones seen within the section and around the base of this block. These stones could have been cairn material (not illustrated).

Field 6: Recumbent standing stone and ditches Field 6 sloped down to the west and looked out north and west along the coast and over the north-south Rocky Valley with its fast running stream and associated tributaries. The standing stone and adjacent features are positioned between the 100m and the 95m contour line (Figure 18).

17

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 18 Plan showing archaeological features in Field 6 (left) and detail of excavated features (right).

Unfortunately, no artefactual or material for radiocarbon dating was recovered from any of these features which means that it is not possible to date any of the elements of this complex. The dimensions of the fallen standing stone fall within the size range of prehistoric examples (Williams 1988; Barnatt 1982, 259-61), and it was also located at a distance of approximately 80m to the south west of the supposed ruined megalithic structure known as King Arthur’s Quoit (Polsue 1872, 236; Dickinson 1900, 5)

which is formed by a large flat slab (Figure 21). However, the date and character of this site is completely open to question, and a small standing stone of early medieval date has also been recorded in the churchyard at Tintagel (Thomas 1988; Nowakowski and Thomas 1992). In the light of the available evidence, the recumbent standing stone in Field 6 may plausibly be of prehistoric, RomanoBritish or even early medieval date.

18

Chapter 3: Smaller sites recorded along the pipeline

Figure 19 Photograph of recumbent standing stone 32 viewed from the north west.

Figure 20 Photograph from south west of recumbent standing stone showing its position in ditch [30] and the rounded end; also shows quartz block 35 to its east. 19

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 21 Photograph of ‘Arthur’s Quoit’ a large ‘capstone-like’ stone located in the verge near to Field 6, looking north (Photograph Andy M Jones).

Field 3: Prehistoric pits?

Field 16: stone-lined pit [210]

Two small circular pits, [501] and [503] were encountered midway within Field 3 which lay to the immediate north west of Field 6.

Field 16 lay to the east of Trevalga, and sloped gently to the north towards the coast. The pipeline corridor was approximately 9m wide in this field.

Pit [501] measured 0.3m in diameter and was up to 0.05m deep. It had a shallow flattened ‘U’ shaped profile and was filled by a grey, black-brown charcoal-rich clay loam. No artefacts were recovered. Pit [503] lay roughly 2m south of pit [501]. It had a diameter of 0.6m and was up to 0.23m deep. The sides of the cut were steep and the base was flat. There were two fills within the pit. The lowest consisted of yellowish, grey-brown clay loam with charcoal flecks and white vein quartz fragments. It produced a single flint flake (Lawson-Jones below). The upper fill was a dark grey-brown charcoal-rich clay loam and also contained a lot of white vein quartz. Neither pit produced datable material, although they are possibly of prehistoric date.

In the middle of a field was a large stone-lined feature, pit [210]. Rectangular in shape this pit measured 1.44m by 0.8m and was excavated to a depth of 0.16m. The long axis of this pit was orientated in a south-west to north-east direction (Figures 22 and 23). Cut into the natural decayed bedrock, the sides of the trench had been lined with vertically set slate slabs. The largest of these was 0.86m long and 0.06m thick with a maximum visible height of 0.16m. The slate slabs were set within a narrow construction slot (210). The stone-lining was not excavated as it was decided to preserve the pit in situ. The upper excavated part of the pit contained a dark brown sticky clay loam, (212), that contained some charcoal and shillet fragments. Below (212) the pit was not excavated. Three fragments from an unidentifiable vessel or a baked clay object were recovered from the fill (Quinnell below). 20

Chapter 3: Smaller sites recorded along the pipeline

Figure 22 Plan (top) and section across (bottom) stone-lined pit [210].

A radiocarbon determination on ulex charcoal 3170 ± 26 BP, 1498 - 1409 cal BC (SUERC-42050), dated to the Middle Bronze Age.

revealed. Pit [204] was roughly oval, measuring 1m long by 0.8m wide. The pit was steep sided with an almost flat base and cut down through the natural bedrock. It reached a depth of 0.4m. The fill consisted of a very dark greybrown clay loam with numerous charcoal fragments. There was also a lot of burnt shillet and angular white vein quartz blocks, some of the latter up to 0.3m long. No artefacts were recovered, so the dating of this pit is uncertain. However, the hazel-rich charcoal assemblage was similar to the Neolithic pits found along the pipeline corridor (Challinor below), so a prehistoric date is possible.

An unstratified sherd of Bronze Age Trevisker pottery was also recovered from Field 16 (Quinnell below). The possible functions of this pit will be discussed below. Field 17: Prehistoric pit? This field sloped gently to the sea which lay to the north. Towards the east end of the corridor a single pit was

21

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 23 Photograph of stone-lined pit [210] taken from south. Field 21: Neolithic pit [185]

However, this feature also contained an iron hobnail of possible Roman date and the flint must be residual.

This wide field sloped gently to the sea which lay to the north. The pipeline corridor ran roughly north-east to south-west at the southern end of the field (alongside the road) and was approximately 12m wide.

Pit [185] was located on a north facing slope on the 105m contour line. As with the other pits of Neolithic date, the site looks out across the coastal slope to the sea, and is protected from the south the hill-slope.

Pit [185] was roughly oval with a long axis of 0.9m and a shorter of 0.6m. It reached a depth of 0.3m. The long axis was roughly north to south (Figure 24). The pit had an irregular stepped profile. The deeper section was more circular and was flat bottomed. The pit had been cut into the natural shillet bedrock. The fill consisted of a very dark brown charcoal-rich clay loam, containing blocks of white vein quartz up to 0.3m in size, and shillet. The amount of charcoal increased in concentration towards the bottom of the pit. The shillet that formed the sides of the circular deeper part of the pit was reddish brown in colour and showed signs of being heat affected. Six flints including a scraper, and retouched blade came from within the fill of the pit (Figure 62). All appeared to be very fresh in nature and are Neolithic in date (see Lawson-Jones below). A radiocarbon determination was obtained on Corylus charcoal from the fill of pit [185], 4755 ± 26 BP, 3637 - 3384 cal BC (SUERC-42048). This date is compatible with the flint assemblage from the pit.

Field 11: Stone-lined Beaker pit [113] Field 11 sloped very gradually from the south towards the sea in the north. It had wide ranging views north, east and west along the coast. In this area, the pipeline corridor was maintained at the reduced width of 2m. At approximately point 47.5m from the hedge boundary at the western end of the pipeline corridor a large stone-lined pit [113] was recorded. As only a fraction of the pit projected from the southern baulk of the trench, this feature was only partially excavated to ascertain its character. At the end of the excavation the feature was covered over and preserved in situ. Pit [113] was possibly rectangular and was cut through the shillet bedrock. Lying diagonally to the side of the corridor, the exposed area measured 0.8m by 0.8m. The long axis of the pit was orientated north to south, with the edge of the trench running diagonally across it (Figures 25 and 26).

Flint, together with a water rounded pebble and notched slates were recovered from a second pit, [195] in Field 22.

22

Chapter 3: Smaller sites recorded along the pipeline

Figure 24 Photograph of pit [185] after excavation.

Figure 25 Plan (top) and section across (bottom) stone-lined Beaker pit [113]. 23

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 26 Photograph of stone-lined Beaker pit [113] taken from the south.

Field 9: Early Bronze Age pit [101]

The pit cut had vertical sides and a flat base. The western side of the pit was lined by a large slab of slate that disappeared into the baulk. The exposed length of the stone was 0.8m by 0.4m wide and 0.08m thick. This stone was set on its edge against the western side of the cut and rested on the base of the trench. There was no evidence for a stone-lining at the northern end of the pit; however, fragments of another slate set vertically were seen within the section on the eastern side, indicating that is possible that this side too had once been lined by a large slate slab. There was no evidence for a capstone. This pit had three fills. At the base was a 0.06m thick layer of yellowish brown silty clay (114), which contained flecks of charcoal. Overlying this was 0.16m of compacted dark brown clay loam (115), which contained a few shillet fragments. The remaining 0.24m of the pit was infilled with layer (116) with a dark grey-brown clay loam which had numerous shillet fragments and some charcoal. This latter context produced sherds of Beaker pottery P4a and P4b (Figure 55) which probably belong to more than one vessel (Quinnell below). No suitable material was available for radiocarbon dating; however, the Beaker pottery should place the pit in the latter part of the third or early part of the second millennium cal BC (Jones and Quinnell 2006a).

Field 9 sloped gently to the sea which lay to the north and had extensive views over the coast. In addition to the 2m wide pipeline corridor which ran roughly east to west at the northern end of the field a 3.5m wide access road was constructed running north to south alongside the hedge boundary on the eastern side of the field. Three small pits were recorded along the length of the access road. All appeared to be markedly truncated, probably as a result of ploughing. Pit [101] in Field 9 was roughly circular with a diameter of 0.42m. The pit had steep, almost vertical sides and was flat bottomed (Figure 27). It reached a depth of 0.12m. The pit had been cut into the natural shillet bedrock. The fill consisted of a very dark organic rich grey-brown clay loam with numerous charcoal fragments. There was also a lot of burnt bone. A burnt flint probable blank for a leaf-shaped arrowhead of probable Neolithic date (Lawson-Jones below), and a water rounded quartz pebble were recovered from the fill. The projectile blank was set vertically in the fill, pointing downwards as if it had been thrust into the pit (Figure 62). The burnt bone was identified as a cremation deposit (Higgins below). A radiocarbon determination 24

Chapter 3: Smaller sites recorded along the pipeline 3555 ± 26 BP, 2010 - 1776 cal BC (SUERC-42056) dates to the Early Bronze Age.

clay with fragments of decayed shillet. No artefacts were recovered. Pit [103] was roughly 30m north of pit [102]. This was irregular in shape, measuring 0.32m by 0.3m. Cut into the bedrock the pit was steep sided, flat bottomed, and filled with a dark grey-brown clay loam with shillet fragments. No artefacts were recovered. Given the lack of finds these pits may be of prehistoric, Romano-British or early medieval date.

Two further undated pits were also located in Field 9. Pit [102] lay approximately 36m north of pit [101]. The cut was roughly oval measuring 0.6m by 0.4m with the long axis orientated east to west. It had a rounded ‘U’ shaped profile and reached a depth of 0.1m. Cut into the shillet bedrock, the fill consisted of dark grey-black silty

Figure 27 Photograph of pit [101] after excavation.

25

Chapter 4: The Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga James Gossip and Andy M Jones Background

survived up to a height of up to 0.7m. Cut [146] included a slot up to 0.2m deep and 0.3m wide at the base of visible section of wall into which the orthostatic slabs were set. This had been backfilled around the slabs with deposit (147), a redeposited natural silty clay.

During the monitoring of topsoil stripping in advance of the construction of Trevalga pumping station, what appeared to be a ring of upright stones, protruding from the subsoil was exposed. Since the structure was situated in an area due to be excavated for the installation of a large subterranean chamber, a full-scale excavation of the site was undertaken.

On the north-western side of the roundhouse stones had been set vertically into the ground where there was less of a cut to line due to the nature of the slope. Stone walling was absent from parts of the western side of the roundhouse.

The site is situated in pasture between the villages of Boscastle and Tintagel on the north coast of east Cornwall, a short distance to the west of the hamlet of Trevalga and adjacent to an agricultural building known as the Black Barn (SX 08043 89712) (Figure 4). Topographically the site slopes gently to the north-west towards the high rocky cliffs of the coast 0.8 kilometres away and to the south the land rises towards inland rolling hills.

Two areas of coursed stone walling 155 and 156 were recorded either side of the south-east facing entrance, which opened towards the rise of the natural subsoil (106) (Figure 31). These walls had earth and clay cores which were probably constructed from the removal of material from the interior of the roundhouse and the entrance hollow; these were then faced with stone. Small find SF38, a broken cobble pestle, was recovered from the matrix of wall 156, along with a small amount of Bronze Age pottery (Quinnell below).

The roundhouse (Figures 28 – 36) The excavation revealed that the protruding stones were part of a roundhouse. This comprised a circular structure with a diameter of 8.5m which had been cut into the sloping natural subsoil. A grid was laid out over the structure and excavation was carried out in quadrants. At the end of the excavation the standing baulks were removed and the house was fully excavated.

Walling 155 on the west side of the entrance comprised horizontally coursed local slates and occasional quartzite pieces (Figure 32). The material between and behind the slate was a mid brown silty clay (203), presumably used for bonding / bedding the stones. S1, a hammerstone, and a small quantity of pottery SF 36, were found within this deposit (Quinnell below). The wall was 23 courses high at its highest surviving point (0.95m high at its eastern end). The walling sloped up to the west as it abutted the cut in the natural subsoil. A single large 1m long stone stood upright at the eastern end of the wall in a slot [208]. It had probably served as a jamb stone (Figure 33).

The following section describes the constructional elements which comprised the roundhouse before moving on to the post-occupation infilling process and the features which were identified beyond the structure. A brief discussion on the stratigraphy concludes this section. The stone walling and cut terrace

Wall 156 on the east side of the entrance was less extensive and less well-preserved but constructed from the same local slates as 155 and with similar coursing. The wall survived to a maximum height of 0.25m and 1.35m in length, laid on top of the cut into natural subsoil and facing natural subsoil ‘wall’ 106. There was evidence for a major collapse of stone from its western end into the entrance area, recorded as collapse (126) (Figure 34). This area of collapsed stone and clay contained a small amount of Bronze Age pottery and worked stone including pestle / hammerstone S5 and slate ‘pot lid’ S6 (Quinnell below). A Middle Bronze Age radiocarbon determination, 3092 ± 26 BP, 1428 - 1302 cal BC (SUERC-42065) was obtained from a sherd of pottery in wall 156. At the western end of the wall was a narrow slot [206]. This measured 0.5m by 0.15 m wide and was 0.15m deep. It was in a similar position to the orthostat in slot [208] and had probably held a jamb stone.

The construction of the Trevalga roundhouse commenced with the excavation of a circular cut [146] (Figure 28). The cut was very shallow on the northern side but became deeper towards the south, where it was excavated into the side of the hill-slope (Figures 31 and 36). The entrance was located in the deepest pat of the cut. Total excavation of the roundhouse revealed [146] to be a vertical cut approximately 8.5m in diameter terraced into the gradual slope and up to 0.9m deep to the base of the wall ‘slot’. The wall for the roundhouse comprised a series of adjacent or slightly overlapping slate orthostats 102 (Figures 29 and 30). These were set upright against and around cut [146] in the natural subsoil forming the terrace into which the roundhouse had been built. The orthostats within the wall were particularly well-preserved around the north, eastern and southern arcs of the roundhouse cut, where they

26

Chapter 4: The Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga

Figure 28 Plan of the Trevalga roundhouse, showing excavated features. Details of SF numbers: Pottery P5 SF26 (107), P6 SF33 (107), other pottery SF21 (1260, SF23 (144), SF36 (203). Stone S1 SF35 (203), S2 SF12 (122), S3 SF32 (158), S4 SF31 (158), S5 SF18 (126), S6, SF20 (126), S7 (107) SF27, S8 (107) SF15, S9 SF9 (107), S10 (107) SF28, other stone SF3 (103), SF7 SF17 (107), SF19 SF22 (126), SF29 (143), SF38 (156).

27

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 29 Detailed drawings showing orthostatic slate walling 102 in the Trevalga roundhouse.

28

Chapter 4: The Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga

Figure 30 Photograph of orthostatic walling inside the Trevalga roundhouse (north west quadrant), taken from the north.

Figure 31 Photograph of entrance area into the Trevalga roundhouse taken from the south east.

29

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 32 Photograph showing wall 155, located on the west side of the entrance into the Trevalga roundhouse.

Figure 33 Photograph showing in situ door jamb stone on the west of the entrance into the Trevalga roundhouse. 30

Chapter 4: The Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga

Figure 34 Photograph showing the collapsed wall 156 in the entrance to the Trevalga roundhouse taken from the south east.

Figure 35 Photograph showing the Trevalga roundhouse and the excavated internal postring taken from the south east.

31

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast The internal post-ring

sides and flat bases. Stone packing was recorded in some of the postholes, mostly collapsed, whilst fills were typically rather homogenous silty clays, suggesting gradual infilling after rotting of posts. All of the posts cut the natural clay subsoil (106). There was no indication that any of the posts had been replaced.

Within the structure and sealed by clay layer (107) was a circular formation of eleven postholes offset a distance of 1.2m from the stone walling 102. The postholes were spaced between 1.2m and 1.6m apart (Figures 28 and 35), the largest gap being between [134] and [136] facing the entrance. The exception was posthole [157], set just to the south of [136], itself part of the main post ring. Postholes ranged between 0.3m and 0.4m in diameter and up to 0.65m in depth, and had well-preserved steep or vertical

Postholes are described in Table 1 below in clockwise order from the west side of the entrance.

Context

Description

[157]

Circular cut with vertical sides and a flat base, slightly offset to the south of the main post-ring close to [136]. It measured 0.4m in diameter and 0.55m deep and was filled by a single deposit (158) comprising greyish brown silty clay with very few coarse inclusions. Worked stone artefacts S2 and S3, a weight and saddle quern fragment, were recovered from the fill. Two Middle Bronze Age radiocarbon terminations were obtained from posthole [157] 3105 ± 26, 1434–1312 cal BC (SUERC-42058), and 3057 ± 23, 1399–1265 cal BC (SUERC-42059).

[136]

This had vertical sides and a flat base measuring 0.3m in diameter and 0.45m deep, filled by (137) a greyish brown silty clay with very few coarse inclusions.

[119]

Cut with vertical sides and a slightly concave base, in a raised area of natural subsoil on the western side of the roundhouse. The posthole was slightly oval, measuring 0.45m long, 0.38m wide and 0.65m deep. Packing stones appeared to be in situ on the north-eastern side of the cut. The fill (120) comprised a greyish brown silty clay.

[121]

An oval cut with vertical sides and a flat base measuring 0.45m long, 0.35m wide and 0.65m deep. The fill (122) was greyish brown silty clay with collapsed packing stones evident on the sides and base of the cut. A pestle, S2, was recovered from the fill.

[197]

Oval cut with vertical sides and a flat base measuring 0.3m in diameter and 0.35m deep. The fill (198) comprised mid brown silty clay.

[132]

Cut with vertical sides and a flat base measuring 0.36m in diameter and 0.45m deep. The fill (133) comprised mid brown silty clay.

[130]

Cut with vertical sides and a flat base measuring 0.4m in diameter and 0.6m deep. The fill (131) comprised friable greyish brown silty clay.

[111]

Slightly oval cut, measuring 0.33m long and 0.25m wide, 0.4m deep. Sides were mostly vertical with a slightly angled western edge and the base was flat. The fill (200) comprised a mid greyish brown firm clay.

[114]

Circular cut with a diameter of 0.3m and depth of 0.25m, with vertical sides and a flat base. The lower sides of the cut and base were lined with flat slate stones (124) above which was (116) (0.1m deep), a reddish brown silty clay. Above this was (115), a loose, friable brown silty clay, 0.1m deep.

[110]

Circular cut with a diameter of 0.35m and a depth of 0.22m with steep, almost vertical sides and a flat base. A lower fill comprised a yellowish brown silty clay (118) above which was (117), a firm mid greyish brown clay with occasional charcoal flecks, possibly the position of a rotted in situ post.

[134]

Circular cut, 0.3m in diameter with a depth of 0.47m. It had vertical sides and a flat base and was filled by (135), comprising mid greyish brown silty clay with very few coarse inclusions Table 1: Postholes forming the internal post-ring within the Trevalga roundhouse.

32

Chapter 4: The Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga Other internal features

of the cut was approximately 1m, whilst the steps were each approximately 0.25m high and 1.7m long, the edges sloping to a flat area measuring 2m long and 1.6m wide immediately outside and level with the entrance into the roundhouse. This cut and the steps were needed to provide access to the roundhouse because the entrance faced directly into the hill-slope.

In addition to the main post-ring, there were a number of other pits, postholes and stakeholes, a hearth and a possible remnant floor layer (Figure 28). Towards the centre of the roundhouse was posthole [154]. This measured 0.3m in diameter and 0.35m deep, with steep sides and a flat base. Stone packing lined the feature on its north and south sides and fill (153) was mid brown clayey silt with very occasional charcoal flecks. Part of a saddle quern was recovered from the fill. Just south of posthole [154] was posthole or pit [160]. It had a concave cut measuring 0.3m deep and 0.4m in diameter with a stone lining in brown clayey silt fill (159).

Four postholes and a linear slot were located within the entrance area (Figure 28). Postholes [164] and [166] flanked the inside of the doorway into the roundhouse and [170] and [172] flanked opposite sides of the entrance further out, adjacent to walling 155 and 156. Posthole [164] measured 0.35m in diameter and 0.3m deep. The cut had vertical sides and a flat base. It was filled by (163), a soft reddish brown clayey silt with frequent small stones but no evident packing. The posthole was sealed by stone which was part of the collapse of wall 155. Situated 0.9m to the east was posthole [166], which measured 0.35m in diameter and 0.4m deep. Again the cut had vertical sides and a flat base. It was filled by (165), a sticky reddish brown clayey silt with frequent small stones.

Adjacent to the north-west was the cut of a shallow, oval hearth [201]. This measured 0.8m long, 0.7m wide and 0.1m deep. The eastern edge of the feature was defined by a long sub-rectangular piece of granite had been imported onto the site and embedded in the natural subsoil. Fill (202) contained large quantities of degraded charcoal, which were concentrated mainly against this stone. The remaining matrix of the deposit was a mottled yellowish or dark greyish brown coloured silty clay. A deposit of possible decayed ash was mixed with this material. The natural subsoil at the base of the cut did not appear to have been discoloured by heating. This might imply that it had seen infrequent use or that there had been a hearthstone which had been removed.

The two postholes were connected by [168], a linear, rectangular cut into the natural subsoil. This measured 0.9m long, 0.4m wide and 0.1m deep. Fill (167) comprised sticky reddish brown clayey silt with frequent small stones. Several large stones were embedded into the top of this deposit, probably from the collapse of walls 155 and 156. The cut may have represented a beam slot to hold a door frame. A worked stone SF34, possibly used for grinding or rubbing was recovered from the top of the fill (see Quinnell below).

A 0.05m – 0.1m thick compacted layer of gritty yellow or reddish clay (113) containing moderate small (0.05m across) slatey stones was recorded in patches above the natural subsoil base of the roundhouse. It survived particularly well to the west of the hearth [201] (Figure 28). This deposit was distinct from the natural subsoil below it and represents a surviving area of clay floor.

Posthole [170] inside the entrance on the western side was vertical sided with a flat base and stone packing visible on its eastern edge, measuring 0.25m diameter and 0.3m deep. It was filled by (169), a soft reddish brown clayey silt. On the opposite side of the entrance was posthole [172]. It had vertical sides and a flat base, and measured 0.25m diameter and 0.3m deep. Stone packing was identified against its western edge. Postholes [170] and [164] were both sealed by a large flat slab which is likely to have been part of the collapse of wall 155.

A largely linear array of stakeholes ([173]-[196]) was clustered in the north-western quadrant, cut into the subsoil between postholes [197] and [130] over an area approximately 2.5m long and 0.5m wide, mostly around posthole [132] and in the area of layer (113). Stakeholes were similar in size and shape, typically between 0.06m and 0.08m in diameter and 0.05m to 0.08m deep though some were more sizeable up to 0.2m in diameter and 0.17m deep.

A fifth posthole, [204] was cut into natural subsoil on the southern end of the third step up from the base of the cut out area to the south of the entrance. This vertically sided flat bottomed posthole measured 0.2m in diameter and 0.25m deep. It was filled by (205), a very soft, mid brown clayey silt.

The entrance features To the immediate south and south-east of the entrance was an area [211] quarried into the natural subsoil, measuring a maximum of 5m long north-north-west – east-southeast and 4.5m wide north-north-east – south-south-west (Figures 28 and 31). At least four rough steps [152] had been cut into the south-western side of the cut out area. The depth between subsoil ground level and the base

Post-occupation deposits Deposits within the interior of the roundhouse were mostly associated with post-occupation processes. The following section describes the stratigraphy within roundhouse from top to bottom (see Figure 36).

33

Figure 36 Sections across the Trevalga roundhouse, east facing (top) and north facing (bottom).

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

34

Chapter 4: The Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga Below the topsoil (100), were layers (101) and (103). Layer (101) measuring up to 0.1m thick and (103) which was up to 0.2m thick filled the upper part of roundhouse and the area to the south of its entrance [211]. These deposits were firm silty clays and similar in colour, a dark greyish brown with the lower deposit (103) becoming lighter in colour with depth. Deposit (103) contained pottery and a triangular cobble used as a pestle and a split pebble was found in (101) (see Quinnell below). Both deposits contained only small amounts of naturally derived stone (weathered slate fragments). The lower part of the section was mostly filled by layer (107). This was a firm, mottled grey silty clay deposit intermixed with mid brown silty clay which varied in depth from 0.35m to 0.45m and again covered the entire interior of the structure and the entrance area sealing areas of wall collapse and all the structural postholes. This deposit is homogeneous and appears to have accumulated very rapidly (see Taylor below) as a result of ‘sheet wash’ (illuvium), possibly following a very heavy rain storm. Sixteen pottery sherds of Bronze Age pottery, including P5 and P6, worked flint and a stone mould for a triangular racloir S7, a cobble weight S8, and a bevelled pebble S9 (see Quinnell and O’Connor et al below) were found within (107), mostly at the base of the deposit where it covered the floor level. This implies that these artefacts had been lying on the floor when the building had become infilled. Layer (107) also sealed the wall collapse (109) and rubble (126) within the entrance and in entrance hollow [211]. A radiocarbon date of 3092 ± 31 BP, 1432 - 1273 cal BC (SUERC-42064) was obtained on residue from a potsherd from layer (126).

0.2m by 0.8m and 0.2m thick. The stones were laid with flat edges forming a slightly convex face facing north-west and bedded onto a disturbed natural subsoil layer (140) 0.05m deep. A deposit (139) of reddish brown silty clay 0.06m deep was accumulated against the face of the wall on its north-western side. An elongated pit, [141] was situated just to the north and west of wall 138. It was cut into the natural subsoil and was aligned along the same south-west/north-east axis as wall 138. The pit had steep, moderately concave sides and a flat base. It measured 2m long, 0.7m wide and 0.35m deep. The very stony fill (142) was a yellowish brown friable clayey silt containing large quantities of angular and subangular stone including slates and quartzites measuring up to 0.3m square. A single large stone measuring 0.25m by 0.25m and 0.5m thick was laid flat on the base of the cut. No artefacts were recovered from the pit. Stratigraphic discussion The excavation of the roundhouse at Trevalga revealed an unusual structure which had been terraced into the side of the hillside. Its perimeter was defined by orthostatic walling and its roof supported by a substantial internal post-ring, set in a clay floor. In keeping with Bronze Age roundhouses the entrance faced towards the south east, but unusually it faced into the hillside. The architectural design of the Trevalga roundhouse has few immediately obvious parallels in south west Britain. In this region, three types of roundhouse structure are found: hollow-set, stone walled and post-ring. In lowland Cornwall Middle Bronze Age roundhouses take the form of hollow-set structures, such as those at Boden on the Lizard (Gossip forthcoming a), Trethellan near Newquay (Nowakowski 1991) and Scarcewater (Jones and Taylor 2010), where the house structure is set within an artificially hollowed out area. These structures are often deliberately backfilled when they are abandoned (see below).

A slab of chlorite schist S10 SF 28 with three cup-marks on the uppermost face, was found in the entrance to the roundhouse amongst the collapse from wall 156, and it seems likely that it was originally part of the wall structure. At the bottom of the infill sequence was thin clay layer (143)/(144) (not illustrated), between (107) and floor (113) which contained several sherds of pottery and a cobble SF29, used as a hammerstone / pestle (Quinnell below).

By contrast, in the upland areas of Cornwall, a different form of roundhouse defined by stone walling is found, such as those at Bodrifty or Bosiliack in West Penwith, or Stannon Down on Bodmin Moor (Dudley 1956; Jones forthcoming a; Mercer 1970). These structures often possess internal clay floors (Jones forthcoming a).

Outside the roundhouse A large area around the roundhouse was stripped of soil. The stripped area included the field in which the house was located and the adjacent field to the east, which became a works compound. However, no further roundhouses or associated features were identified, and there were no traces of the field systems which had been identified buried beneath colluvial material, closer to the coast in Fields 29, 31 and 35 (see above). Beyond the roundhouse there were just two archaeological features which could not be phased (not illustrated). Six metres to the north-west of the roundhouse was a low stone wall or revetment 138 comprising a single course of flat local slate stones except in two places along its length where two courses survived (Gossip 2011). The section of walling stood 0.1m high, 4.2m long and approximately 0.8m deep. The largest stone measured 0.6m by 0.4m and 0.5m thick and the smallest

The third type of structure, the post-ring buildings with encircling pennanular gullies, such as those excavated at Threemilestone, Truro and Scarcewater (Gossip forthcoming b; Jones and Taylor 2010, 35), have been found in increasing numbers, mostly in lowland locales. To date, however, structures of this type have been found to belong to the Late Bronze Age or the Iron Age periods in Cornwall. Interestingly, the roundhouse at Trevalga appears to contain elements belonging to all three roundhouse types. The structures with the closest similarities to Trevalga

35

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast or racloir (O’Connor et al below). This nomenclature has been used to distinguish it from other types of later Bronze Age knives and razors (for examples, see Burgess 1968; Rowlands 1976, 47-8; Pearce 1982; DCMS 2008, 48) with which there has sometimes been confusion (see O’Connor et al below).

initially appeared to be coastal roundhouses of Iron Age date. At The Rumps cliff castle a hut circle to the west of the entrance was found to have slate slabs vertically-set in a rock-cut gully against its rear wall (Brooks 1974, 22); and at the same site hut platforms I and IV had coursed stone walls built into cuts in the slope (ibid 24 and 27). The Rumps houses belong to the Middle or Late Iron Age. However, the architecturally closest site to Trevalga seemed to be House 1 at Trevelgue Head promontory fort, initially built in the Middle Iron Age period, circa 400 230 cal BC (Nowakowski and Quinnell 2011, 126). Here excavations revealed a very large circular building 14m in diameter cut into a levelled hollow. The walls were defined by upright triangular slabs of stone, bonded by horizontally laid stone walling, and as at Trevalga, the slabs were in places set into a rock-cut bedding trench. The entrance was flanked by postholes as was the entrance at Trevalga.

The roundhouse must have been rapidly abandoned. This is not surprising due to the position of the entrance area which faced into the hill-slope on the uphill side of the structure, an alignment that presumably could only work with either sufficient surface drainage or the presence of a rainwater barrier. Evidence for water management had not survived, but it seems likely that whichever method was employed, there was a catastrophic failure leading to the flooding of the roundhouse. Comment on the origin of the infill material within the roundhouse

However, despite the structural similarities, with houses at Trevelgue and the Rumps, radiocarbon dating from Trevalga firmly places the building within the period circa 1400 - 1200 cal BC, far earlier than the Iron Age roundhouses described above, and there was no evidence for the same amount of continued activity within the Trevalga roundhouse as at Trevelgue. In addition, finds were generally scarce and there were only a few grains of cereal (see Julie Jones below). Indeed, at Trevalga there seems to have been a single, perhaps short-lived, period of occupation during the Middle Bronze Age.

Roger Taylor Samples from the topsoil (100) and the infill layer within the roundhouse (107) were deflocculated and then elutriated to remove the clay and fine mica from the coarser hard mineral content. The topsoil was a mid brown sandy clay with slate fragments. Mineral content

With the notable exception of Trethellan (Nowakowski 1991) floor surfaces are rare in lowland hollow-set roundhouses, although laid ‘rab’ floors are more common feature of upland Bronze Age stone walled roundhouses (Jones and Quinnell 2011a). It is expected that some kind of floor layer would be present in most roundhouses. The rapid influx of hill-wash should have preserved evidence for a floor surface within the Trevalga roundhouse, and indeed this was found to be the case. The compacted gritty clay (113) represents an unusual survival of a floor surface inside a Middle Bronze Age roundhouse. However, even here it was not continuous but was identified in patches across the floor, although it was best preserved near to hearth [201] where it may also have become hardened by heat from the fire.

Slate – Light to medium silvery grey micaceous fragments, medium to dark bluish grey very fine-grained slate. Some fragments brownish weathered. Smaller fragments 0.2-3 mm, the less abundant larger range of fragments, 3-13 mm. Quartz – colourless, transparent to translucent, angular grains, 0.05-1 mm. Vein Quartz – Larger translucent colourless angular grains, some showing crystal form, 1.5-44 mm. Clay matrix – Grey slightly plastic and cohesive and very finely micaceous. Organic – Beetle fragments, ?elytra and other ornamented parts.

By contrast with most other excavated Middle Bronze Age roundhouses (Nowakowski 1991; 1998-9; 2001; Jones and Taylor 2010, 75-9), there was little evidence for the ritualized abandonment of the structure or for the deliberate infilling of the interior of the house. Instead, the occupation of the Trevalga roundhouse was brought to an abrupt end by the flooding of the house with mud and debris brought downslope through the south facing doorway. As a result of the flooding, with the exception of some worked stone which was recovered from postholes (see Quinnell below), most of the artefacts were found within areas of post-occupation collapse or at the bottom of (107), the silty clay accumulated from flooding, sealed several objects including the mould for a triangular blade

The clay sample from the roundhouse infill (107) was a mid greyish brown silty clay with slate fragments. Mineral content Slate – Light to medium grey micaceous slate fragments, 0.2-3 mm, the larger less abundant fraction, 3-5 mm, one fragment, 8 mm. Quartz – Colourless translucent angular grains, mainly in the finer end of the range, less than 0.05-0.8mm.

36

Chapter 4: The Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga Vein quartz – Rare white angular grains 2 mm.

grain size of the hard mineral content, it seems evident that they are derived from the same source, the weathering of the local Upper Devonian slate.

Organic – One beetle fragment. Clay matrix – Grey, slightly plastic and moderately cohesive and very finely micaceous.

The site was set on a slope and the possible interpretation is that the hollow of the roundhouse interior has been filled by the washing of clay and finer fragments from the surrounding soil. It is not possible to identity whether there are any traces of stratification in the deposit. However, the considerable thickness must have built up progressively to achieve the finer grain size.

The coarser residue from the sample taken from inside the roundhouse clay was about 25% of the weight of that from the soil sample. As the roundhouse clay is only distinguished by the smaller content and generally finer

37

Chapter 5: Forrabury compound Iron Age site Andy M Jones and Anna Lawson-Jones

Background

200m to the southwest of Forrabury church, adjacent to Green Lane. As the field was relatively flat, it was decided to use the northern half of the field as a site compound for the eastern section of the pipeline.

The Iron Age site at Forrabury lay at the eastern end of the pipeline in a rectangular field. It was situated approximately

Figure 37 Plan showing survey features at Forrabury. 38

Chapter 5: Forrabury compound Iron Age site As the area was being soil stripped, numerous features were rapidly uncovered, the first a stone-lined feature identified as a cist grave. As the area was going to be used as a site compound the majority of the features did not require full excavation, and they were preserved in situ beneath a protective covering of sand. However, two of the identified features, Features 1 and 16 were fully excavated and some of the others were partly excavated.

The features below are described in the numerical order that they were recorded. They are a heterogeneous group, which includes stone-lined cuts, slate capped and stone covered pits, as well as other large pits which did not appear to contain any stone at all. In addition to these features, a small number of hearth pits and potential postholes were also identified. There was also a great range in the size of exposed cut features ranging from under 0.5m to over 3m long. Most features were unexcavated, so the interpretation of the many aspects of the site is open to question, and there is evidence for varying degrees of truncation across the site, which further complicates the identification of some features. The full extent of the archaeology is also unknown, although there was a drop in the number of features towards the southern part of the site. It is thought

In advance of the reburial of the site, an EDM survey was carried out of the area, which located all features in plan (Figure 37). Each feature was given an identifying number, starting with Feature 1 and extending up to Ditch 30. The surface shape, dimensions and visible fill of each feature was recorded.

Figure 38 Detailed drawings of Forrabury Features 1, 16, 12 and 26. 39

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 39 Detailed drawings of Forrabury Features 15, 13 and 2. that a number of these features were associated with burial activity, but a fuller interpretative discussion will be offered in the discussion section at the end of the report.

Age vessels (see Quinnell below); a sherd from a similar unstratified vessel was also recovered P3. The form of the feature is also comparable Iron Age cists which have been recorded in Cornwall (see discussion section below).

The results

Feature 2 was a roughly oval area of flat laid slate slabs, measuring approximately 2.5m by 2m with the axis orientated east to west, which was situated within a wider disturbed area (Figures 39 and 41). The west end of the slate covered area was marked by a large white vein quartz block, while a flat slate stone that lay at the eastern end bore a small cup-mark on its surface (Figure 39). Where exposed, the fill was a dark grey-brown clay loam. The arrangement of the stones had the appearance of in situ capstones over a possible cist or grave.

Feature 1 was a near square cut measuring 0.6m by 0.5m (Figures 38 and 40). The slighter longer axis was orientated east to west. The cut was vertical sided with a flat base. No capstones survived, so it was not established if this feature had originally been covered or left open. The cut had been floored with two slate slabs and the sides lined with edge set slates. The fill consisted of dark grey-brown clay loam. At the eastern end of the cut, outside the stone-lining, was a small pit contained a complete ceramic vessel, P1. This pot has similarities with some earlier Cornish Iron 40

Chapter 5: Forrabury compound Iron Age site

Figure 40 Post excavation photograph of Forrabury Feature 1 (taken from the south).

Figure 41 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 2 with stone capping in-situ (taken from the east). 41

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 42 Post excavation photograph of Forrabury Feature 4 with quartz pebble in-situ (taken from the east). Features 3, 4 and 6 lay grouped together centrally within the site. Each had the appearance of a small square cist. Feature 3 measured 0.35m by 0.35m; Feature 4 was 0.45m by 0.45m, and Feature 6 was also 0.45m by 0.45m in size. These stone-lined cuts were all truncated and constructed of vertical slates set on edge with flat possible basal slabs or displaced capstones visible within them. All three contained a grey-brown clay loams. Feature 4 had a white quartz water-rounded pebble sitting on the probable basal slab, within the stone-lined cut (Figures 37 and 42). Quartz pebbles have been found within later prehistoric and early medieval cist graves and it is possible that these features are cist graves associated with the burials of children (see discussion below).

edge of the site. It filled with a grey-brown clay loam fill with numerous shillet fragments. No interpretation of this feature is possible. Feature 8 An oval cut, 2.8m long and 1m wide. Rock cut, with a grey-brown clay loam infill with numerous shillet fragments and small stones on the surface. It was orientated roughly north to south and lay in the western central portion of the site (Figure 43). No interpretation of this feature is possible. Feature 9 An oval cut, 1.3m long and 0.9m wide. It was rock cut, with a grey-brown clay loam fill and numerous shillet fragments. It was orientated roughly west to east and lay in the western part of the site. No interpretation of this feature is possible.

Feature 5 An oval cut measuring 2m by 1m, was orientated east to west and lay on the western side of the site. It was infilled with a grey-brown clay loam with some larger shillet blocks lying on the surface of the cut. The interpretation of this feature is uncertain.

Feature 10 An irregular shaped cut. It measured 2.3m by 1.5m and was filled with a grey-brown clay loam, and was located on the western side of the site. No interpretation of this feature is possible.

Feature 7 A sub-rectangular cut measuring 1.5m by 0.5m and was orientated north to south, located at the western

42

Chapter 5: Forrabury compound Iron Age site

Figure 43 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 8 after cleaning (taken from the south). Feature 14 A sub-oval cut, measuring 2.7m by 1.6m. The long axis was orientated north-east to south-west. It was filled with a grey-brown clay loam, with a few slate slabs protruding from the surface. No interpretation of this feature is possible.

Feature 11 A sub-rectangular cut with rounded ends. This measured 1m by 0.3m. The long axis was orientated northeast to southwest. This area was filled with a greybrown clay loam, and was centrally located within the area of the site. The interpretation of this feature is uncertain, although it is possible that it could be a small grave cut for a young person (Figure 44).

Feature 15 An elongated oval cut (Figures 39 and 47). It measured 3.5m by 1.2m, with the long axis orientated north-east to south-west. It was filled with a grey-brown clay loam, with numerous slate slabs covering the surface. A flat laid slate slab at the south-western end had on its exposed surface a small cup-mark of circa 0.06m diameter that was 5mm deep (Figures 39, 47 and 112). A small amount of burnt, possibly cremated bone was obtained during the exposure of the feature, but it could not be identified as human (Higgins below) A radiocarbon determination on the bone 2425 ± 23 BP, 736 - 404 cal BC (SUERC-42055) dated to the earlier part of the Iron Age. In common with Features 2 and 13, which were of comparable size, it is possible that this feature was a stone capped grave.

Feature 12 A small sub-rectangular cut. It measured 0.5m by 0.4m and orientated north to south. It had been constructed out of vertical slates set on edge. A displaced stone may have been a capstone (Figures 38 and 45). The visible fill was recorded as a grey-brown clay loam. It is possible that, in common with Features 1 3, 4 and 6 that this feature was a cist grave, possibly associated with the burial of children. However, it is also possible that it was a stone-lined pit. Feature 13 A sub-rectangular cut with rounded ends (Figures 39 and 46). It measured 2.8m by 1m. The long axis was orientated north-west to south-east, and was filled with a grey-brown clay loam. The top of the cut was covered in slate slabs laid irregularly over the surface. It is possible that in common with Features 2 and 17, this feature was a stone capped grave.

Feature 16 A small trapezoidal shaped cut, which was excavated (Figure 38). It measured 0.6m by 0.45m by circa 0.3m deep, and was orientated north to south. Its 43

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 44 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 11 after cleaning (taken from the south west).

44

Chapter 5: Forrabury compound Iron Age site

Figure 45 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 12 after cleaning (taken from the south).

Figure 46 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 13 after cleaning, with stone capping in-situ (taken from the south). 45

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 47 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 15 after cleaning, with stone capping in-situ (note in situ cup-marked stone towards left had side of picture) (taken from the south).

base had a single step, with the northern third having only an approximate 0.1m depth. The cut was lined with vertically set slate slabs. On excavation it was shown to contain an upper and a lower fill. The upper fill consisted of dark greyish brown, friable silty clay with abundant shillet fragments from the surrounding loose or disturbed bedrock. It was recorded as 0.1m deep, with the upright slate slabs projecting a further 0.08m above. The lower fill was very similar to the upper fill, but without the shillet. It additionally contained a moderate amount of charcoal, plus three or four pieces of ‘heavy’ (possibly metal-rich) stone and a large oval pebble. The deposition of the pebble has similarities with the find from Feature 4. The lower fill contained ulex charcoal suitable for radiocarbon and it produced a determination of 2449 ± 25 BP, 752 - 410 cal BC (SUERC-2449 ± 25), which falls in the earlier Iron Age and is broadly similar to the date from Feature 15. It is possible that, in common with Features 1 3, 4, 6 and possibly 12, this feature was a cist grave, perhaps associated with the burial of children.

stone. It is possibly a stone capped grave. A number of beach pebbles and a piece of vein quartz were recovered from this feature (Quinnell below). Feature 18 A sub-oval cut, located just to the north of Feature 19, in the north-western corner of the site. This measured 0.8m by 0.4m, with the long axis orientated north-east to south-west. The cut was filled with greybrown clay loam, and the edges of the feature were defined by neatly laid, small flat slabs (Figure 49). Although it is not possible to be certain as to its function, it may be a stone-lined grave of a child. Feature 19 A sub-rectangular cut located in the north west area of the site. This measured 1.8m by 0.5m, with the long axis orientated east to west. The area was filled with a grey-brown clay loam. No interpretation of this feature is possible. Feature 20 A sub-oval cut, located in the north-western part of the site, near to pit 21. It measured 0.5m by 0.4m. The long axis was orientated north-west to south-east and the area was filled with a grey-brown clay loam. No interpretation of this feature is possible.

Feature 17 A large sub-oval area / cut, measuring 2.6m by 2m within a larger disturbed area, which was orientated north to south. This feature was located to the immediate south of Feature 16. Several large slate slabs lay flat on the surface. The central one had an irregular peck marked dimple, possibly a cup-mark on its surface (Figures 48 and 113). Its visible fill was grey-brown clay loam. A radiocarbon determination dating to the Romano-British period 1838 ± 26 BP, cal AD 88 - 241 (SUERC-42060) was obtained on residue from a sherd of pottery P2 (Quinnell below) which came from the top of feature. However, this find was not securely stratified. The function of this feature is uncertain, although it is similar to Features 2, 15 and 13 and contained a cup-marked

Feature or pit 21 A large sub-oval cut measuring 3.2m by 2.1m. The long axis was orientated north to south and was filled with a grey-brown clay loam. No interpretation of this feature is possible. Pit 22 A sub-circular cut, located close to pit 23 on the western edge of the site. It had a diameter of 0.8m and was filled with a grey-brown charcoal-rich clay loam. There was evidence of scorching and burnt clay, perhaps suggesting that this was a hearth-pit. 46

Chapter 5: Forrabury compound Iron Age site

Figure 48 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 17 after cleaning, with stone capping in-situ, with Feature 16 in the background (small ‘cist’ visible in top right hand side of picture) (taken from the east).

Figure 49 Feature 18 after cleaning, with stone edging in situ.

47

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Pit 23 A sub-oval cut measuring 0.8m by 0.6m, with the long axis orientated east to west. It was filled with a greybrown charcoal rich clay loam. As with pit 22, there was evidence for scorching and burnt clay and it may have been a hearth-pit.

Features 2, 13 and 17 and may be a more disturbed stone capped feature. Feature 26 A small sub-rectangular pit. It was positioned in the southern central part of the site (Figures 38 and 51). The cut measured 0.6m by 0.5m and appears to have been lined with vertical slates set on edge. However, it was very disturbed and the stones looked displaced. The visible fill consisted of grey-brown clay loam. It is possible that, in common with Features 1 3, 4, 6, 16, and possibly 12, this feature was cist grave, perhaps associated with the burial of children. However, in this case the structure was so disturbed that it may have been stone-lined pit.

Postholes / Pits 24 comprised small grouping of three probable postholes or postholes in the western side of the site. Each posthole had a diameter of approximately 0.25m, and was filled with grey-brown clay with some visible charcoal. They are located on the western edge of the site. There relationship to the other features on the site is uncertain. Feature 25 A sub-rectangular cut, located to the south of postholes 24 on the western edge of the site (Figure 50). This measured 2.4m by 0.7m and was orientated east to west. Several large slate slabs lay on the surface and it was filled with grey-brown clay loam. The function of this feature is uncertain, although it has some similarities with

Feature 27 A sub-oval cut measuring 2.8m by 1.1m, located in the northern central part of the site (Figure 52). The long axis was orientated north-east to south-west. It was filled with grey-brown clay loam with a slate slabs protruding from the surface. As is the case with Feature

Figure 50 Feature 25 after cleaning, with remaining stone capping in situ (taken from the east). 48

Chapter 5: Forrabury compound Iron Age site

Figure 51 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 26 after cleaning (taken from the south).

Figure 52 Photograph of Forrabury Feature 27 after cleaning with remnant in situ stones visible on surface (taken from the south). 49

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Pit 29 A sub-circular cut, with a diameter of 1.2m. It was filled with a grey-brown clay loam and had a white vein quartz stone protruding from the surface of its fill. No interpretation of this feature is possible.

25, it is possible that Feature 27 was a heavily truncated stone capped feature. Pit 28 A sub-oval cut, located on the western side of site. It measured 1m by 0.6m, with the long axis orientated northeast to south-west. The upper fill was grey-brown clay loam. Both pits 28 and 29 are very closely positioned. No interpretation of this feature is possible.

Ditch 30 ran across the middle of the site in a roughly south-south-west to east-north-easterly direction. The ditch was 1m wide, and its visible surface fill was recorded as grey-brown clay loam. There were traces of a stone bank running along its northern side. No dating evidence was obtained for this ditch.

50

Chapter 6: The pottery from the North Cornwall pipeline Henrietta Quinnell with petrographic comment by Roger Taylor Abrasion

fragment,1.5mm; dark green chloritic slate fragment,1 mm: Composite – feldspar/biotite, 2mm: Biotite – rare dark brown cleavage flakes, 0.1mm: Amphibole – two grey elongated fibrous cleaved grains seen, 2mm: Matrix – finely micaceous clay. Comment. An unusual fabric. Probably estuarine clay from source with input from granitic and sedimentary rock and other country rock sources. There does appear to be some possibility that this is a local clay/gabbroic clay admixture as the feldspar seems to occur as two distinct variants and there are rare grains of amphibole. However, the very diagnostic mineral magnetite could not be found.

Recording of abrasion on sherds is based on the system devised by Sorenson (1996) for Bronze Age midden material at Runnymede with some modifications. 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.

Comment This vessel is shouldered jar, a smaller version of Trevelgue P7 (Quinnell 2011a, fig 7.3) which has a radiocarbon date on residue for the eighth century cal BC. Shouldered jars of this type are very much a feature of the end of the Late Bronze Age and of the Earliest Iron Age in southern Britain but there are few closely dated examples from Cornwall (Quinnell 2011b).

High abrasion 3; core colour patinated, rounding of corners and of sherd outline, surfaces somewhat eroded. Forrabury Compound Iron Age site Context Totals

Description

Gabbroic admixture Fill of cut for Feature 1 1/328 P1 Cleaning Feature 17 Unstratified 1/5 P3 2/333

Gabbroic

P2 (not illus) From cleaning of Feature 17. Seven conjoining sherds from wall and base angle of vessel. Patchy oxidisation 5YR 5/4 reddish brown to reduced 5YR 3/3 very dark grey. Harder fired than P1, exterior smoothed. Moderately abraded.

7/151 P2 7/151

Table 2: Pottery from Forrabury: total nine sherds weighing 484 grams.

Fabric Feldspar – soft white altered sub-angular to subrounded grains and some angular grains showing cleavage, 0.1-1mm, rarely 2.2mm: Quartz – sparse transparent to translucent colourless, occasionally opaque, angular to rounded grains, 0.2-0.8mm, rarely 2 mm: Magnetite – sparse black glossy sub-angular magnetic grains, 0.11mm: Amphibole – rare greenish grey sub-angular grains, 0.5-2.2mm: Matrix – finely sandy silty clay. Comment. A gabbroic fabric, possibly of loessic type.

P1 (Figure 53) From fill of cut for Feature 1. Small shouldered vessel, upright rim with internal bevel, buried upright: hole in centre of base, only circa 1/3 of the rim and shoulder survives but missing part is probably due to damage caused from vessel projecting up into base of agricultural soil. Internal rim diameter circa 122mm. Cracked into circa 40 joining sherds. Generally oxidized 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow but with parts of core and interior slightly reduced 5YR 6/2 pinkish grey. Finger modelling marks are visible on the interior. Exterior burnish but much of the burnished surface has now worn away probably through bioturbation, which has caused sherd edges to appear abraded.

Comment Probably from the lower part of a Roman period cooking pot broadly of Trethurgy Type 4 (Quinnell 2007, 113-6) and of a standard gabbroic fabric. Type 4 cooking pots were current from the second until the sixth century AD. SUERC-42060 1838 ± 26 BP from residue on P2 calibrates to 88 – 241 AD (95.4%). The sherds of P2 were not securely stratified and therefore cannot provide a secure date for Feature 17.

Fabric Quartz – translucent colourless sub-angular grains,0.1- 1.2mm, rare transparent colourless wellrounded polished grains, 0.2 and 0.6mm: Feldspar – white soft altered sub-angular to sub-rounded grains, 0.1-1.3mm, white and light grey angular cleaved grains, 1.5 -2mm: Rock fragments – sandstone, quartzitic, fine-grained light grey and buff weathered fragment, 2.2 and 3.5mm; aplite, altered off-white fine-grained sub-angular quartz/feldspar

P3 (Figure 54) U/S. Rim with flattened top, part of everted jar rim with smoothed surfaces. Reduced exterior 5YR 3/3 very dark grey, oxidized interior 5YR 5/4 reddish brown. Moderately abraded.

51

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 53 Pottery: P1 small shouldered Iron Age vessel from Forrabury Feature 1, Trevisker P9 and P10 from Field 29.

Figure 54 Pottery: P3 unstratified rim sherd from Forrabury, Bronze Age P5 neck sherd from Trevalga Roundhouse, Early Neolithic P8 bowl from Pit [235].

52

Chapter 6: The pottery from the North Cornwall pipeline Fabric Feldspar – soft white altered, angular to subangular grains, 0.05-1.5mm, rarely 3 and 6mm: Rock fragments – micaceous slate, a scatter of light grey silvery tabular fragments with angular to sub-angular margins, 0.2-2mm; buff weathered micaceous sandstone, 1.7mm: Magnetite – a scatter of black glossy sub-angular magnetic grains, 0.2-0.5mm: Amphibole – greenish grey fibrous elongated grains and aggregates, 0.2- 1.5mm: Quartz – rare transparent colourless angular grains, 0.6mm: Vein quartz – sparse white angular grains, 1.1-2mm: Matrix – micaceous clay. Comment. A gabbroic admixture fabric with inclusions probably from the area of the site. Comment P3 comes from the everted rim of a vessel similar to Trevelgue P7 (Quinnell 2011a, fig 7.3) but probably very large, rim over 300mm in diameter. Discussion of the Forrabury ceramics There are two Iron Age radiocarbon determinations from the site. SUERC-42055 2425 ± 23 BP from Feature 15 on burnt bone calibrates to 736 - 404 cal BC (95.4%). SUERC-42054 2449 ± 25 BP from Feature 16 on ulex charcoal calibrates to 752 - 410 cal BC (95.4%). The earlier part of both these dates, before circa 600 cal BC, would be appropriate for P1, from Grave 1 which could not be dated, and for unstratified P3. Shouldered jars in the Earliest Iron Age in Cornwall appear to precede the Plain Jar Group which probably appears in the sixth century BC (Quinnell 2011a, 161) and which was in use for the remainder of the Early Iron Age. P3 and probably P1 are gabbroic admixture fabrics, providing evidence for the movement of gabbroic clay and its manufacture in the broad area of the site. The movement of gabbroic clays, with mixing of local materials, was common in Middle Bronze Age Cornwall (Quinnell 2012). There is some evidence from Higher Besore, Truro (Quinnell forthcoming) and from Scarcewater (Quinnell 2010, 107) that this contined in the Late Bronze Age. If the two radiocarbon dates from Forrabury can be accepted as representing the cemetery as a whole, this then belongs to the Early Iron Age and provides is the first occasion when the movement of gabbroic clays before potting has been demonstrated for this period. The significance of the Roman period P2 with determination SUERC-42060 1838 ± 26 BP, cal AD 88 - 241, obtained on residue, for the continued use of the cemetery is unclear.

Figure 55 Pottery: P4a Beaker sherds from stone-lined pit [113] and P4b Beaker sherds from stone-lined pit [113]. P4b (Figure 54) 12 sherds 53g, some very small, including base. Base has slight projection immediately above it. Colour and finish as P4a but sherds abraded due to bioturbation. Comb stamped chevron pattern around vessel with single horizontal comb stamped line around restriction which is part of neck. Fabric Quartz – translucent to opaque white angular grains, probably crushed vein quartz, 0.8-3mm: Matrix – smooth micaceous clay. Comment. Although generally similar to P4a and probably of local clay, the quartz temper is different in character and density. The texture and firing of the clay body is also different with 4b tending to be more granular and friable. It is likely therefore that 4a and 4b are different vessels. The location of the site close to the margin of Carboniferous shale and sandstones suggests that the clay and quartz could be sourced close to the site.

Field 11 Beaker, Stone-lined pit [113], fill (116) A total of 32 sherds weighing 76 grams. P4a (Figure 55) 20 small sherds 23g, rim flat topped, neat comb stamped decoration in three parallel lines beneath, and then the top of chevrons: a separate body sherd has the comb stamped chevron pattern. Internal rim diameter circa 104mm. Well-finished exterior oxidized 5YR6/4 light reddish brown, remainder reduced 5YR 3/1 very dark grey.

Comment Petrological examination showed minor differences in sherds from the upper and lower parts of the vessel. The lower part, 4b, was more friable than 4a but had fewer quartz inclusions. There were no differences, however, in the mineralogy. It was initially suggested that, as no parts a vessel are duplicated and that the decoration

Fabric Quartz – transparent to translucent angular grains, probably crushed vein quartz, 0.2-1.8mm: Matrix – smooth micaceous clay. 53

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Trevalga roundhouse

across the sherds forms one cohesive pattern, the differences observed are due to slightly different mixing of the clay making up the lower and upper parts of the vessel. However, there are slight difficulties with the diameters of different sherds. Also the decoration on P4a appears to have been impressed by a different square toothed comb from that on P4b. It is therefore more probable that parts of at least two similar vessels are present. As pit [113] was only partly excavated, only a portion of the sherds in the pit have probably been retrieved.

(107) (103) Totals

1/21 1/21

Gabbroic Gabbroic admixture 6/41 4/46 8/92 6/70 4/32

13/94 3/9 P6 Upper fill of roundhouse 1/7 45/391

1/28 P5

1/28

Table 4: Pottery from the Trevalga roundhouse: total sherds 46 weighing 419 grams. P5 (Figure 54) SF26 (107) quadrant 2/3. Hard fine sherd, oxidized throughout with possible application of haematite to redden exterior 5YR 5/6 yellowish red, edges moderately abraded. Internal neck diameter circa 100mm. Neck of jar with markedly restricted neck, external surface very well burnished. Fabric Feldspar – off-white angular to sub-angular grains, 0.1-1mm rarely up to 2mm: Magnetite – a scatter of black glossy sub-angular to sub-rounded, 0.1-0.5mm: Amphibole – greenish grey and grey fibrous and cleaved, generally elongated, sub-angular grains, 0.3, 1mm, rarely 1.5mm: Quartz – rare translucent colourless sub-angular grains, 0.1mm: Matrix – finely micaceous clay with some grains of the main tempering minerals less than 0.5mm. Comment. A generally fine-grained gabbroic fabric. There is no visible indication of hematite on the surface or any evidence of distinct coating. If present, the hematite would have to have been extremely finely ground. The appearance of being coated seems to result from the fine grain of the temper and the excellent finish assisted by the mica content of the clay.

Field 16 stone-lined pit [210] Trevisker

Fill of pit [210] Field 16 U/S

Wall matrix SW of entrance Wall NW of entrance Clay over natural in entrance Layer over natural in entrance Collapsed walling in entrance Lower infill

(126)

Sherds of Beakers are increasingly being recognized as regularly deposited on pits, on sites where there is no other evidence of activity: in this they follow the practice going back into the Early Neolithic of structured deposition, perhaps reflecting the use of locales by communities whose lifestyle involved some mobility (Thomas 1999, 64-74). To the three sites with Beaker pits included in a discussion by Jones and Quinnell, 2006, appendix 1) may now be added sites at Scarcewater near St Austell (Quinnell 2010), Higher Besore near Truro (Quinnell forthcoming a), Calstock (Quinnell forthcoming b) and Trebor in West Penwith (Jones et al 2012).

(212) Totals

(203)

(143)

In shape the vessels appear to belong to the long necked or S (southern) tradition, with a chronology running from around 2200 to 1800 cal BC (Needham 2005, 195-6), with some possibilities of closer definitions of dating presented by Healy (2012, table 10.3). In the local sourcing of its fabric the vessels follow general practice for Beakers in south west Britain (Parker Pearson 1990, 11-12).

Gabbroic admixture

Description

156 (144)

The decoration on both P4a and P4b was similar, large panels with simple chevrons. On P4a these are topped by the horizontal lines just below the rim, on P4b by a horizontal line around the neck. The division of a Beaker into a few large panels is very much a feature of later Beaker types, especially long necked or S (southern) Beakers.

Context Description

Context

Local slate fabric 3/3

P6 (not illus) (107) SF 33 quadrant 1. Simple slightly rounded upright rim, poorly made, reduced throughout 5YR 3/1 very dark grey.

3/3

Other sherds Context (203) contained SF36 conjoining sherds of flat base: (144) contained SF23 lower vessel wall and base angles, some conjoining: (126) SF21 included two base angle sherds: (107) quadrant 1 produced conjoining thick sherds from a base angle. The fabrics generally were fairly soft with well-finished smoothed surfaces: typically exteriors were fired oxidized 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow with reduced interiors 5YR 3/1 very dark grey, but a few pieces were very reduced throughout.

Table 3: Pottery from Field 16. The three fragments from (212) are soft, crumbly, with inclusions of local slate: they may well be baked clay rather than pottery and are not dateable. SUERC-42050 3170 ± 26 BP on ulex charcoal calibrating from 1498 to 1409 cal BC comes from pit [210]. The unstratified gabbroic admixture sherd comes from the neck of a Trevisker vessel with a marked internal bevel to its rim and is probably Middle Bronze Age.

Fabric SF36 (203) Rock fragments – dark greenish fibrous hornblende aggregates and green and white hornblende/feldspar ‘greenstone’ aggregates, unaltered 54

Chapter 6: The pottery from the North Cornwall pipeline angular to sub-angular fragments, 0.5-5mm; hard grey fine-grained sub-angular fragment, possibly hornfels, 6mm: Feldspar – off-white soft angular to sub-angular grains. 0.05-3mm: Magnetite – a scatter of black glossy sub-angular magnetic grains, 0.2-1.2mm: Quartz – sparse transparent to translucent colourless sub-angular grains, 0.2-0.8mm: Amphibole of gabbroic origin – rare grey fibrous and cleaved angular grains, 0.2-1.5mm: Muscovite – a cleavage flake, 0.4mm: Matrix ­– smooth clay with some grains of the main tempering minerals less than 0.0 mm. Comment. A gabbroic admixture fabric with abundant added metabasic rock fragments, probably of local origin.

indicate some differences in the Roundhouse activities from those is use in other sites so far excavated. Field 22 Early Neolithic pit [287] P7 (Not illus) Pit [287] contained 6 sherds 61g of granitic derived fabric with crushed quartz: these are thick, circa 10mm thick, and reduced to 5YR 7/2 pinkish grey, moderately abraded and very crumbly, but with smoothed surfaces, these probably come from the base of a single Early Neolithic bowl. Fabric Quartz –transparent to translucent angular grains, 0.5-6mm, some abraded grains also present: Mica – biotite, dark brown cleavage flakes, 0.05-0.3mm, rarely 1 mm: Feldspar – white altered angular to sub-angular grains, 0.5-2mm, rarely 3mm: Rock fragments – sandstone, buff sub-angular quartzose fragment, 2mm; fine granite quartz/ feldspar, 1mm: Matrix – sandy micaceous clay with flakes of biotite and some feldspar less than 0.05mm. Comment. A granite derived clay fabric with added coarse crushed quartz predominant, also possibly derived from a granitic source. Other mineral components are likely to be indigenous to the clay. Not local to the site.

Fabric SF26 (144) Feldspar – off-white soft altered angular to sub-angular grains.0.05-3.5mm: Rock fragments – dark green fibrous hornblende as elongated angular to sub-angular fragments and some hornblende/feldspar fragments, 1-4mm; micaceous slate, brownish foliated subangular fragment, 4mm: Amphibole of gabbroic origin – a scatter of off white to grey translucent fibrous and cleaved angular grains, 0.2-1.5mm: Magnetite – a scatter of black glossy sub-angular to sub-rounded magnetic grains, 0.11.5mm: Quartz – rare transparent to translucent colourless sub-angular and a brown stained rounded and broken grain, 0.2-0.8mm: Matrix – a silty clay with fragments of the main tempering minerals less than 0.05mm. Comment. A gabbroic admixture fabric with similarities to (203) SF36 above, with some material probably of local origin.

Comment. The field just east of Bossiney is some 250m east of pit [235] (below) and may be regarded as a separate site. Although the fabric is described as ‘not local to the site’ the granite components could come from as close as five kilometres to the east, deriving from the north west of Bodmin Moor.

Discussion of the Trevalga ceramics

Field 27 Early Neolithic pit [235]

There are four radiocarbon determinations from the structure which centre on the fourteenth century cal BC: SUERC-42058 3105 ± 26 BP on cereal grains from pit [157], 1434 - 1312 cal BC, SUERC-42059 3057 ± 23 BP on ulex charcoal from pit [157], 1399 - 1265 cal BC; SUERC-42064 3092 ± 31 BP on residue from sherd from (126), 1432 - 1273 cal BC; SUERC-42065 3092 ± 26 BP on residue from sherd from wall 156, 1438 - 1302 cal BC. These firmly place the roundhouse within the currency of Trevisker ceramics – no other ceramic style is known from Cornwall at this date. P5 is a vessel with no close parallels, either for its smooth highly burnished exterior or its shape with a restricted neck. It may be an exaggerated version of necked Trevisker vessels such as P19 from Trethellan Farm, Newquay (Woodward and Cane 1991, fig 43). It retains no decoration and may have been plain throughout as in the Trevisker style decoration usually starts on the neck angle or even higher, below the base of the rim. The only rim present is the simple upright P6. There is nothing amongst the sherds not assigned to a specific vessel to provide any indication of vessel form. The sherds are scattered through several surface or infill levels with none from any posthole or cut feature and no evidence for structured deposition, unlike the stonework (see below) and rather different to the patterning of ceramics from most Middle Bronze Age circular buildings in Cornwall. Thus the limited but plain ceramics suggest some differences from the assemblages from contemporary Middle Bronze Age houses and could

Context Description Hornfels Gabbroic Total (235) Fill of pit [235] 8/27 3/57 P8 11/84

Table 5: Early Neolithic sherds from pit [235]. P8 (Figure 54) pit [235] Two conjoining sherds from rim of open bowl, thin-walled, hard fired, generally oxidized 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow but exterior reduced, in places possibly with traces of black coating, well-finished. Internal rim diameter circa 230mm.A further sherd comes from slightly further down the vessel. Fabric Feldspar – soft white altered angular to subangular grains, 0.05-1.5mm: Quartz – a scatter of colourless transparent angular to sub-rounded grains, 0.21.5mm, abraded grains 2 and 4mm: Magnetite – sparse black glossy sub-angular to sub-rounded grains, 0.10.6mm: Matrix – a smooth clay with feldspar grains less than 0.05mm. Comment. A thin and well-finished ware, with a fine-grained gabbroic fabric, characteristic of some Cornish Neolithic wares. Hornfels fabric. [235] all the abraded sherds probably come from the same round base and are generally reduced 5YR 5/1 grey. Quartz – transparent to translucent colourless angular to sub-angular grains 0.2-2mm: Mica – Muscovite,

55

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast abundant flakes, 0.05-0.1mm: Rock fragments – highly micaceous slatey hornfels, sub-angular to sub-rounded fragments, 0.2-1.5 mm: Matrix – highly micaceous clay with muscovite flakes less than 0.05mm grading up into micaceous slatey hornfels fragments. Comment. A fabric resulting from the weathering of micaceous hornfels in the proximity of granite. Not local to the site.

0.3mm: Matrix – silty very finely micaceous clay with fragments of the main tempering minerals less than 0.05mm. Comment. Apparently a gabbroic admixture fabric. This fabric appears to be essentially a standard gabbroic fabric but the relatively unaltered state of much of the feldspar and similarity to the feldspar in the composite metabasic fragments suggests that this may be an added component. The single fragment of fine granite and other rock fragments appear to support the admixture view. Not local to the site, a possible source area is uncertain but it is likely to be at some distance (A possibility of Mounts Bay indicating coastal transport).

Comment. Pit [235] has SUERC-42047 4690 ± 23 BP calibrating to 3625 - 3602 cal BC (6.9%), 3525 3490 BC (22.0%) and 3471 - 3372 (66.5%) on corylus charcoal, suggesting a date towards the end of the Early Neolithic. P8 comes from a bowl of distinctively Western / Hembury Early Neolithic type, which can be found with the trumpet lugs distinctive of this region in Britain, especially at Carn Brea (Smith 1981, P1-3). Its fabric is the equivalent of the Carn Brea fine gabbroic, and black coating was found on a number of vessels at that site. The radiocarbon determination provides the latest date so far for a bowl of this kind. Unfortunately nothing can be said about the hornfels fabric vessel beyond the fact that it is round bottomed; its fabric may have come from around five kilometres from the site. The occurance of gabbroic and fairly local fabrics together in Early Neolithic pits in Cornwall is not unusual, for example at Tregarrick Farm, Roche (Quinnell 2002-3).

P10 (Figure 53) Three sherds of gabbroic admixture heavily reduced 5YR 3/1 dark grey. Two of these sherds conjoin and form a base angle, the third comes from the vessel wall and has part of a band of incised lines, a horizontal border with diagonal strokes above, rather less heavy than is common on Trevisker sherds; this probably was part of a band of herring bone. The unstratified sherds from the field contain a simple out-turned rim which could be from this vessel. These sherds all appear to be a gabbroic admixture broadly similar to that of SF36 from the Trevalga roundhouse and containing inclusions of North Cornish origin. Discussion of the Field 29 ceramics

Field 29 Bronze Age wall complex Context 270 (274) -

Description Abutting wall Soil on north of wall U/S in field

The lug of P9 was of the perforated ribbon type, found on Trevisker vessels of Parker Pearson’s (1995) Style 1. These are large vessels, appropriate for use for storage, and always found as here with impressed cord decoration. These vessels are found frequently in Early Bronze Age burial-related contexts and then continue to be used in broadly domestic contexts through the earlier part of the Middle Bronze Age (Woodward and Cane 1991, 123). It thus belongs to a long period circa 2000 - 1300 cal BC. The suggestion that it may have been made of gabbroic clay moved to the Mount’s Bay area and mixed with inclusions, and then transported around to the North Cornish coast makes P9 so far unique in its pattern of manufacture and movement. The sherds of P10 and the unstratified rim appear to have been made of gabbroic clay somewhere in the North Cornish area. The simple incised pattern of P10, with a bordered band of diagonal lines probably from a herringbone design, occurs frequently on domestic sites of Middle Bronze Age date (for example, Trethellan Farm P36, Woodward and Cane 1991, fig 46). This type of pattern has not so far been found in a burialrelated Early Bronze Age context. A period which would cover all the ceramics from Field 29 is thus restricted to circa 1600 – 1300 cal BC.

Gabbroic admixture 4/131 P9 3/31 P10 3/22

Table 6: Pottery from Field 29. P9 (Figure 53) Three conjoining sherds form part of perforated lug formed by addition of a broad curved strip of clay: much of the surface is abraded but traces of impressed cord in parallel lines survive on the outside of the lug and on the body above. Generally moderately abraded. Another sherd almost certainly from the same vessel. Patchy firing ranging from distinctly oxidized 5YR 6/8 yellowish red to 5YR 3/1 dark grey. Fabric Feldspar – grey translucent unaltered angular grains, many showing cleavage surfaces, 0.05-5mm, white to off-white soft altered angular to sub-angular grains, 0.05-1.8mm: Composite – feldspar/dark green fibrous amphibole, feldspar with pale grey cleaved grains similar to some of the individual grains, angular fragments 2-6mm internal grain size 0.5-1.5mm: Rock fragments – granitic fragment, quartz/feldspar a pale equi-granular subangular fragment, 3mm; quartzitic sandstone, sub-angular fragment, 0.5mm; ?silty hornfels, light grey sub-angular fragment, 4mm: Amphibole – dark green elongated fibrous grains and angular aggregates, 0.2-4mm, sparse pale grey/ off-white fibrous elongated grains, 0.8mm: Magnetite – sparse black glossy sub-angular to sub-rounded grains, 0.2-1mm: Quartz – rare opaque sub-angular grains,

Field 36 Grooved Ware Unstratified, three sherds, not now joining, from a smashed sherd, weighing nine grams. The fabric is soft and crumby, oxidized 10R 5/6 red on exterior, reduced 10R 3/1 dark reddish grey on interior. Traces indicate the present of a flat irregular strip or cordon added to the surface, the 56

Chapter 6: The pottery from the North Cornwall pipeline Field 39

nature of which suggests these sherds are Grooved Ware (see for example, Tremough PP1 and PP7 Quinnell 2007).

Unstratified, one sherd 16g of early medieval Mediterranean imported ware with the distinctive close combing of Bi (Peacock and Williams 1986, 182, Class 43). It is broadly fifth to early seventh centuries AD. The relevance of this sherd to the cist grave [350] found in Field 39 is uncertain.

Fabric A micaceous slightly silty clay with no apparent hard mineralogy, source uncertain but probably not local. Comment This sherd is the first piece of Late Neolithic Grooved Ware located in Cornwall to the North of Bodmin Moor and adds another location for activity of this period to those discussed below from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline.

57

Chapter 7: Stonework from the North Cornwall pipeline Henrietta Quinnell with petrographic comment by Roger Taylor Forrabury compound Iron Age site Context

Stone artefact

Feature 16

Cobble 115 x 110 x 40mm, slight use as rubbing stone, slight roughening around edges. Beach cobble fine-grained quartzitic sandstone. Probably Devonian.

Feature 17

White vein quartz pebble 34 x 20 x 12mm.

Feature 17

Pebble 63 x 52 x 10mm. Beach pebble, pale buff, quartzitic fine-grained hard sandstone which has acquired a degree of natural polish. Probably Devonian.

Feature 17

Pebble 36 x 25 x 10mm. Grey micaceous slate. Probably Devonian beach pebble.

Feature 17

Pebble 28 x17 x 10 Grey micaceous slate. Probably Devonian beach pebble. Table 7: Stonework from Forrabury compound.

The stonework is all sourced from local beaches within a few kilometres of the site. The only piece with definite traces of use is that from Feature 16 which had been used as a rubbing stone. The pebbles from Feature 17 were all unused. The white vein quartz pebble is similar to those found in burial and related contexts through the Bronze Age (Miles 1975) and suggests that their deposition still occurred in the Early Iron Age.

associated with a small collection of lithics (see below); SUERC-42048 4755 + 26 BP on Corylus charcoal from this pit calibrated to dates between 3637 and 3384 BC. Pit [195] was probably of Roman date because of the hobnail it contained (Quinnell 2004, 78). Notched slates are of frequent occurrence on later prehistoric and Roman period sites in Cornwall (see discussion in Jones and Taylor forthcoming).

Field 9

Trevalga roundhouse

A white vein quartz pebble 45 x 29 x 25mm came from pit [101] in a context which implied structured deposition (see lithics section below). SUERC-42056 3555 + 26 BP on cremated bone from this pit calibrated to a series of dates between 2010 and 1776 cal BC (95.4%).

Illustrated stonework S1 (Figure 56) (203) wall matrix in Trevalga roundhouse. SF35. Hammerstone / pestle using cobble 80 x 67 x 40mm, facet with heavy use-wear around one side, removal on other side due to hammerstone use. Beach cobble, Devonian quartzitic sandstone.

Field 21 Field 21 [185] [195] [195]

Pit, Neolithic Pit, with hobnail ? Roman

S2 (Figure 56) (122) fill posthole [122] Trevalga roundhouse. SF12. Pebble, 52 x 46 x 14mm, flat surfaces either naturally shiny or worn, facets with pestle use around edge. Also pecking on centre of one face, as if used as small mortar. Pestle used on hard material. Medium grained Devonian sandstone.

Three fragments of slate, one weathered. Probably local Devonian. Pebble 46 x 17 x 19mm. Somewhat silicified slate Devonian beach pebble. Probably unused. Discoidal light grey slate pebble 44 x 40 x 5mm with notch 5mm across on one side. Local Devonian.

S3 (Figure 57) (158) fill posthole [157] Trevalga roundhouse. SF32. About half of saddle quern, 210+ x 190 x 47mm, granite – possible flat slab. Probably made from deliberately split boulder, sides trimmed, traces of diagonal dressing marks survive on grinding face. This saddle quern is unusually thin. It probably has been deliberately broken. Coarse grained biotite granite, probably from Bodmin

Table 8: Stonework from Field 21. The fragments of slate, probably from a weathered surface outcrop, from pit [185] were probably unused but were 58

Chapter 7: Stonework from the North Cornwall pipeline

Context (203) 156

Description Wall matrix SW of entrance Wall matrix NW of entrance

(167)

In [168] beam slot

(122) (158) (158) (153)

Fill posthole [121] Fill posthole [157] Fill posthole [157] Fill posthole [154]

(126) (126) (126)

Collapsed walling in entrance Collapsed walling in entrance Collapsed walling in entrance

(126)

Collapsed walling in entrance

(143)

Over natural in entrance

(107) (107) (107) (107)

Lower fill Lower fill Lower fill Lower fill

(107)

Lower fill

(107)

Lower fill

(103)

Upper fill

(101)

Top fill

Stone artefact S1 hammerstone / pestle. SF38 corner of cobble 100+ x 60+ x 65mm+ with heavy pestle wear forming a facet, two flat surfaces used for rubbing. Beach cobble, recent fractures, tuffaceous sandstone from Tintagel volcanics. SF34 large cobble 190 x 150 x 60mm, very decayed, but flat surfaces possibly used for rubbing or grinding. Large cobble of cleaved volcanic agglomerate, Tintagel volcanics, possibly from stream. S2 pestle. S3 part of saddle quern. S4 slate weight. Corner of saddle quern similarly thin as S3, 100+ x100+ x 36mm. Coarse biotite granite, different texture to S3, probably surface fragment from Bodmin granite. S5 part of pestle / hammerstone. S6 slate ‘pot lid’. SF22 slate 118 x 70 x 10mm, roughly trimmed to rectangular shape, definite notch 20mm across and 10mm deep in one side. Greenish tufffaceous slate, source from surface Tintagel volcanics. SF19 corner of quern as S3, 90+ x 80+ x 37mm, very decayed and not part of S3. Coarse grained biotite/muscovite mica granite, weathered, sourced from surface. SF29 cobble 155 x 68 x 31mm with extensive areas of pestle, hammerstone use and small areas of pitting. Heavy use of one edge as whetstone. Buff weathered and reddened silty sandstone, Devonian. Elongated beach cobble originating as piece with irregular joint faces. S7 racloir mould (knife / razor). S8 cobble weight. S9 bevelled pebble. S10 cup-marked stone. Three cup-marks on the upper side of a green stone, the central one of which has become perforated since lifting SF7 flat slate 135+ x 110+ x 13mm, with notch 50mm across, cut from one side only and quite worn. Local Devonian slate, relatively unweathered, probably extracted fairly soon before use. SF17 cobble 78 x 51 x 15mm with shallow notches in one edge and end, possibly a line winder. Tintagel volcanics foliated lava, surface or stream fragment. SF3 triangular cobble 105 x 100 x 32mm, two corners with facets of pestle use, some use-wear on points of triangle, one also damaged by detachment from heavy impact use. Medium grained Devonian sandstone with fine quartz veins. Pebble, 56 x50 x 10mm, one side split off possibly frost fracture, other probable use as small rubbing stone. Beach pebble probably of slightly vesicular volcanic lava, sourced probably around Tintagel.

Table 9: Stonework from the Trevalga roundhouse.

59

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 56 Stonework: Trevalga Roundhouse S1 hammerstone / pestle, S2 pestle, S4 weight and S5 hammer / pestle.

Figure 57 Stonework: Trevalga Roundhouse S3 saddle quern.

60

Chapter 7: Stonework from the North Cornwall pipeline S7 (Figure 59) (107) lower infill quadrant 2 Trevalga roundhouse. SF27. Racloir mould (knife / razor). See separate description and discussion below.

Moor and probably from a stream boulder. Note all three quern fragments, the others from (153) and SF19 from (126) are of slightly different rocks and therefore not from the same artefact.

S8 (Figure 58) (107) lower infill quadrant 3 Trevalga roundhouse. SF15. Weight using cobble 154 x 110 x 27mm, edges slightly trimmed. Perforation probably worked straight through after slight depressions pecked on both surfaces. Parts of perforation sides heavily worn. Tuffaceous slate, Tintagel volcanics.

S4 (Figure 56) (158) fill posthole [157] Trevalga roundhouse. SF31. Weight made from slate slab 20mm thick, 138 x 121mm. The two opposing edges probably deliberately split. The oval hole is worked from both sides and shows considerable wear. Tuffaceous slate, Tintagel volcanics, inland source.

S9 (Figure 60) (107) lower infill quadrant 1 Trevalga roundhouse. SF9. ‘Bevelled pebble’, broken, using cobble 145+ x 45 x 14mm. Surviving end has two opposed worn / worked facets. Pestle facet removed part of bevel, area of pecking on one flat face, indicating use as mortar. One obvious worn facet along one edge, probably from rubbing stone use, other patches of possible similar use. Bladed cobble of finely micaceous Devonian silty sandstone, buff, weathered.

S5 (Figure 56) (126) collapsed walling in entrance Trevalga roundhouse. SF18. Unusual hammer / pestle, broken, made from elongated cobble, 75+ x 38 x 20mm. End heavily worn from pestle use, as are parts of sides, other areas show occasional hammer impact marks. Flat surface has long polished probably from whetstone use. Weathered fine-grained silty Devonian sandstone. S6 (Figure 58) (126) collapsed walling in entrance Trevalga roundhouse. SF20. Slate 7mm thick, two opposed sides broken straight, other sides roughly trimmed. Usual interpretation is as a ‘pot lid’. Spotted slate, local Devonian slate with thermal spotting suggests source in towards Bodmin granite. Slight weathered surface exposure. Not coastal.

S10 (Figure 61) (107) rubble and fill in entrance Trevalga Roundhouse, SF28. Rock slab with three cup-marks. The rock is 5YR 6/5 gray but appears much more green in a good light. Maximum dimensions 450 x 255 x 40mm. Cup marks: (a) 43mm across, 17mm deep, flat base, very fresh: (b) 48mm across, 24mm deep, flat base, very fresh: (c) 50mm across, 11mm deep, rounded profile, possibly

Figure 58 Stonework: Trevalga Roundhouse S6 ‘pot lid’ and S8 weight.

61

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 59 Stonework: Trevalga Roundhouse S7 Racloir mould. slightly worn. The fresh condition of (a) and (b) shows clearly that the cup marks were worked with a point or narrow chisel which has left marks down the edges and across the bases: traces of similar working can be seen on (c) but appear to have been obscured by some other action, possibly from pressure with a round stone turned within the depression. Since excavation a flat thin rock fragment has split off the base of the slab, making it appear as though (b) was perforated. The back of the slab is very fresh, with a number of small steps, indicating that the slab may have been levered away from a larger piece. In contrast, the front of the slab is slightly weathered and smooth. A number of notches and shallow jagged indentations suggest that the edges of the slab were roughly trimmed. Roger Taylor has identified the rock as chlorite schist, metamorphically developed from tuffaceous volcanics and probably from the Tintagel area. The green colour is due to the chlorite in the rock. The apparently elongated shallow grooves on the flat surface are due to the foliated structure of this rock which has become slightly weathered. A number of indentations around the edge of the piece may be due to trimming and possibly from the action of levering the slab from its parent surface. Discussion Figure 60 Stonework: Trevalga Roundhouse S9 bevelled pebble and early medieval cist grave [350] S11 spindle whorl.

The sources for the stone used were very local. Six items made use of cobbles from nearby beaches, four from

62

Chapter 7: Stonework from the North Cornwall pipeline

Figure 61 Stonework: Trevalga Roundhouse Photograph of cup-marked stone S10 (note central ‘perforation’ is the result of decay).

rivers or streams. There were three fragments of Tintagel volcanics all selected from the surface and probably within five kilometres of the site, and three of surface Devonian slate from within a similar distance. The three saddle quern fragments were of surface granite from Bodmin Moor, obtainable within seven to eight kilometres. The racloir mould S7 was of elvan of which dykes occur around the edge of Bodmin Moor. This local sourcing appears to be usual in Middle Bronze Age sites, see for example Scarcewater, near St Austell (Quinnell 2010, 113).

possibly in view of the present of the mould S7, connected with working of rock such as pounding up metal ores. Callestick to the south of Perranporth was a round structure of broadly similar date to Trevalga, probably not a regular domestic house, and here too there were components of the stonework assemblage best interpreted as connected with hard rock pounding and possible metalworking (Quinnell and Taylor 1998-9). Pestles generally are not a common type on Middle Bronze sites: none occurred at the settlement at Trethellan Farm, Newquay (Nowakowski 1991).

The most common artefacts, some seven examples, were pestles, a term used to describe both hammering and grinding, and this action seems to have been performed on hard rock surfaces. Some of these also were used as hammerstones, indicating the presence of areas of distinct impact was not obscured by any grinding. There are no equivalent pieces on which the effects of pestle or hammer action can be definitely detected. However, two of the pestles, S2 and S5, have patches described as ‘mortars’ where pecking has occurred as has also the bevelled pebble re-used as pestle S9. Dr Taylor considers that most of this wear came from working rock, as opposed for example to grinding foodstuffs on a hard rock surface. Here there may be a link to the grinding action noted on the racloir mould S7, where at least one face has been reworked (see below). Overall these pestle / hammerstones may suggest use which took place outside the structure and, just

Other functions of stonework were rubbing stones (two, with some minor use on other items), notched slates (two) possibly used to wind string or gut, a slate ‘lid’, and a weight. There are also three fragments of saddle querns, which are flatter than the usual Bronze Age querns and which appear to have been deliberately broken: the frequent breakage and formal deposition of quern fragments are now recorded right through the prehistoric period in south west Britain (Watts 2013). All these items occur on settlement sites of the Middle Bronze Age, again notably at the largest yet explored, at Trethellan Farm, Newquay (Nowakowski 1991). The two unusual items are the racloir mould S7 and the bevelled pebble S9. S7 is discussed in detail below but seems unlikely to have been at the end of its useful life.

63

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast There is a strong case for its deliberate deposition beneath the infilling of the structure. It should be noted that S7 is only one valve of the mould. If S7 was deliberately deposited, then the other valve might have been placed in a significant location on another site.

matrix was used, the object cast would have been oval in section. Side (c) has a matrix which appears unused and probably unfinished: it is uncertain what the final form of the cast artefact would have been. Sides (e) and (f) are slightly convex rather than flat. There is blackening along the side of (d) adjacent to (c). This blackening, together with the lack of casting gate on side (b), suggests that the block may have had a long history as a mould with earlier matrices being ground down for later use. All blackening has penetrated into the rock of the mould for several millimetres, due to the cavities in this material. Provision for a casting gate indicates that this block was used as part of a two-piece mould when casting racloirs.

Bevelled pebbles are commonly found in Later Mesolithic assemblages (Berridge and Roberts 1986, 20) and are virtually unknown from closed Neolithic or later contexts in Cornwall. The same is true for occurrences in Wales, which, like those in Cornwall and Devon, are always coastal (Burrow 2003, 23). The function of these pebbles has never been definitely established but some research suggests they may have been used in the working of skins, in particular those of seals (Jacobi 1980, 189, fig 4.30; Fletcher 2005). The single exception, apart from S9, of a bevelled pebble in a post-Mesolithic context was that deposited in an Early Bronze Age pit at Trenoweth, Portreath (Reynolds 2006, 84). Here the pebble had not been re-used. The pit had held a large post, possibly with ritual connotations, and it was considered possible that the item was included in the fill as a reference to past activity in the area.

There was considerable damage after use, particularly on the junctions of sides(c) and (f) and sides (b) and (f), and only the corners between (b), (c) and (f) and between (c) and (f) are undamaged. The nature of the damage suggests that this was caused by use as a hammerstone. Petrology Roger Taylor

It is possible that deposition of most items was structured to some extent. Running down Table 9, there are two items from the wall matrix, presumably deposited in the wall and therefore predating it. One item comes from the beam slot across the entrance and four from three postholes, in the centre and on the south west side. It is unclear whether these were placed after the removal of timbers or had been included in packing: if the latter then again their use would have predated the building, but there could be significance in their placement. Five items come from collapsed walling or clay over the entrance, and may have been included with these contexts. Five items come from the lower fill of the structure as opposed to two from the upper fills: there does not seem to be any area of concentration among these.

Quartz – transparent to translucent colourless irregular more or less equidimensional grains, 0.2-2mm; tourmaline – black crystals as elongated prisms up to 2.5mm long with 0.1mm triangular cross sections, also as irregular grains; mica – muscovite flakes, 0.1-0.2mm; matrix – a very finegrained aggregate of quartz and white mica replacing an original quartzo/feldspathic matrix, grain size up to circa 0.05mm; cavities – mainly irregular, probably representing decomposed feldspar phenocrysts, some show rough outlines of feldspar crystal form, 0.1-3mm. Identification. Greisenised fine-grained porphyritic elvan. Elvan is the Cornish term for locally occurring dykes of porphyritic felsite or microgranite. Greisenised elvans occur in south west Britain: the presence of black tourmaline provides a further firm link to the south west peninsula rather than to a continental source.

Racloir mould, S7 Brendan O’Connor, Andy M Jones, Henrietta Quinnell and Roger Taylor

Discussion of the racloir mould

S7 (Figure 59) (107) lower infill quadrant 2 Trevalga Roundhouse. SF27. Mould for racloir.

The racloir mould was found on the floor of the building and some two metres inside it, at the base of, and wellsealed by, infill (107). It is not possible to determine whether it was lost, perhaps on the collapse of the building, or whether it was deliberately deposited.

Description The mould is a carefully finished elvan block, circa 74 x 69 x 37mm, although no side is a true rectangle. The junction between side (a) and side (f) is faceted. Side (a) has one half of a biface racloir mould: the triangular object as cast would have been circa 40 x 46 x 46mm. A projection within the matrix 6mm across provides for a hole in the racloir. There is a casting gate at the top which widens to 7mm on surface (e). The edges of the matrix, including the central projection, and of the casting gate are extensively blackened, indicating that this mould has been used. Side (b) has a mould for a simple item, possibly a chisel: this is 65mm long, 14mm wide and 5mm deep. There is no casting gate. The edges are less blackened than those of the racloir on side (a). Unless side (b) has been ground back after the

The mould appears to have been used for a type of bronze object known as ‘racloirs triangulaires type “atlantique” ’ (Gaudron and Soutou 1961; Briard 1962; Nicolardot and Gaucher 1975, 102, fig 4) – that is a roughly triangular blade with a circular central perforation. In English, these have in the past been variously described as knives or razors, and on occasion conflated with hog’s-back knives (see for example, Burgess 1968; Pearce 1982, 375). For this reason the French term racloir has been retained here. This appears to have been the first mould for racloirs

64

Chapter 7: Stonework from the North Cornwall pipeline triangulaires found on either side of the Channel. Only 4 such racloirs are known from Britain, and all but one, which was found in north Wales (recorded in Portable Antiquities Scheme database as LVPL-F81A02), are from the south-west of England. One was found on Lansdown, north of Bath in Somerset, ploughed up on a farm in 1911, and is now in the British Museum (BM 1924, 0613.1, where we must thank Neil Wilkin for identifying it; Dobson 1931, 83-4; for the Bronze Age archaeology of Lansdown see Hawkes 1981) (Figure 114). The second example was found at Phillack, near Hayle in Cornwall, not far from the Bronze Age site of Gwithian, and is in the Royal Cornwall Museum (Nankivell 1956-7; TRURI: 1701.124) (Figure 115). The Phillack racloir is larger than the Trevalga mould and could not have been made in it but in another mould. The third example has recently been found in west Dorset and is recorded in the Portable Antiquities Scheme database (SOMDOR-FFE225).

evidence for the circulation of metalwork between Britain and France towards the end of the Bronze Age. However, scrutiny of the evidence in the light of the latest finds may suggest a different chronology. Burgess used an example from the Eaton hoard in Norwich, Norfolk, to illustrate triangular blades in the carp’s tongue complex (1968, fig 13, 11; Green 1977, 33-4, fig 86; Maraszek 2006, Abb. 113, 6). But this object could not have been produced by the Trevalga mould, being an unequal triangle with two sides around 60mm long and the third around 100mm, with a triangular perforation in approximate proportion. And while the Eaton blade is certainly not out of place in a carp’s tongue hoard, no similar object appears to be known in other hoards either side of the Channel, and no racloir appears to be know from any carp’s tongue hoard in England. As Jacques Briard himself noted, racloirs were not especially common in carp’s tongue hoards in Armorica and their distribution shows them more common south of the Loire, notably in the Vénat hoard, Charente (Coffyn et al 1981, carte 6). We have already noted that the two English finds are from the south-west, outside the normal distribution of carp’s tongue types but consistent with the distribution of types from the Rosnoën hoard represented in the Langdon Bay find, just outside Dover Harbour (Needham et al 2013, fig 5.5), while the broadly contemporary finds from Salcombe, off the south Devon coast, confirm cross-Channel relations in the south-west around the period of Trevalga (ibid, 84-8, 156-9). Future analysis of the English racloirs should be able to distinguish between Rosnoën and carp’s tongue compositions.

Until recently, perforated racloirs have been grouped with the Late Bronze Age carp’s tongue sword complex, Bronze final IIIb (Savory 1948; Briard 1965, 203, 219; Burgess 1968, 38; Milcent 2012, 137, plate 62, 22). However, at least two examples have recently been identified in the Rosnoën phase, Bronze final 1 (ibid, 71, plates 21, 16 and 31, 15), including the eponymous hoard (Nallier and Le Goffic 2008, 144, no 63, fig 13). Attempting to account for the presence of a racloir in such an early context, Nallier and Le Goffic suggested a sub-division of the type, with distinct ribs around the central perforation and radiating to the three points characterising the earliest examples (ibid, 150-51, fig 15). However, this does not explain the example in the Chailloué hoard (Milcent 2012, plate 31, 15) and what Stuart Needham has called ‘hidden circulation’ could be responsible for the occurrence of racloirs over such a long period: compare the unexpectedly early appearance of tanged-and-collared chisels in the Langdon Bay find (Needham et al 2013, 94-5).

Hitherto it has been suggested that the Phillack racloir had probably been imported from France (Nankivell 1956-7). However, the Trevalga mould is made from a greisenised elvan which occurs in the south-west of England, and the presence of black tourmaline provides a strong link to the south-west of Britain, rather than to a Continental source (see Taylor above). This means that racloirs were on occasion being manufactured in Britain using moulds from locally sourced stone. The presence of the mould at Trevalga is therefore significant because it means that communities in Cornwall were not only aware of continental artefact forms but were also able to manufacture them as well, or to support an immigrant craftsman able to make them.

The Trevalga mould thus confirms the early date for the first racloirs. The radiocarbon determinations from the Trevalga roundhouse provide secure dating within the broad range of the four determinations, which places the building in the period between circa 1400 - 1300 cal BC. On current evidence, that is consistent with the Taunton phase and even earlier than the British equivalent of Rosnoën (Needham et al 1997, 84-90, illus 15; Rohl and Needham 1998, 95-9, fig 21; Gerloff 2007, table 13.2). Milcent suggests a range of 1225 to 1140/1125 cal BC for the Rosnoën and Chailloué hoards (2012, plates 77-8) but there are currently very few relevant absolute dates from France (Needham et al 2013, 111-12).

Field 27 Field 27 [235] Pit, Early Neolithic

It was appreciated from an early date (for example, Savory 1948, 155, fig 1) that the overall concentration of perforated racloir finds was in north-west and western France. This has been confirmed by subsequent writers (Coffyn et al 1981, 200-01 - where the Phillack find has been moved to Lancashire! - supplemented by Gomez de Soto and Milcent 2000, 354-5) and it was believed that they provided good

[291]

Pit

Bladed cobble 152 x 38 x 20mm, one end with detachments indicating some use, probably as hammerstone. Micaceous Devonian sandstone. Cobble fragment 40+ x 55+ x 33mm with just possible hammerstone use. Medium grained Devonian sandstone, fractures very worn.

Table 10: Stonework from pits in Field 27.

65

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Field 29

The bladed cobble from pit [235] has probably been used as a hammerstone and comes from a local beach within a kilometre or so from the site. This pit produced Early Neolithic pottery (see above), some lithics including a leaf-shaped arrowhead (see below) and a radiocarbon determination, suggesting a date towards the end of the Early Neolithic: SUERC-42047 4690 ± 23 BP calibrating to 3625 - 3602 cal BC (6.9%), 3525 - 3490 cal BC (22%) and 3471 - 3372 (66.5%) on corylus charcoal. Pit [291] was probably prehistoric, producing a flint flake (see below). The cobble fragment from this pit came from a local beach, and had been broken before collection as the fractures were worn; it may have been used as a hammerstone.

A single cobble tool came from (271) in the core of a wall associated with soils containing Middle Bronze Age ceramics (see above). The broken beach cobble 70+ x 75 x 25mm was of Devonian brownish grey slightly weathered medium grained micaceous sandstone and derived from a local beach. Its end was probably used as hammerstone and one side as a rubbing stone: after it had broken it was subsequently used as a hammerstone. The multiple use of suitable stone pieces in the Bronze Age is well known in Cornwall: see for example, the material from Scarcewater near St Austell (Quinnell 2010). S11 (Figure 60) (353) Fill of early medieval grave [350] in Field 39, SF2. Partly worked spindle whorl, 45mm across, 14mm thick. Edge ground in a number of straight facets, one face has depression 5mm across and 3mm deep worked by a drill which appears to be the start of the central perforation. Devonian finely micaceous siltstone. A detailed consideration of spindle whorl manufacture of Iron Age and Roman date has been published in the report on Trevelgue Head cliff castle (Nowakowski and Quinnell 2011, chapter 11).

66

Chapter 8: Lithics from the North Cornwall pipeline Anna Lawson-Jones

Introduction

The author has frequently noted the use of cortex as backing, which would have allowed for a better grip when performing slimy tasks such as cutting and scraping carcases, as well as a safer hold allowing greater manual pressure to be used in Cornish assemblages (Lawson-Jones forthcoming a; Lawson-Jones 2012). This assemblage is no exception.

The lithic assemblage totals 199 pieces, collected from 13 separate fields and Forrabury, plus three pieces from the excavation of the Trevalga roundhouse. The majority of the material comes from Field 35, located at the southern end of the pipeline where a tightly focussed old land surface scatter of Late Mesolithic flint was identified. Other diagnostic material came from a small number of Neolithic and Bronze Age pits (Fields 9, 21, 22 and 27). Early and Middle Bronze Age lithics were identified in Field 29 in close proximity to prehistoric field walls, and they were also found during the excavation of the Middle Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga. As with many pipeline watching briefs, the flint assemblage has highlighted the variable ‘all-over’ use of this part of the landscape through out prehistory. It has highlighted the long-term attractiveness of some sites through mixed date assemblages, while others are more clearly focussed and less broad in date, corresponding with specific activities, most notably the excavation of pits and selective deposition.

Local pebble flint This assemblage predominantly consists of locally attained beach pebble flint and chert, the very limited amount of chert probably reflecting the natural ratio of flint to chert on local beaches (Stewart 2012). As with most pebblebased assemblages the small size of the parent material dictates not only the size but also often the form of worked pieces. These can appear ‘stunted’ and inferior to versions of the same tool forms, such as knives and scrapers found elsewhere. To compensate for the small size of the cores it is not unusual to see distal damage caused by use of an anvil during knapping (Knight 1991b, 57-80), recorded on an unstratified piece from Field 28. Nor is it unusual for tools to retain corticated surfaces, minimising the loss of flint through reduction. The material selected for use appears near identical to that found along today’s coastline. Dominant characteristics include; small pebble size, grey or grey-based colour with mottling, marbling or speckling, variable flint quality and occasional severe faulting. There are of course numerous exceptions, but in general these characteristics are strongly seen within the assemblage. Severe faulting sometimes resulted in immediate discard, but often the faulting was ignored and worked around illustrating the skill of the flint knapper, and with the exception of some of the Neolithic pit deposits, the largely functional character of the assemblage.

Selected flint artefacts are illustrated on Figure 62. Bolded L numbers indicate drawn pieces. Raw material No part of Cornwall is more than 19 miles from the coast (Jacobi 1979, 48), and proportionately more than half of the peninsula is well within 10 miles of it. The pipeline runs between 200m and 900m to the south of today’s northeast Cornish coast. This distance is likely to have remained broadly similar for at least the last 6000 years, extending back into the earliest Neolithic period, but up until the earlier Mesolithic the distance would have been greater (Jacobi 1979, 48; Berridge and Roberts 1986, 10-11). These changes in sea level and coastline will have had an affect on this assemblage in terms of raw material. Rogers (1923, 45), an early advocate for the study of Cornish beaches, recorded that most Cornish beaches consist of up to 50% flint and chert. However, actively forming beaches may have offered a different range and quantity of suitable knapping material during the early prehistoric period. The affects of raw material procurement on site location, tool size, tool form and working practice is often cited (Bradley 1987, 181-85; Brown 1991, 129) as an important influence on site assemblages. Similarly the affect of raw material itself on typological variation is important (see Green 1980, 68 in relation to arrowhead typologies). Differences in the production, use and disposal of differently sourced raw material have been identified in this assemblage.

Quartz Within the assemblage there are two pieces of worked quartz. One of these pieces, from Trevalga roundhouse, context (107) has seen unmistakable working and use wear as a discoidal knife / scraper? The other is less striking, but still clearly modified. The use of quartz and other stone to make tools should not be unexpected in a county where flint and chert does not occur inland. A similar pattern is seen, for example in the west of Scotland and the Western Isles, where the use of quartz dominates lithic assemblages. A recent re-appraisal of a very much larger quartz assemblage from the Scord of Brouster in Shetland (Ballin 2005) identified an extensive range of Neolithic tool forms. Quartz occurs frequently throughout Cornwall, it fractures more easily than granite and is harder than 67

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 62 Lithic artefacts: Mesolithic pieces from Field 35 (335) - L1 a single platform blade core, L2 single platform flake and blade core, L3 retouched blade, L4 snapped, used blade, L5 piercer with later notching, L6 unclassified microlith with later use. Neolithic material from pit deposits - L7 Field 27, pit [235] – leaf-shaped arrowhead, L8 Field 9, pit [101] – leaf-shaped piece, L9 Field 21, pit [185] – horseshoe scraper, L10 Field 21, pit [185] – knife on a flake, L11 Field 22, pit [287] – a possible tranchet arrowhead blank. Bronze Age pieces from Field 29 - L12 - round ‘thumbnail-like’ scraper, L13 denticulated pebble scraper, L14 ?broken single barbed arrowhead, L15 – chisel bit. Bronze Age pieces from Trevalga roundhouse - L16 (107) - pebble side scraper, L17 area 3 close to structure – nosed end scraper, L18 – (107) - quartz discoidal scraper / knife.

most of the Carboniferous shales or killas, both of which dominate the geology of the peninsular. It does not fracture in the same way as flint and chert, and as a result quartz tools are not as readily diagnostic and are notoriously difficult to identify.

of nodular flint for Cornwall (Healy 1985, 18-20; Tingle 1998), but other good, smaller nodular deposits also exist within Devon. The most westerly and closest source of flint lies some 25 to 30 kilometres from the pipeline route in north-west Devon at Orleigh Court, near Bideford (Newberry 2002, 19). Because of the distances involved its presence implies the existence of trade or exchange networks (Healy 1985, 18-20; 1989, 189; Saville 1981, 101-152; Tingle 1998). The reasoning behind the use of differently sourced and coloured (uniformly dark) raw material is not clear. There was plenty of good quality grey flint available locally. It may be that the strikingly dark and uniform appearance of much nodular flint, as compared to local varieties, was considered conspicuously

Nodular flint Nodular flint in Cornish assemblages is most frequently datable to the Neolithic. There are no primary nodular flint sources in Cornwall, although worn nodular flint can get washed up from submerged chalk deposits on beaches in western Cornwall. Beer Head on the south east Devon coast is often cited as the nearest mainland primary source 68

Chapter 8: Lithics from the North Cornwall pipeline and pyramidal-like L2, plus one double (not opposing) platform core were identified, all showing variable amounts of soft and hard hammered parallel scarring. Thirty seven of the pieces collected have blade scars on their dorsal surfaces, reflecting their blade core origins. At least 17 blades or bladelet pieces have been specifically identified, including one with retouch and use-wear L3, (which also has limited later damage). Eight blades snapped in antiquity L4 imply likely microlithic manufacture, although no unequivocal micro-burins were identified. One undiagnostic, minimally worked microlithlike piece was identified, plus a subsequently damaged obliquely blunted microlith L6 (very similar to one shown from Nether Exe (Silvester et al 1987, fig 7).

exotic, or perhaps it signified prestige by advertising access to wider trading networks and contacts (Edmonds 1987). Certainly nodular flint is often significantly larger than beach pebbles, but this is not often reflected in the size of finished pieces in Cornwall. Whatever the reason, selective deposition of more difficult to obtain nodular material within Neolithic pits is becoming an increasingly recognized trait, and one that features within this pipeline assemblage. The Mesolithic flint scatter In Cornwall the location of known Mesolithic sites shows a strongly coastal pattern. Published examples located along the north Cornish coast include Trevelgue Head (Lawson-Jones 2011, 285), Trevose Head (Johnson and David, 1982), and Gwithian (Roberts 1987). The south coast too has a similar, but smaller range of sites, including Poldowrian, on the Lizard (Smith and Harris 1982). It has been estimated that even at the end of the Mesolithic, sea levels were still on average 10m lower than they are today (Stapleton and Pethick 1996, 43), while rising sea-levels since the Early Mesolithic will have submerged low-lying coastal sites. Inevitably the patterning of Mesolithic sites we see today is a distortion, likely to have a number of implications with regard different site types and date. The pebble flint and chert seen in this Mesolithic assemblage will have been collected from an actively altering coastline, only recently established in geological terms.

Assemblage components by tool or form 3 untried pebbles, 2 split pebbles, 14 burnt lumps. 43 unused flakes (some burnt, some broken, some with dorsal blade scarring), 4 rejuvenation flakes. 11 miscellaneously used flakes. 6 miscellaneously used blades, 8 snapped blades L4, 2 bladelets. 2 ?unfinished microliths L6. 8 single platform blade cores L1 and L2, 1 double platform blade core. 1 chert point, 2 flint points, 1 awl-like point with later notch L5. 1 long retouched/later re-used blade L3. 6 cutting flakes/barely modified used knives. 1 cortical scraper. Total - 116 pieces

Table 12: Mesolithic flint by type.

Field 35 produced the largest collection of 120 pieces of worked flint found. Of this 116 were located within an approximately 5m diameter area of old land surface exposure (335). Much of the material has been identified as Late Mesolithic, with the predominant form being flakes (some with dorsal blade scarring), blades and bladelets, including 2 minimally worked or discarded microliths. The remaining largely undiagnostic assemblage is considered contemporary. Elements of apparent re-use suggest subsequent reworking, probably during the Bronze Age.

Nineteen of the pieces show distinct evidence for burning, indicative of a hearth or short-term fire. This material includes 14 undiagnostic lumps, 3 waste flakes, a point-like and a possible, minimally worked scraper. The presence of untested pebbles, split pebbles and waste indicate that this was a knapping site, where both waste material and tools for short term spontaneous use were discarded. Differing levels of patination can in some instances be used as a broad dating guide, but at this site the visible patina ranges from non-existent (11 pieces) through incipient to heavy, with no obvious regard for diagnostically earlier or later tool forms. What can be stated is that the majority of the material exhibits re-patination at some level. There are three instances of earlier material having been reused, for example small point or awl on a flake L5 was subsequently notched using retouch (perhaps the result of hafting?). A second re-used, illustrated piece is L3 a wellformed blade with original (patinated) and later use-wear suggestive of a possible later skewer-like use. Four flake tools found within the scatter may belong with this later reuse of Mesolithic flint.

Basic assemblage break down 3 untried pebbles. 2 split pebbles. 25 primary pieces (50-100% corticated dorsal face). 42 secondary pieces (3-49% corticated dorsal face). 44 tertiary pieces (0-2% corticated dorsal face). Total – 116 pieces

Table 11: Mesolithic flint. The bulk of the assemblage reflects the Mesolithic need for lightweight, adaptable tools suited to a largely mobile way of life. This is likely to have been the determining factor behind the frugality and care with which pebble cores were normally selected, maintained and reduced during this period. This assemblage appears to contain the residue from this activity. It includes a good proportion of bulky pebble material in addition to a blade-orientated element. Eight single platform blade producing cores L1

Other unstratified, general field finds include an elongate pebble with one end broken / snapped off and the opposing narrow rounded end with possible smoothing; a piece of quartz crystal and three flints – two patinated and one a possibly nodular, long, broken flake. Comparable pebbles 69

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Field 21 contained two pits, one with a potentially residual flint, plus burnt grain and a hobnail, while the other contained a flint rich deposit apparently devoid of subsequent disturbance. Pit [185] was recorded as being slightly elongate with an irregular base and a 0.3m deep circular, charcoal-rich pit-like end, which had heat reddened bedrock around its edges. The flint was primarily collected from this deeper end and interestingly does include two heat altered pieces, plus four very fresh, unheated pieces. Both may in fact have been specifically heat-treated, and in fact interestingly are the only two tools – a horseshoe scraper L9 (see Butler 2005, 125-27) and a retouched knife on a flake L10 – both typical Neolithic forms, made from equally typical well managed multiplatform flake producing cores.

have been found in other nearby Mesolithic assemblages (for example, Johnson and David 1982) and the presence of a nodular piece in the field could suggest Neolithic activity in the vicinity. The apparently very small and focussed spread of this largely Late Mesolithic scatter would suggest a single episode of activity, involving the knapping of collected beach pebbles around a hearth, prior to moving on. It is possible that it represents one of a series of small sites strung along the contour, where brief camps were set up. Either way, this little site provides a vivid picture of fleeting activity, entirely in keeping with our understanding of Late Mesolithic mobility, and a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The assemblage as a whole is not dissimilar to material associated with Callean Memoan (Thomas 2005), a transitional site located in a coomb near a stream further west along the North Cornish coast near Hell’s Mouth, the huge, near by cliff top site at Hudder Field with its potential settlement features (Roberts 1987), or the later Mesolithic pipeline scatter located along the North Lands End pipeline, in West Penwith (Lawson-Jones forthcoming b). These scatters differ markedly in terms of size and setting, although all are close to the sea. A number of different types of site appear to have been used during the Mesolithic, ranging from single episode sites suggested for Field 35 scatter and perhaps at Reskadinnick on the north Cornish coast near Portreath (Reynolds 2006), to sites with repeated perhaps seasonal visits perhaps Callean Memoan and the North Lands End scatter, to possibly longer-term occupation sites as at Hudder Field, and further south for example at Poldowrian on the Lizard (Smith and Harris 1982, 23-62).

Field 21– Pit [185]

1 horse-shoe scraper L9. Heated and from a multiplatform core. Distal and bilateral steep scraper retouch. 2 possibly nodular, dark, very fresh flakes from a multi-platform flake core (1 is a well-formed, soft hammered, possible flake blank, the other a very sharp irregular, twice snapped piece). 2 blade-like, mottled, fresh pieces, one with platform preparation, one soft hammered and thin. 1 heated knife flake L10 from a multiplatform core with slight fine retouch/possible wear along much of broadly convex distal edge.

Table 13: Field 21 flint. The remaining four pieces are strikingly different. Two are flakes and may well be nodular in origin, while the other two are blade-like. All are notably fresh. The six pieces between them display a variety of different knapping techniques, including the use of heat, soft and hardhammers, platform preparation and snapping. In addition, both imported nodular and local pebble flint has been used. A very similar range of techniques was identified from Early Neolithic pits at Tregarrick (Lawson-Jones 2002-3) and Penhale (Lawson-Jones forthcoming d). To summarise, this pit would seem to contain a highly orchestrated range of material, specifically produced and / or collected, and deposited within a pit cut. They are apparently representative of a whole suite of different approaches to the working and treatment of flint at this period.

Neolithic material Neolithic flint-work was found along the length of the pipeline. It includes material found in Fields 3, 21, 22, 27, 28, 31 and 39. Specific pit deposits were found in Fields 21, 22 and 27. In all cases the material may have been selected and deliberately included. This selection of material took two forms. Field 22 produced a single diagnostic projectile piece. Fields 21 and 27, however, were found to contain grouped predominantly very fresh flint-work, often in conjunction with a single worked tool – a leaf-shaped arrowhead and a horseshoe scraper suggesting that here token worked forms were required, in addition to other lithics.

Field 22 produced two groups of pits, two at the southern and three at the eastern end, only one of which produced any finds. Pit [287] contained a single probable tranchet arrowhead blank L11 (Butler 2005, 158; Green 1980, 100) and pottery. The flint was very fresh and had not been heated or otherwise modified, and was made on a Levallois-like core (see Ballin 2011, 37-61). It had a single adhering flakelette, denoting near immediate deposition after manufacture, which like the pit in Field 21 would suggest deliberate selection and perhaps a single or linked episode of activity involving the digging of the pit, the manufacture and immediate deposition of the flint.

Neolithic pits of later and earlier Neolithic dates containing selected, apparently orchestrated fills are a recognized trait. Other examples of recently analysed Cornish Neolithic pits producing flint-work include those found at Tremough (Lawson-Jones 2007), Scarcewater (LawsonJones 2010), Tregarrick Farm, Portscatho (Lawson-Jones 2002-3; Lawson-Jones 2006) and Penhale (Lawson-Jones forthcoming d).

70

Chapter 8: Lithics from the North Cornwall pipeline Field 22– Pit [287]

very fine, undamaged tip implies that it had never been used. As discussed below, leaf-shaped arrowheads were made throughout the Neolithic period, extending into the earliest Bronze Age period. Saville (1981) produced a comprehensive range of illustrated, securely dated, often heavily retouched Early Neolithic leaf-shaped arrowheads from Carn Brea. This piece is very like some of the Carn Brea examples, and quite unlike the large, minimally worked leaf-shaped arrowhead found in Field 9. The inclusion of an unused piece, whose production must have been time consuming and is likely to have involved specialist input, implies that it was regarded as ‘special’ and beyond more apparently mundane, daily functional use. Like a number of the pit deposits found along this pipeline it is likely to represent a specifically made, specifically deposited artefact. In this case it was deliberately associated with unused, imported and so presumably ‘valuable’ material. To modern eyes it appears remarkably wasteful, perhaps indicative of a votive offering.

1 probable tranchet arrowhead blank L11. A soft-hammered, thin, flattish flake from a multiplatform core. Pristine with adhering flakelette on right edge. NOTE: pit also produced sherds of Early Neolithic pottery.

Table 14: Field 22 flint. The fill into which the finds had been either individually inserted or mixed was recorded during excavation as containing frequent charcoal, which would suggest that the flint had been added separately from the charcoal. The inclusion of a single projectile associated piece alongside burnt material is of interest. It reiterates the idea of a ritualized treatment of arrowheads. In this instance perhaps the inclusion of an unfinished arrowhead indicates not so much the success of the hunt, but the anticipation of a successful hunt!

Located 1.2m to the northwest was pit [237], which produced a near identical range of 6 flaked nodular pieces, but no pottery or finished flint tools. It is considered very likely that these pits are contemporary, and that they contain flint from very similar, if not the same core. Other pits in the immediate area may also be contemporary, including pit [250], which produced a cutting flake, and pit [291], which produced a cobble hammerstone and a distinctively coloured, broken, but possibly utilized flake. Neither of these pits included pottery or other diagnostic material within their fills.

Field 27 contained a number of pits. Two of these contained diagnostically Neolithic material, and appear on the basis of the flint-work to be contemporary. Pit [235] produced eleven pieces of flint plus two utilized quartzite pebble tools and Neolithic pottery (see Quinnell above). The flintwork included ten very fresh, well-made, dark grey flakes, which were predominantly thin and soft-hammered. A thin brown nodular cortex was present on some of the pieces, indicating reduction of a classically knobbly-shaped nodule. It is possible that most, if not all of these pieces came from the same large core. A pit containing a similar range of pieces (nodular, largely soft hammered, pristine, unused material a leaf-shaped arrowhead, together with Neolithic pottery) radiocarbon dated to the Early Neolithic was excavated along the A30 at Penhale, near Fraddon (Lawson-Jones forthcoming d). Field 27– Pit [235]

Field 27– Pit [237]

It is interesting to note that three pits [101] (Field 9) (see below), [235] (Field 27) and [237] (Field 22) contained single arrowheads. Pit [235] produced a small complete leaf-shaped arrowhead L7 and pit [237] produced an unfinished tranchet arrowhead blank L11. Both arrowheads were associated with Early Neolithic pottery. Pit [101] produced a large, unfinished leaf-shaped arrowhead L8 of diagnostically Late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age form and was associated with an Early Bronze Age radiocarbon date. Arrowheads deposited within pits are not commonly found in the south west and these may, particularly in the case of the two earlier pieces suggest a localized pattern of deposition.

1 small pristine leaf-shaped arrowhead with all-over retouch L7. 10 variably shaped and sized waste flakes – all very dark grey brown, soft hammered, fine, thin flakes. Notably fresh and well-made, some with platform preparation, two broken and some retaining thin brown nodular cortex. 1 white quartz core-like worked piece with possible abraded use-wear at tapered end. 1 possibly utilized elongate quartzite pebble – listed in archive. NOTE: pit also produced sherds of Early Neolithic pottery. 6 variably shaped and sized waste flakes – all very dark grey brown, soft hammered, fine, thin flakes. Notably fresh and well-made, some with platform preparation, some retaining thin brown nodular cortex.

The Bronze Age material As in the Neolithic period, Bronze Age flint tool production, use and discard can be seen as a light scattering along the length of the pipeline. Field 9 produced a very late leaf-shaped arrowhead from a pit radiocarbon dated to the Early Bronze Age. In addition two other areas have been identified as producing Bronze Age activity, one associated with relict field boundaries in Field 29, and the other associated with Middle Bronze Age Trevalga roundhouse. Bronze Age activity in Field 29 may extend into Fields 27 and 28 (see below).

Table 15: Field 27 flint. A single pristine leaf-shaped arrowhead L7 was also found in pit [235]. It is small and complete, with neat all-over retouch and may well be of Early Neolithic date. The 71

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Field 9 is located towards the eastern end of the pipeline. The field contained three pits, one of which was pit [101]. It produced two finds, a white quartz pebble and a striking pale-grey, heat altered, leaf-shaped arrowhead L8, which had been placed vertically, point downwards into the burnt pit fill. The apparent deliberate selection and positioning of this piece appears strongly ritualistic. The point of the arrowhead is missing and may be the result of heat damage rather than damage through use. A very similar pale grey leaf-shaped arrowhead was found in a pit containing charcoal at Camelford (Lawson-Jones forthcoming c). It too had an unworked ventral face and was only minimally retouched on its dorsal side, superficially looking very like Devaney’s (2005) ‘domestic’ range of late leaf-shaped arrowheads. The Camelford piece was located within a pit containing Beaker pottery, dating its deposition to the Early Bronze Age period.

Field 29 – unstratified

Field 29 – near wall 270 Field 29 – wall 270 unstratified Field 29 – south of wall 270 in layer (273) Field 29 – north of wall 270 in (274)

Field 9 - 1 large leaf-shaped piece (50 x 27 x 8mm), with Pit [101] dorsal bilateral partially invasive retouch, a thermal break on the right edge and possibly loss of extreme tip L8. 1 white quartz pebble – listed in archive.

1 split pebble, 3 waste flakes (1 patinated, 1 burnt), a crushed, burnt lump/former core, 1 broken burnt flake, 1 broken possibly used blade, 1 single barbed arrowhead L14, 1 possible small un-retouched triangular arrowhead?, 1 possible un-retouched piercer, 1 chisel bit made via snapping and 45° retouch L15, 1 scraper L13, 1 snapped and chunky spurred piece. 3 pieces of waste (1 patinated, 1 thick, 1 very fresh), 1 miscellaneous utilized piece (with snapping). 1 abrupt edged denticulate scraper (snapped break). 1 long, blank-like waste flake. 1 round ‘thumbnail-like’ scraper L12, 1 blade with cortical backing (possibly used as a point), and 1 opposed platform blade core.

Table 17: Field 29 flint. A strikingly thin, flat, dark arrowhead L14 was also found. This piece may have broken, but is considered more likely to have been snapped as a part of its manufacture. Because of its shape, but more especially because of its thinness, it has been interpreted as a single barbed oblique arrowhead (Green 1984, 25). It has one neatly retouched slightly convex edge and a diagonally snapped opposing edge forming a slightly asymmetric shaped piece. Neat retouch can be seen linking the tang to the barb. A similarly distinctive coloured piece is ‘chisel’ bit L15. This golden brown tool has been made on a near rectangular shaped blank with sheer, near 90° edges, some of which must be the result of snapping. The slightly tapered end is almost unmodified, while the dorsal face shows focussed retouch and heavy overlying crushed wear at the wider end. Macroscopically this wear looks like the result of intense, focussed pressure associated with a chisel-like function. The ventral surface shows wear (and possibly tiny retouch) at the working end, plus bi-lateral damage. This lateral wear represents edge blunting to facilitate hafting.

Table 16: Field 9 flint. Leaf-shaped arrowheads were produced from the Early Neolithic right through to the Early Bronze Age (Green 1984; Edmonds 1995; Saville 2011). This piece still retains its bulb and platform, suggestive of it being a late form (Butler 2005, 123), dating to the Late Neolithic or possibly Beaker using / Early Bronze Age period. The south west as a whole has produced a number of leaf-shaped and other triangular arrowheads (see Quinnell 1999). This piece may represent one of a growing number of very late leaf-shaped arrowhead deposits. Its apparent production, selection; with all its connotations of hunting / food, warfare or perhaps even an ‘ancestral past’, along with its noteworthy positioning within pit [101] imply ritualized disposal and commemoration (see comment above). Field 29 produced 21 pieces of flint, 25 of which retained pebble cortex. Some earlier, probably Neolithic pieces have seen later, probable Bronze Age reuse, and three pieces were burnt – one so severely that it had largely disintegrated. Bronze Age tool forms include 3 different scrapers, an oblique partially barbed arrowhead and a ‘chisel’ bit. Other less diagnostic, miscellaneously used and unused flakes and blades were found, including a fresh-looking opposed platform core with some platform preparation of possible Mesolithic date. Two of the three scrapers have been illustrated; L12 is a round cortical scraper of thumbnail-like appearance with a smooth convex working edge. L13 is a larger scraper, with a more uneven, denticulated edge. Both are made on thick pebble flakes, and retain a considerable amount of cortex. The drawn profiles show that the corticated face provided a smooth, rounded safe-to-hold surface, while the slightly granular texture will have significantly aided grip during sticky or wet tasks. The other scraper has a working edge made on a deliberately snapped edge.

To summarise, the Bronze Age retouch, where identified tended to be neat, and often deep and markedly steep. A higher proportion of pieces from this field were broken or snapped, but without the correspondingly ‘bashed’ appearance normally associated with plough damage, implying that the breaks were deliberate. Deliberate snapping has been highlighted as suggestive of a distinct or specific technology associated with the working of flint at this site. The Trevalga roundhouse The excavation of the Middle Bronze Age roundhouse produced a very small assemblage of two worked flints and a worked quartzite piece. Context (107), produced a pale cream, split pebble side scraper with 80°-90° steep 72

Chapter 8: Lithics from the North Cornwall pipeline Unstratified Neolithic and Bronze Age flint

retouch along its convex working edge L16. There is no macroscopically visible ventral damage implying minimal or light use only. The second worked flint came from outside the roundhouse. This was an elongate, pale and mottled grey, nosed / end scraper L17. Retouch extends up its right dorsal side and around the broader, thicker distal end. There is some minimal retouch on the left distal edge at the proximal end, which overlies platform preparation scarring and a small notched area half way along the right edge, which together suggests hafting. Overlying the distal retouch is a focussed area of crushing resulting from use. Interestingly, the whole piece has a notably soapy feel and a slightly glossed appearance suggestive of heat-treatment (Lee 2001, 39-44; Pannett 2011, 247-55).

Material of broadly later Neolithic / Bronze Age date was recorded as a sporadic, light presence along the length of the pipeline assemblage. The two pieces found in Field 3 include a single platform blade core with slight gloss and apparent minimal use as a light-weight scraper (slight edge crushing), which may be Early Neolithic in date, and an end retouched flake found in pit [503]. This piece was softhammered, thin and flat with slight ventral distal retouch and evidence for platform preparation. It may be the result of pressure flaking and could well be of later Neolithic date. In Field 21 a mix of apparently residual material was found in pit [195], including 2 complete pebbles, a hobnail and a tiny end scraper made on a potentially Mesolithic piece with patinated dorsal blade scarring and microlithic narrowing retouch at its proximal end. This field also produced an unstratified thick waste rejuvenation flake showing an abandoned platform at its distal end which is likely to be of likely Late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age date.

Layer (107) 1 thick, fresh, split pebble flake side scraper with steep 80-90° retouch. L16 Layer (107) 1 large semi-discoidal knife / scraper with – SF13 70°-80° worn edge. Clear wear and made on strikingly white quartz flake. L18 Outside 1 nosed end scraper, possibly hafted with retouch roundhouse and crushing. Heat treated. L17

Field 27 produced two Neolithic pits and two probable Neolithic pits (see below). Other finds include a soft hammered waste / debitage flake with bulbar preparation, a thick, sharp rejuvenation piece and a fresh waste flake from ditch [231]/ditch slot 1. Field 28 produced four pieces of flint including a hammerstone, two waste flakes (one with distal damage indicative of anvil use) and an end and side scraper of likely Late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age date. It has neat, steep retouch on its dorsal face, ventral damage through use along its convex working edge and modification on its left side forming a tang suitable for use in hafting.

Table 18: Trevalga roundhouse flint. Context (107) also produced SF13, a discoidal knife / scraper made on a flat, thick ‘flake’ of white quartz L18. Designed for hand held use with a purposely abraded thicker side and depressions for both thumb and forefinger, it is a remarkably easy and comfortable tool to hold and use. The opposing long, convex working edge has been shaped and the edge is abraded on both faces through use. Quartz tools are known to be difficult to identify and hard to date, but they are increasingly being identified on archaeological sites, as for example has been demonstrated by the recent re-examination of quartz artefacts from Scotland (Ballin 2005, 1-36; Knight 1991a, 37-56; and see MacRea 1986, 7-12 for Palaeolithic quartz use). This is a particularly nice, obvious piece with clear evidence for manufacture and use from a securely dated Middle Bronze Age roundhouse deposit. The unusualness of this tool (in terms of large size and stone type – both linked) might suggest a non-utilitarian function, despite the domestic context in which it was found. However, the obvious level of wear and abrasion would seem to imply reasonably heavy-duty or concerted use, which might be more indicative of an everyday function.

Field 30 produced a large, broken hard hammered cutting flake. Field 31 produced a residual single multi-platform core of likely Middle to Late Neolithic date from animal bone filled pit [308]/(310). This piece had had subsequently been used as a core tool. The reuse is of probable Early to Middle Bronze Age date, and it cuts through the earlier core face. Field 33 produced a single split pebble with a crushed edge indicating use as a chopping tool. Field 36 produced 7 pieces, including a thick waste flake possibly fleetingly used as a scraper; a miscellaneously utilized flake; a large backed flake with 45° retouch on its long slightly convex working edge; a short-nosed, steeply retouched scraper of probable Bronze Age date; a lightly used hammerstone; a cutting flake; and a probable nodular, well-formed but broken flake, which would have made an ideal Neolithic arrowhead blank. Field 39 produced a single platform blade core of potential Early Neolithic or possible later Mesolithic date and a similar looking waste flake, plus a nodular backed blade showing knife use.

Two of these pieces, the nosed scraper and the discoidal quartz knife show an unusual level of workmanship for lithic material normally ascribed a Late Bronze Age date. It is possible that they represent curated pieces, although no other clearly associated evidence for such behaviour has been found with other artefact categories. It is possible too that they were collected from earlier disturbed or robbed contexts found in the vicinity as keep-sakes. Alternatively the nosed scraper may in fact be residual.

Forrabury Five possible Bronze Age pieces were found during the recording at Forrabury. All are residual, unstratified topsoil finds. One was a fresh, notably dark, pebble corticated 73

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast waste flake, while three were abraded (two of which were waste pieces). The mix of fresh and abraded material suggests contamination, either through the presence of mixed date material or the presence of disturbed and undisturbed features (possibly formerly contained within

a cut feature?). The two non-waste pieces include a pale, thick, hinged comfortable to hold flake with minimal retouch or possibly slashing use wear, and a much abraded, possibly notched or spurred piece.

74

Chapter 9: Human skeletal remains from the North Cornwall pipeline Joanna Higgins

Introduction

With a total weight of 78.9g, the deposit fell just within the normal range (57-3000g) for undisturbed cremation burials from archaeological contexts (McKinley 2000). Assuming the remains represent 100% recovery of the deposit, as no fragments were duplicated, the remains represent no more than one individual.

Fragments of cremated bone were recovered from two archaeological contexts during the programme of archaeological recording along the route of the north Cornwall pipeline. Bone fragments from pit [101] in Field 9 were recovered from the fill of a discrete sub-circular pit. A small number of bone fragments were recovered from feature [15] at Forrabury, near Boscastle.

Age estimation of the individual represented is based on the fragment of permanent upper premolar (probably first premolar), which was very eroded post-mortem. The crown was fully-formed and the root was well-developed, although broken at the apices post-mortem. Possible signs of wear on the remaining enamel suggest the tooth had been fully erupted for some time prior to death. This indicates the tooth derived from an individual at least 1213 years of age at time of death, but probably older.

Methodology Each context was analysed in accordance with current guidance (Brickley and McKinley, 2001) to produce a record of weight, fragmentation, colour, inventory of identifiable fragments, minimum number of individuals and where possible, age, sex and pathology.

Sex estimation of the individual was not possible due to a lack of preserved sexually dimorphic indicators.

Results

The character of the bone and its provenance suggest this may be a pyre site, used for the cremation of a human body or, more likely that this deposit represents the clearing of a nearby pyre site and pit burial of remaining charcoal, bone and other debris. The slight erosion of the bone fragments suggest either a period of exposure, possibly occurring immediately after deposition, or is the result of the wet-sieving process on the bone fragments, which were probably quite fragile by the time of excavation, given the Early Bronze Age date of the feature.

Pit [101] This context comprised a quantity of white, well-calcined cremated bone. Many of the fragments were slightly smooth-edged and eroded. Fragment size was generally very small, with 32.7% (25.8g) measuring less than 10mm, and 48.3% (38.1g) measuring less than 5mm. Of the remainder, 18% (14.2g) was greater than 10mm, with only 1% less than 2mm.

Feature 15

In total, 96.6% (76.2g) of the fragments comprised unidentifiable cortical bone. The remaining 3.4% comprised 5 fragments of cranial vault, one large fragment of permanent upper premolar tooth, 15 tooth root fragments and 12 tooth enamel fragments.

This context comprised two fragments of unidentifiable cortical bone, with a total weight of 0.4g. The bone fragments were white and well-calcined, indicative of cremated rather than burnt bone. However, due to their small size and number, it was not possible to positively identify the fragments as human, although this remains a distinct possibility.

75

Chapter 10: Charcoal from the North Cornwall pipeline Dana Challinor

Introduction

Results

Thirty four samples were submitted for charcoal analysis, comprising flots resulting from flotation and charcoal which had been hand-recovered in the field. The samples included fifteen from the Middle Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga along with various pits in Fields 9, 16, 17, 21, 27 and 31. Several of these pits produced prehistoric pottery and / or flint-work, and selecting suitable fragments of charcoal for radiocarbon dating was included in the analysis. There were also two samples from features [15] and [16] at Forrabury.

The results were very disappointing, with most flots dominated by modern contaminants and roots. Table 19 provides a summary of the samples with identifiable charcoal, presented by feature; where there were both flots and hand recovered charcoal from a single context, the results have been combined. Only two, contexts (133) and (158), out of the fifteen Trevalga roundhouse samples produced small quantities of identifiable charcoal. Beyond the roundhouse, three contexts from pits [101], [201] and [235] produced abundant charcoal but the rest of the pipeline samples contained only low levels (mostly less than five and rarely up to 20 fragments). Six taxa were positively identified, all consistent with native species: Ulmus sp. (elm), Quercus sp. (oak), Betula sp (birch), Corylus avellana (hazel), Maloideae (hawthorn group) and Cytisus / Ulex (broom / gorse). Only one sample was dominated by a single taxon; Quercus in pit [101] from Field 9. The oak was highly comminuted, with most fragments exhibiting less than one growth ring, so it was not possible to determine maturity. Among the other taxa identified in the samples, there were many fragments exhibiting moderate or strong ring curvature, especially fragments of Cytisus / Ulex but no complete stems were preserved.

Methodology All of the flots were scanned at low magnification (up to X45), which in most cases was enough to determine the level of preservation and basic identifications. Any diffuse porous taxa requiring confirmation at higher magnification were examined using a Meiji incident light microscope at magnifications up to X400 and with reference to appropriate identification keys (Hather 2000; Schweingruber 1991) and modern reference material. For most of the samples, all of the charcoal >2mm was identified, and 25 fragments were selected from the few richer assemblages (which produced 40+ fragments). Observations on maturity or condition were made as appropriate. Classification and nomenclature follow Stace (1997).

Field

9

16

17

21

27

Feature type

Pit

Pit

Pit

Pit

Slot

Feature number

[101] [210] [204] [185] [213] [235] [237] [238] [15]

Ulmus sp.

elm

Quercus sp.

oak

Betula sp. Corylus avellana L. Alnus/Corylus

birch

Maloideae

hawthorn group

+

Cytisus/Ulex

broom/gorse

++r

Forrabury Pit

Pit

Pit

Feature Feature [16]

Trevalga Post- Posthole hole [157] [132]

+ +++

+

+

+r

+

++

hazel

++r

++r

++r

+r

++r

+

alder/hazel

+r +

+

+

+ ++r

+=present; ++=frequent; +++=abundant; r=roundwood Table 19: Summarised results of the charcoal analysis.

76

++r

Chapter 10: Charcoal from the North Cornwall pipeline Discussion

pit [101] in Field 9 contained abundant charcoal which was dominated by oak. This particular pit contained a deliberately placed flint arrowhead and cremated bone and may have had a ritual association.

The most notable trend in the charcoal assemblages is the consistent presence of Corylus avellana (hazel) in the Neolithic pits. These include: Field 21 pit [185], Field 27 pits [235], [237], [238], and Early Bronze Age pit [101] in Field 9. This taxon, along with Maloideae (hawthorn group), is the most frequent, and often exhibited strong ring curvature, suggesting small diameter branchwood. The presence of hazelnut shell in two of these pits might suggest a correlation between food and fuelwood gathering which is proposed at other Neolithic sites (for example, Challinor 2010, 94). Pit [185] also produced Betula sp. (birch), which is a pioneer tree, often associated with postclearance colonisation. There is an apparent paucity of Quercus (oak) in these assemblages, but whether this is a real absence is impossible to gauge on the basis of this limited evidence. In any case, it might reflect deliberate selection or avoidance of oak wood rather than a lack of availability. It is notable that the Early Bronze Age

Pit [210] from Field 16 differed from the other pit assemblages, as it did not contain hazel but did produce Cytisus / Ulex (broom or gorse) and Ulmus (elm). The pit did not contain any artefacts but it was radiocarbon dated to the Middle Bronze Age (see below). The other features producing broom / gorse are also likely to be of later date as well; the Middle Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga and the Iron Age site at Forrabury. While the evidence from this site is not compelling, it is reasonable to assert that it fits with the regional picture of the Neolithic landscape of oak / hazel woodland, with small-scale clearances, and increasing landscape modification in the Bronze Age (Wilkinson and Straker 2008).

77

Chapter 11: Charred plant macrofossils from the North Cornwall pipeline Julie Jones

Introduction

Results

Twenty nine samples were assessed from flots along the North Cornwall pipeline, 14 from the Middle Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga together with pits in Fields 9, 16, 17, 21, and 27, and Iron Age features 15 and 16 at Forrabury. These were scanned and assessed for plant macrofossil remains, with material suitable for radiocarbon dating extracted.

The results are shown in the two tables below (Tables 20 and 21). Concentration of plant remains was low, with only 10 samples producing any macrofossils. Cereal grain recovered was in very poor condition with a high degree of fragmentation and surface abrasion. Wheat (Triticum), barley (Hordeum) and oats (Avena) were all recovered, although the low numbers recorded are not sufficient to allow meaningful interpretation. Grasses (Poaceae) were the most commonly recovered seeds and are likely to have occurred as crop contaminants. Two samples from pits [185] and [235] included fragmented remains of hazelnuts (Corylus avellana), and both samples also produced hazel charcoal.

FIELD 9 16

FEATURE Pit [101] Pit [210]

17

Pit [204]

17

Pit [204]

Middle fill

17

Pit [204]

Upper fill

21 21

Pit [185] Pit [185]

Lower fill

27

Ditch [231]

Slot 1

27

Ditch [231]

Slot 2

27

Pit [237]

27

Pit [238]

27

Pit [235]

Forrabury

Feature 16 Feature 15

CONTEXT (212)

Lower fill

SAMPLE COMPOSITION Prominently charcoal Prominently roots/mineral, occasional modern seeds Prominently mineral, frequent modern seeds Frequent modern seeds Prominently roots, occasional modern seeds Prominently charcoal Prominently charcoal, occasional modern seeds Prominently roots, occasional modern seeds, occasional snails Roots/mineral, rare modern seeds, occasional snails Mineral/charcoal, occasional modern seeds Roots/mineral, occasional modern seeds Prominently charcoal

CHARRED MACROFOSSILS None Triticum sp (free-threshing grain) 1 Cereal indet (grain) 1 None Rumex/Carex (poor condition/surface gone) None None Corylus avellana frags

1

18

None None Poaceae indet

1

Poaceae indet

1

Corylus avellana frags 41 Triticum sp (hulled wheat grain) 2 Avena (grain) 1 Cereal indet (grain) 4 frags Triticum sp (hulled wheat spikelet fork) – not extracted 1 Prominently roots/mineral, occasional None charcoal Charcoal None

Table 20: Charred plant macrofossils from the pipeline.

78

Chapter 11: Charred plant macrofossils from the North Cornwall pipeline SAMPLE

FEATURE

CONTEXT

SAMPLE COMPOSITION

502 504 507 508 509

Void [2001] Layer Posthole [119] Posthole [131] Posthole [132]

(2002) (107) (120) (131) (133)

510

Posthole [134]

(135)

511

Posthole [136]

(137)

517

Posthole [160]

(159)

518

Layer

(143)

519 521 522 523 524

Posthole [161] Posthole [170] Posthole [170] Hearth [201] Posthole [157]

(162) (169) (171) (202) (158)

Prominently modern moss/roots/mineral Prominently modern moss/roots/mineral Prominently modern roots/mineral Prominently modern roots/mineral Prominently modern roots/mineral, occasional seeds Prominently roots/moss, occasional modern seeds Prominently roots/moss, occasional modern seeds Prominently red roots/moss, occasional modern seeds Prominently roots/moss, occasional modern seeds Roots/seeds, occasional snails Roots, occasional seeds Roots, occasional seeds Roots/mineral/occasional charcoal Charcoal/mineral

527

Posthole [197]

(198)

Moss/roots, occasional modern seeds

CHARRED MACROFOSSILS None None Avena (grain) None Plantago lanceolata

Grain Avena Oat Hordeum Barley Triticum Wheat Other plant remains Corylus avellana Hazel Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain Poa/Phleum Meadow-grass/Cat’s-tail Poaceae Grasses Rumex/Carex Dock/sedge

79

1

None Poaceae indet

2

None None None None None None Hordeum (grain) 4 Hordeum (tail grain) 2 c.f Hordeum (grain) 1 Cereal indet (grain) 6 Poa/Phleum 6 Poaceae indet 15 (mostly fragmented) None

Table 21: charred plant macrofossils from the Trevalga roundhouse.

Key to Charred plant macrofossils:

1

Chapter 12: Animal bone from the North Cornwall pipeline Clare Randall

Introduction

Species Cattle Pig Medium mammal Unidentified mammal Total

The examined material was a small collection of bone from a single pit feature [308] with a radiocarbon determination dating it to the early medieval period. Despite the size of the assemblage, it is of interest due to the rarity of bone survival in this area and the date of the feature from which it came. The bone is in reasonable condition, likely due to the localized conditions in the pit with shell, enabling the recognition of two species as well as some observations on processing.

No 2 1 1 4 8

NISP 2 1

MNI 1 1

Table 22: Species representation by feature / context. Element representation Whilst any observations on which elements were present are limited in such a small group of fragments, looking at the group as a whole, there are limb bones and head elements present, with cattle humerus and metacarpal, medium mammal long bone and pig mandible. This might indicate that all products of butchery / consumption were being discarded in this location, but it is also worth noting that these are all robust elements and portions of elements and therefore had greater likelihood of surviving.

Methods Fragments were refitted where possible to ensure an accurate fragment count. Each bone fragment was identified where possible to element and species, and where this was not possible as Large Mammal (for example, cattle sized), Medium Mammal (for example, sheep sized) and Unidentified mammal categories. Identification was carried out using comparative collections and with reference to Hillson (1992) Schmid (1972) and Hillson (2005) for domestic mammals. Zones were recorded where possible for each anatomical element using the Maltby / Hambleton method (unpublished). Bone porosity was recorded for all fragments, and each fragment examined for fusion information. The percentage of the element present was estimated and recorded to the nearest 10% for all identified fragments. Each fragment was also examined for breakage patterns, butchery, burning, gnawing and weathering indicators, as well as pathological change. The condition of all fragments was assessed on a five-point scale through poor, poor-average, average, average-good and good.

Taphonomy The unidentified and medium mammal fragments were all heavily weathered. Given the local preservation conditions it is thought that this is more likely to be a result of burial conditions rather than the fragments having spent a great deal of time on the surface. It implies that it is not unlikely that there may have been more bone incorporated in this deposit, but it has not survived. Species – age and metrics The two cattle fragments indicate fully adult animals, whilst the pig mandible (with M2 at stage c, and the M3 erupting) belongs to an adolescent animal, the age at which pigs are often slaughtered having gained full meat weight. Given the ground conditions, juvenile bone would be unlikely to survive, so all that can be said is that adult or meat age animals were consumed in the area.

Results This is a small group of bone, but its condition, and particularly that of the identifiable fragments, is reasonable. This must relate to the highly localized conditions within the pit, where the bone was co-located with shell. The collection is too small to gain great insights into animal production, consumption or deposition practices, but confirms the utilisation of species, and is potentially useful should other small contemporary assemblages be located.

Two measurements were obtained from the cattle fragments (Table 23), which in isolation are not particularly elucidating, but could be potentially of interest in comparison with contemporary local examples should they become available.

Species representation

Element Bd Humerus 62mm Metacarpal

The species represented are given in Table 22 below. Only three fragments could be identified to species, two cattle bones, which could conceivably come from the same animal, and a single pig bone. The fragment of medium mammal long bone is likely to relate to pig or sheep / goat.

Bp

Dp

52.8

36.4

BT 59.9

Table 23: Cattle metrics. 80

HT 36.2

Chapter 12: Animal bone from the North Cornwall pipeline Butchery and fragmentation

Discussion

The cattle humerus displayed butchery marks in the form of three fine cuts across the distal articulation which were evidently designed to portion the carcase by disarticulating the joint. The cow metacarpal displayed a helical break, indicating that the bone was fragmented when fresh potentially for marrow extraction. In general terms the identifiable fragments have not been heavily fragmented, and this may relate to a minimal degree of processing, but of course also relates to their survival, and may not be representative of practice.

This assemblage is by its nature not representative of production, consumption or deposition practice in relation to animals in the area. However, faunal assemblages of this period are rare, particularly in the west of Britain. The early medieval material from Duckpool, Morwenstow included more fragments, but a similar number could be identified due to the highly fragmented and burned condition of the bone resulting from its retrieval from a specific and likely industrial context (Powell and Serjeantson (1995, 142). The fifth to seventh century assemblage from Cadbury Castle (Randall in preparation) provides the largest and closest contemporary assemblage. This seems to indicate a mix of cattle, sheep / goat and pig in similar proportions to the later prehistoric animal economy, with slightly less reliance on sheep. The content of one pit was dominated by cattle bone, which hints that differential disposal of material from different species, may have occurred, and probably relates to consumption practices. It is possible that something similar may have occurred in the case of pit [308].

Pathology No pathological conditions were noted, but this is unsurprising as pathology generally affects a very small proportion of bone assemblages and is differentially affected by preservational conditions.

81

Chapter 13: The molluscs from the North Cornwall pipeline Tom Walker

The shells were recovered from the fill of the upper half of the early medieval pit [308] which also contained the animal bone discussed above.

(Dupont 2011) and from experimental evidence (Bigger 1895; Campbell 2007). The value to the Phoenicians and Romans of purple dye from shells is well established (Jackson 1917, 123-194). Dyes used in the Ancient World are known to have been obtained from a variety of species including the spiny dye murex (Bolinus brandaris Linnaeus), the banded dye murex (Hexaplex trunculus Linnaeus) and the rock shell (Thais haemostoma Linnaeus) (Biggam 2006a). These molluscs are not found round British shores but red and purple dyes can also be extracted from the dog whelk (Nucella lapillus) and the sting winkle (Ocenabra erinaceus) (Dupont 2011). The shells are carefully crushed to avoid damage to the internal structures and a small gland near the animal’s head, the hypobranchial gland, is removed. This gland contains a very small quantity of clear liquid which changes colour on exposure to light, through yellow to red and purple. This dye was used both to colour cloth and to illustrate manuscripts; another possible use is as face paint. Each shell yields only 14-15mg. of dye (Murray 2002), so the total extracted from the current assemblage would amount to around 2g. Dupont (2011) discusses the characteristic breakage patterns in the shells utilized to extract the gland, principally breakage of the last whorl above the aperture. The pattern of breakage found in the present assemblage is entirely consistent with Dupont’s description, being seen in the majority of the larger fragments in the collection (Figure 63).

After washing the total weight of shells was 503g. The great majority of shell is Nucella lapillus (Linnaeus), the dog whelk, comprising almost 98% by weight. The only other molluscs present are very small quantities of mussels (Mytilus sp.) and limpets (Patella sp.) which are all highly fragmented and likely to be contaminant shells harvested with the whelks. Dog whelk, Nucella lapillus Mussel, Mytilus sp. Limpet, Patella sp. Total weight

491 g 9g 3g 503 g

All of the whelks are broken, there being no complete shells. The largest fragment is 35mm in length but most fragments are less than 20mm. All or part of the aperture is present on many fragments, sufficient to say that most are mature shells. There are apices of 51 individual shells were, but 133 fragments included the siphonal canal, providing an estimate the minimal number of individuals in the assemblage. The shells show a specific and consistent damage pattern, with breakage into the largest whorl approximately opposite the aperture. The maximum length of the peristome (the longest length of the shell aperture) was measureable in 33 individual shells, and ranges from 18-28mm. This allows calculation of the overall shell length using a regression equation in Dupont (2011, 13). The mean shell length is 33mm. with a range of 29-37mm. (±1 SD). These figures may, however, overestimate average shell size as some the smaller and weaker shells may have been so fragmented that no complete apertures remain for measurement.

Twenty one archaeological sites along the Atlantic Coast of France with broken dog whelk shell assemblages have been discussed by Dupont (2011), dating from the Late Iron Age to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries AD. In Ireland shell middens at Dog’s Bay, County Galway, containing large numbers of dog whelks were reported in 1896, all of which were broken through the apices and whorls, leaving the apertures intact, consistent with breakage for dye extraction (Collier and Standen 1896). Quantities of deliberately broken dog whelk shells were recovered Rathgureen, an early Christian site in County Galway and which were considered to be used for dye manufacture (Murray 2002). A seventh century AD hut strongly suggesting dye production from dog whelks was excavated on Inishkrea North Island (Henry 1952). At Ferriter’s Cove Mesolithic site on the west coast of Ireland they were present in many pits (McCarthy et al 1999); their presence was initially considered to represent a food resource, but more recent studies conclude that collection for purple dye extraction was probable (Gibbons and Gibbons 2004). In Scotland at Geodha Smoo large numbers of Nucella lapillus were found in Wetweather Cave dating

This assemblage is clearly a specific collection of the dog whelk, with the virtual exclusion of other taxa. The flesh of this species is generally considered inedible so its collection for food is unlikely. However, at Oronsay in the Inner Hebrides of Scotland, there were many intact dog whelks in Late Mesolithic middens, but also many which were broken at the apex and may have provided edible meat (Andrews et al 1985). Use of the flesh as fish bait is an alternative possibility, but breakage of the shell is unnecessary to extract the flesh for bait – it can be hooked directly out of the shell aperture. While breakage of the shells in the present assemblage to remove the meat cannot be ruled out, an alternative explanation must be considered: to obtain purple dye. The pattern of breakage of all the larger fragments of the shell agrees with this presumption, both from previous observations from archaeological sites 82

Chapter 13: The molluscs from the North Cornwall pipeline

Figure 63 Photograph of Nucella lapillus shells from pit [308]. from the Neolithic, and it was considered that this species was used for dye extraction (Cerón-Carrasco 2005).

use of these shells in Anglo-Saxon England, but she does not discuss prehistoric times.

Firm evidence of similar sites in England is harder to find. Excavations of a midden at Harlyn Bay, Cornwall, in 1900 produced broken dog whelks thought to be associated with dye extraction (Bullen 1902); at the time this was considered to be a pre-Roman burial ground, but an Iron Age date was suggested by further work (Whimster 1977). Dog whelks were also found in the later Iron Age levels at Trevelgue (Light 2011). A small number of dog whelks broken in a way consistent with dye extraction was reported at Duckpool, Morwenstow, north Cornwall, dating from the Romano-British period to the 12th century AD (Light 1995).

It is not possible to establish with complete certainty whether the whelks from pit [308] were collected to remove the flesh for food or fish bait, or to extract the hypobranchial gland to collect the fluid for dye production. Nucella lapillus is a common shell on the rocky shores around Britain, living on intertidal rocks, often in very large numbers. The site where these shells were found in Field 31 is only about 200m from the rocky shore at Tintagel, and it would not have been difficult to collect sufficient numbers to produce useful quantities of dye. Pit [308] has only yielded sufficient shells to provide a vey small amount of dye, and it may be that other accumulations are located in the near vicinity. It is of interest that a bone pin was recovered from the same fill that produced the whelks. Is it too much to speculate that the pin was used to remove the flesh from the fragments following crushing of the shells?

It is not known when the processing of shells for dye was first introduced to Britain. Archaeological, manuscript studies, and the chemical analysis of textiles have been evaluated by Biggam (2006a, 2006b), who describes the

83

Chapter 14: Radiocarbon determinations from the North Cornwall pipeline Introduction

Fifteen samples were submitted for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating to the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC) at Glasgow (Table 24 and Figure 64). The samples consisted of residue from animal bone, cremated human bone, potsherds, charred plant macrofossils, and charcoal from short-lived species such as gorse, and from hazel.

The principal aim of the dating strategy were to acquire secure dating from the major archaeological features and contexts identified along the route of the pipeline, including the Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga, the stone-lined features at Forrabury and the scattering of pits which were recorded. Feature

Material

Lab. no

Age BP years

Calendrical years 68%

Calendrical years 95%

Pit [235] Field 27

Charcoal: Corylus

SUERC-42047 (GU28153)

4690 ± 23

Pit [185] Field 21

Charcoal: Corylus

SUERC-42048 (GU28154)

4755 ± 26

3518 - 3498 BC (16.6%) 3453 - 3394 BC (43.6%) 3389 - 3378 BC (8%) 3633 - 3621 BC (9.7%) 3609 - 3557 BC (44%) 3539 - 3522 BC (14.2%)

Pit [237] Field 27

Charcoal: Corylus

SUERC-42049 (GU28155)

4703 ± 23

Pit [210] Field 16

Charcoal: Ulex

SUERC-42050 (GU28156)

3170 ± 26

Pit [101] Field 9

Cremated bone

SUERC-42056 (GU28159)

3555 ± 26

1984 - 1881 BC

Pit [308] Fill (310) Field 31

Animal Bone

SUERC-39366 (GU26753)

1505 ± 35

AD 536 - 610

Pit [308] Fill (310) Field 31

Animal Bone

SUERC-39367 (GU26754)

1510 ± 35

AD 473 - 476 (1.5%) AD 535 - 637 (66.7%)

Posthole [119], Cereal Grain: Avena SUERC-42057 Fill (120) (GU28160)

347 ± 26

Posthole [157] Fill (158)

Cereal Grain: grains SUERC-42058 and grasses (GU28161)

3105 ± 26

AD 1485 - 1524 (26.1%) AD 1463 - 1635 AD 1559 - 1564 (2.8%) AD 1570 - 1631 (39.3%) 1421 - 1378 BC (53%) 1434 - 1312 BC 1337 - 1321 BC (15.2%)

Posthole [157] Fill (158)

Charcoal: Ulex

SUERC-42059 (GU28162)

3057 ± 23

1386-1305

Deposit (126)

Ceramic Residue

SUERC-42064 (GU28164)

3092 ± 31

1415 - 1371 BC (42.2%) 1432 - 1292 BC (94.8%) 1346 - 1316 BC (26%) 1277 - 1273 BC (0.6%)

Wall 156

Ceramic Residue

SUERC-42065 (GU28165)

3092 ± 26

1414 - 1372 BC (43.8%) 1428 - 1302 BC 1343 - 1318 BC (24.4%)

Dispersed pits 3625 - 3602 BC (6.9%) 3523 - 3490 BC (22%) 3471 - 3372 BC (66.5%) 3637 - 3516 BC (89.4%) 3422 - 3419 BC (0.5%) 3411 - 3405 BC (1.2%) 3399 - 3384 BC (4.3%) 3619 - 3611 BC (5.5%) 3628 - 3592 BC (15.4%) 3521 - 3499 BC (17.5%) 3527 - 3494 BC (21.3%) 3432 - 3379 BC (45.2%) 3465 - 3375 BC (58.7%) 1491 - 1480 BC (13.1%) 1498 - 1409 BC 1456 - 1419 BC (55.1%) 2010 - 2001 BC (1%) 1976 - 1870 BC (76.5%) 1846 - 1811 BC (10.7%) 1804 - 1766 BC (7.2%) AD 435 - 491 (14.9%) AD 510 - 517 (1.2%) AD 529 - 639 (79.3%) AD 434 - 493 (18.6%) AD 506 - 520 (2.7%) AD 527 - 635 (74.2%)

Trevalga roundhouse

84

1399 - 1265 BC

Chapter 14: Radiocarbon determinations from the North Cornwall pipeline Feature

Material

Lab. no

Age BP years

Calendrical years 68%

Calendrical years 95%

Feature 16

Charcoal: Ulex

SUERC-42054 (GU28157)

2449 ± 25

752 - 686 BC (26.1%) 668 - 637 BC (9.3%) 622 - 614 BC (1.1%) 595 - 410 BC (58.9%)

Feature 15

Burnt Bone

SUERC-42055 (GU28158)

2425 ± 23

737 - 690 BC (22.3%) 663 - 649 BC (6.1%) 548 - 486 BC (4.4%) 462 - 450 BC (26.2%) 441 - 417 BC (9.1%) 521 - 411 BC

Feature 17

Ceramic Residue

SUERC-42060 (GU28163)

1838 ± 26

AD 134-214

Forrabury

736 - 689 BC (13.9%) 663 - 648 BC (3%) 548 - 404 BC (78.5%) AD 88 - 103 (3.2%) AD 122 - 241 (92.2%)

Table 24: Results from the North Cornwall pipeline radiocarbon dating.

Figure 64 Radiocarbon determinations from the North Cornwall pipeline.

85

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Results

are very close in date and a fifth must have been from a contaminated sample.

Dispersed pits

Four of the determinations from the roundhouse were dated to the Middle Bronze Age period. Cereal grains and grasses within posthole [157], produced a date of 3105 ± 26, 1434 - 1312 cal BC (SUERC-42058), and a second date on ulex charcoal produced a determination of 3057 ± 23, 1399 - 1265 cal BC (SUERC-42059). Two determinations were obtained from ceramic residue, 3092 ± 31 BP, 1432 - 1273 cal BC (SUERC-42064), was from a sherd in the collapsed wall area (126), within the entrance and 3092 ± 26 BP, 1428 - 1302 cal BC (SUERC-42065) was from a potsherd in wall 156.

Seven radiocarbon determinations were obtained from five pits which scattered along the route of the pipeline. Three of the determinations on these pits were dated to the Early Neolithic period, on Corylus charcoal. Pit [185], an isolated feature in Field 21 produced a date of 4755 ± 26 BP, 3637 - 3384 cal BC (SUERC-42048). By contrast, in Field 27, two dates were from two pits within a small cluster. Pit [237] was the earliest and produced a date of 4703 ± 23 BP, 3628 - 3375 cal BC (SUERC-42049). Pit [235] was a little later dating to 4690 ± 23 BP, 3625 - 3372 cal BC (SUERC-42047). The determinations are very close together and indicate that the group dates to a short period of time in the latter part of the Early Neolithic period.

A fifth determination was derived from a cereal grain from posthole [119], 347 ± 26 BP, cal AD 1463 - 1635 (SUERC-42057). This date is clearly anomalous and must represent later contamination of the sample.

The Early Bronze Age was represented by a single determination on cremated human bone within pit [101] in Field 9. The bone produced a date of 3555 ± 26 BP, 2010 1776 cal BC (SUERC-42056). This date is of interest as it is the only evidence for Early Bronze Age funerary activity within the pipeline corridor and because the associated arrowhead is of Neolithic type.

With the exception of one sample, the determinations are very close together and indicate that the roundhouse dates to the period between circa 1400 - 1300 cal BC. This tight range is of interest because it confirms the evidence from the stratigraphy which suggested that the roundhouse was a short-lived building. Forrabury

One stone-lined feature, pit [210] in Field 16, was found to be of Middle Bronze Age date. The ulex charcoal from the fill of the pit produced a date of 3170 ± 26 BP, 1498 -1409 cal BC (SUERC-42050). This pit was not found in association with any other middle second millennium cal BC features, and as it was not fully excavated, its context is uncertain.

Three radiocarbon determinations were obtained from features and a ceramic sherd recovered from the site at Forrabury. Two were obtained from cut features and one was on ceramic residue. Two determinations were from material recovered during excavation of a sample of the stone-lined pits and other features. Feature [16] was the earlier; ulex charcoal produced a date of 2449 ± 25 BP, 752 - 410 cal BC (SUERC-42054). Burnt bone recovered from Feature [15] was a little later dating to 2425 ± 23 BP, 736 - 404 cal BC (SUERC-42055). This pair of determinations has a good deal of overlap with one another and they indicate that many of the features found at this site date to the earlier part of the Iron Age. This is also supported by the pot from the end of feature 1 (Quinnell above).

The final pit-associated determinations were obtained from [308] in Field 31. Several pits were uncovered in this area although none produced any datable artefacts. Two determinations 1505 ± 35 BP, cal AD 435 - 639 (SUERC-39366) and 1510 ± 35 BP, cal AD 434 - 635 (SUERC-39367) were obtained on animal bone (Randall below). Both dates are contemporary with one another and suggest that the pit belongs to the fifth to sixth centuries cal AD. Trevalga roundhouse

A third date, 1838 ± 26 BP, cal AD 88 - 241 (SUERC-42060) was obtained on residue from a sherd of pottery which came from the top of feature [17]. This find was not securely stratified, but it indicates some use of the site in the Romano-British period.

Five radiocarbon determinations were obtained from features and ceramics found within the roundhouse at Trevalga. Three were obtained from pits or postholes and two were on ceramic residue. Four of the determinations

86

Part 2: The Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline Chapter 15: Introduction and background Excavation along the route of the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline was undertaken in 1997 in advance of the laying of a sewer pipeline and construction of associated treatment works and pumping stations in the parishes of Padstow and St Merryn, Cornwall. An outline archive level report on the excavations was produced (Gent 1997), and this document, together with the primary archive, has formed the basis for much of this section.

which does not normally survive in the acidic soils which cover much of Cornwall. Elsewhere, further inland the soils were shallow loams. Prehistoric sites are found in significant densities in this part of the coastal zone, and large numbers of cropmark enclosures extend inland along the Camel estuary (Young 2012). Sites in the wider vicinity of the pipeline include Bronze Age and Iron Age midden deposits, as well as Bronze Age barrows and burials and the Iron Age cemetery at Harlyn Bay (Jones et al 2011: Crawford 1921; Bullen 1912).

The circa 6.5 kilometre sewer pipeline (Figure 65) extended east from the north-west of Harlyn at Cataclews Point (SW 868 757) crossing open fields before passing through the villages of Harlyn and Trevone (Figure 66) down to the Camel estuary and the southern part of the settlement of Padstow (SW 922 749) where it ended.

In addition to ceremonial and funerary sites, the area has produced a very large number of flint scatters. Numerous collections of Mesolithic and Neolithic flint-work have been made across the shoreline of St Merryn Parish, from Constantine Bay to Harlyn, and especially around Trevose Head (Norman 1977; Johnson and David 1982; Berridge and Roberts 1986; Johnson and David 1982), with Booby’s Bay, a cliff-top site producing considerable quantities of Mesolithic and Neolithic lithics (Whitehead 1973). The available evidence indicates that the coastal area was densely occupied from the onset of the Mesolithic period.

At Trevone, a 400m section of pipeline, orientated north-south, joined the main sewer at SW 892 755, after following Beach Road. This connected the main east-west sewer with a tank set to the south of Trevone Bay (SW 892 759). The pipeline and associated infrastructure elements were subdivided, with individual fields allotted an alphabetical code (from Field A to the west to Field L close to Padstow). Only those Fields with material commented upon below are named on Figure 65.

In particular, the area around Harlyn Bay is exceptional for the high density of sites, levels of preservation and quality of its prehistoric archaeology. Within Harlyn Bay both flat graves and mounded burials dating to the Early Bronze Age have been recorded. Associated radiocarbon determinations and diagnostic artefacts, such as the two gold lunulae, a copper alloy Migdale axe and Trevisker pottery suggest that ceremonial and ritual activity started from around 2100 cal BC to 1700 cal BC (Taylor 1980; Jones et al 2011). The lunulae are indicative of long distance contacts with Ireland at this period. At Cataclews Point, on the western promontory of Harlyn Bay, is a linear barrow cemetery for which excavations, undertaken at various times, have confirmed the Early Bronze Age date (Crawford 1921; Christie 1985; Preston-Jones and Rose 1987) and have revealed a range of artefacts and contrasting funerary practices. Most recently the excavation of an inhumation within a barrow at Constantine Island has been dated to the Middle Bronze Age, thereby extending funerary activity into the end of the second millennium cal BC (Jones 2009-10).

The topsoil was removed from the pipeline easement in each field under archaeological supervision. The standard width of trench stripped measured 1.5m wide. All archaeological features identified within the trench were excavated and recorded in advance of the full depth of excavation of the pipe-trench itself. In those places where archaeological deposits of particular significance were identified, a wider area was exposed. The geology underlying the route of the pipeline is mainly comprised of Upper and Middle Devonian slates, although igneous dolerite occurs around Cataclews Point. Most of the land which the pipeline passed through has been characterized as Anciently Enclosed Land which has been farmed since at least the medieval period, or Recently Enclosed Land, enclosed since the eighteenth century (Cornwall County Council 1996). However, at Harlyn Bay, wind-blown sands covered the entire isthmus between Constantine Bay and Harlyn and beyond. These wind-blown deposits were found to be in places in excess of 2m deep, and can totally obscure the original topography of the area. The wind blown sands permit the preservation of organic remains, such as bone,

Middle Bronze Age occupation is also found in this zone. At Harlyn Bay, a circular, hollow-set building was exposed in 1976 in the area of the Iron Age cemetery (Whimster 1977). This building was originally interpreted as an Iron Age shrine, however, recent reinterpretation and

87

Figure 65 Map showing the route of the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline and Fields with significant archaeological features.

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

88

Chapter 15: Introduction and background

Figure 66 Photograph of the eastern end of Sandy Lane, Harlyn looking west (note Gulland Rock in mouth of Bay).

publication of associated radiocarbon dates has revealed that is of Middle Bronze Age date and falls within the tradition of Lowland Bronze Age hollow-set structures (Jones 2008b).

their heads to the north. The cemetery is the largest in the south west and the preservation of the bone is exceptional for Cornwall. The quality of the natural harbourage provided by the Harlyn coastline may be to large extent responsible both for the presence of the lunulae, and the well-documented proliferation in activity during the subsequent Bronze and Iron Ages. This potential will be discussed in the concluding section.

Iron Age funerary activity was identified during house building in 1900, when some 130 graves were located within the wind-blown sands at Harlyn, often situated at depths of as much as 4m below the surface (Bullen 1912; Whimster 1977). These inhumations were contracted, with

89

Chapter 16: Results from the pipeline Tim Gent, Andy M Jones and Henrietta Quinnell

Field C: Iron Age and Romano-British settlement

The following section outlines the most significant results from the pipeline recording project. These include descriptions of archaeological features found in Fields B, C, E, R, S, Y, and the Tank Trench.

An area of Iron and Romano-British settlement was located by geophysical survey in the west part of Field C (centred SW 872 753). This showed a number of overlapping ring ditches, presumed to be the sites of structures, and traces of field ditches in a roughly rectangular pattern (Figures 68 and 69). A series of test pits across the field showed a layer of wind-blown sand, up to 1.4m deep over its eastern half, overlying archaeological features and preventing these showing on the geophysical survey. The full extent of settlement in Field C is therefore not known. The total depth, some 2m, of blown sand and topsoil over the eastern part of the field made it impractical to excavate in this area which is shown blank in Figure 70: here in any case archaeology beneath the sand would be little damaged by the pipeline.

Field B: Probable prehistoric ditch [784] and pit [780] At 18m from the eastern boundary with Field C, was a slightly ‘V’ shaped ditch [784], which measured 0.7m deep and 1.5m wide (Figure 67). The ditch was cut through the slate geology and was aligned west north-west to east south-east. It contained a single clay silt fill, (785), which produced no finds. Seventy-two metres from the same boundary was pit [780], an almost perfectly circular vertical-sided feature with a diameter of 4.7m (Figure 67). The single silty clay fill (781) produced a large primary flint flake struck from a beach pebble and a cattle-sized piece of bone (Higbee below). The feature was not dated but is likely to be prehistoric.

The eventual line of the pipeline fell a little to the north of much of the area covered by the geophysical survey and most of the features revealed by the survey were not affected by the scheme. However, other archaeological remains associated with the settlement were found to extend into the excavated pipeline corridor. In the west part of the field

No further archaeological features were exposed in the field.

Figure 67 Plan of archaeological features in Field B, with detailed inset of pit [780] (bottom left) and ditch [784] (bottom right).

90

Figure 68 Geophysical survey results from the Harlyn Bay pipeline. Settlement in Field C (Area 3) is located on the right hand side of the image (note North is pointing to the bottom of the page) (source: Oxford Archaeotechnics).

Chapter 16: Results from the pipeline

91

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 69 Detailed of geophysical survey results from Field C (Area3) showing settlement related features (source: Oxford Archaeotechnics).

92

Chapter 16: Results from the pipeline

Figure 70 Plan showing overall distribution of features in Field C. All of Field C (top), and the area of the Iron Age settlement (bottom).

Figure 71 Plan excavated features in western end of Field C (section line for Figure 73 marked D – C).

93

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast the blown sand thinned to circa 1m-0.5m and the pipeline trench was excavated to slate bedrock. Features relating to a Late Iron Age and Roman settlement were revealed over some 70m. Two overlapping trenches were excavated to accommodate a divergence in the pipeline corridor. The west part of the excavated trench, including the overlap of the two trenches, is shown in Figure 71, the east part in Figure 72. A section (Figure 73), presented principally to show the overlying stratigraphy, shows the south side of the north trench, of which the plan is in Figure 72 with its west end in Figure 71.

Blown sand (695), beneath turf and topsoil (694), had covered a buried soil (697) which bore traces of ridge and furrow cultivation (Figure 73). The surface of (697) (Figure 73) shows the ridge and furrow configuration clearly. Soil (697) gradually merged down into a sandy clay soil which directly covered the settlement features and otherwise lay over slate bedrock into which these were cut. Generally these grey brown silty clay fills with varying amounts of slate unless otherwise stated. Because of the similarity of fill, relationships were difficult to ascertain. Features are described from west to east.

Figure 72 Plan excavated features in eastern end of Field C (section line for Figure 73 marked A – B).

Figure 73 Section across excavated features in Field C (windblown sand shaded in lighter tone). 94

Chapter 16: Results from the pipeline Pit [844] (Figure 71), sealed beneath surface (827) (see below), produced a radiocarbon determination on charcoal, which calibrated to 3968 - 3714 cal BC (AA-26415 5065 ± 50 BP). This feature was circa 0.9m by 0.32m by 0.27m deep with fill (845) of grey brown clay silt with slate fragments and some charcoal (Figure 74). This date, together with the large number of features without finds, allows a long date range for activity in the area, although there were no lithics from Field C, which suggests that Neolithic use was limited.

determination on animal bone calibrated to 754 - 406 cal BC (AA-26419 2439 ± 42 BP). Immediately to the east, a linear gully (unnumbered), flat-bottomed and 0.45m deep, also had a silty fill but with no finds. Immediately east again, a rough but solid slate surface (827) (Figure 76) with an Iron Age sherd sealed a group of cut features, [884] (see above), [854], [852], and [846]; only (853) fill of [852] contain artefacts, a sherd of Iron Age pottery. The east side of slate surface (827) had been removed by subsequent agricultural activity. The straight linear [856] both defined and was infilled by the slates of (827) and was interpreted as part of a structure using this surface. It was 0.48m deep with very steep sides. East again were a group of intercutting features, [848] [850] [832]. (833) fill of [832] contained an Iron Age sherd while (851) fill of pit [850] circa 0.25m deep contained a group of sherds dating

Feature [824] (Figures 71 and 75) was an arc of ringgully some 8m across and 0.5m deep. Its silt fills (826) over (825) indicated a drainage gully, of the type which occurs around houses; the lower fill contained a number of well-made gabbroic Iron Age sherds. A radiocarbon

Figure 74 Photograph of Early Neolithic pit [844] and pit [846] following excavation. 95

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 75 Photograph of Iron Age ring-gully [824] taken from the west following excavation. from the late first to early second century AD (see below). After a 4m gap were another group of intercutting features, [820], [828], [818], [838], and [835]. Here, the only artefact was a sherd of granite derived fabric, of probable Iron Age date, from (821), the fill of linear feature [820].

Figure 76 Photograph of slate surface [827] taken from the east following exposure. slate, and each set in shallow foundation trenches up to 0.10m deep. These walls had suffered badly from later agricultural activity and the overlying soil (697) contained a lot of slate in their vicinity. Walls 690 and 669 were roughly parallel and some 7.5m apart and could possibly have formed a structure with 772 forming the south side. Wall 565 12m to the east had no related features. These walls appear the latest features in this part of the trench, as does the slate surface 827 further west. There is no real dating for them. Among the slates of 772 was a substantial chunk from a Roman period storage jar dating from the late second century onward (see below) but this could have been redeposited find.

In the more easterly section, with the overlapping trenches, shown on Figure 71, the most distinctive feature was the curved gully [575]/[796]. This was an arc of a gully perhaps defining an area 10m across, which had a terminal at its west end; no other part of this gully was detected to the east in the area of Figure 72. This was only circa 0.10m deep at its north end but deepened to 0.28m by the terminal: this contained two Iron Age sherds. The relationship between gully [575]/[796] and gully [577] was not ascertained. To the west of gully [575]/[796] was a confused group of features, pits, possible postholes and a linear ditch [798]. Pits [804] and [788] contained Iron Age sherds, while pit [572] contained a South Devon sherd of Roman date. To the east of gully [575]/[796] was the terminal of a linear ditch [790]/[579] cut by pit [692]. East again were posthole [746] and pit [740] which produced a standard gabbroic sherd.

Wall 772 overlay a ‘V’ shaped ditch [749] 1.77m wide and 0.9m deep on a north east-south west orientation (Figure 77). Its fill (750) contained an Iron Age sherd. The remaining features in the east section of the trench were not informative and some were not completely excavated due to the increasing depth of overlying layers. Linear ditch [675] (Figure 78) was straight and circa 0.26m deep. Pit [744], against the south section, was 0.6m across and 0.5m deep with a series of five flattish fills, from the base upwards (757), (756), (755), (754) and (745) (Figure 79). These were all brown clays with varying

In the more easterly part of the trench (Figure 72) were four rough walls, 565, 669, 690 and 772, made of local

96

Chapter 16: Results from the pipeline

Figure 77 Photograph of Iron Age ditch [749] looking north west following excavation.

Figure 78 Photograph of ditch [675] looking north west during excavation.

amounts of shillet, except for (755) which was a lens of Quercus charcoal. This charcoal produced a radiocarbon determination 1970 ± 45 BP, 89 cal BC-AD 130 (AA26414). The only other feature to produce artefacts was pit or gully [679] which contained an Iron Age sherd.

in Cornwall appears to date. For convenience it may be suggested that most of the activity belongs between the sixth century BC and circa AD 200. The Neolithic radiocarbon determination from pit [844] is a reminder of the possibility of some earlier activity. The [572] South Devon sherd and the chunk of Trethurgy bowl (see below) from overlying soil (697) indicate some activity in the later Roman centuries. Given the later Roman sherd in wall 772, it is possible that the latest stratigraphic phase, with walls, slot [856] and surface 827, belongs to the later Roman centuries, although it could well be later. There were no finds of subsequent date from Field C.

The small quantity of pottery makes dating Field C activity very difficult. The date of this is discussed in more detail in the pottery report below. Most of the sherds are in well-made gabbroic fabric which makes its appearance at Trevelgue Head, Newquay, with the Plain Jar Group, broadly dated from the sixth to the fourth centuries BC: the fabric remained in use until the later second century AD. No sherds have any distinctive formal or decorative features which predate the Late Iron Age, but the radiocarbon determination from ring gully [824] indicates activity from the end of the Early Iron Age. This date back into the Early Iron Age is consistent with the presence of a few non-gabbroic Iron Age sherds, in granitic derived fabrics. Gabbroic fabrics become almost universal from a date within the Middle Iron Age. The earliest piece with distinctive form is the Late Iron Age Type F/G sherd from pit [788], a form which appears to continue into the earlier second century AD. The presence of a South Devon ware sherd in feature [572] might indicate the later Roman centuries to which most South Devon ware

The long narrow pipeline trench corridor was not a successful medium for sorting out details of what may have been a complex and long-lived settlement. The two gullies [824] and [575]/[796] did not appear to have held structural uprights. It is possible that such uprights had been dug out, the gullies then silting up. It is also possible that the gullies defined, perhaps provided drainage for, roundhouse sites. Although a number of roughly circular features under one metre across are described in the records as postholes, there are no details of any packing stones or post-pipes. The interpretation of small pits as postholes is therefore problematic.

97

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 79 Photograph of Iron Age pit [744] following excavation (right) and pit [742] (left).

The absence of any feature likely to have been the enclosing ditch of a settlement indicates that the Iron Age and Roman activity in Field C was unenclosed: this will be discussed further in the conclusion below.

A further archaeological feature was also recorded within Field E and was located 5m to the west of wall 1004/1007. Pit [1009] was cut through buried soil (1005) and measured approximately 0.12m deep by 0.58m across. It was filled by (1010), a dark reddish brown soil, which contained frequent charcoal fragments.

Field E: Bronze Age field wall 1004/1007 A grey, clay-rich soil, averaging 0.3m in depth, lay between the slate and the sand from the entrance to Sandy Lane, until a point some 80m into the field. Here, the remains of a slate wall 1004/1007 were exposed (Figure 80). This wall, orientated north west-south east, lay on the divide between a very slightly humic grey buried soil (1005) to the east, and a humic, reddish brown, clay silt soil (1003) to the west. This red soil continued at a depth of some 0.45m across the remainder of the field to the west and beyond into the adjacent field. The footings for the wall stood on remains of grey soil (1005), and survived to a height of 0.25m. The red soil (1003) overlay the stonework to a depth of 0.1m. Taking into account the angle at which the wall was exposed, the undisturbed body is likely to have been close to 0.6m in width. Disturbed elements of the wall extended in a gradually depleted layer for up to 2.5m to the west, lying between red soil (1003) and the underlying subsoil. Two radiocarbon determinations were obtained from charcoal from the buried soils: 4120 ± 47 BP, 2876 - 2573 cal BC (AA-26421) from soil (1005), and 3350 ± 44 BP, 1741 -1526 cal BC (AA-26420) from the overlying soil (1003). A prehistoric date, possibly within the first half of the second millennium cal BC, is therefore likely for the wall.

Field R: Grooved Ware pit [523] and other features Field R, which lies directly to the east of Trevone, produced one of the more obviously significant features on the pipeline. At a distance of 122m from the western field boundary, a small pit [523] was exposed within the pipe trench when the machine dislodged a sub-rectangular slate slab (Figures 81 and 82). Beneath this slab, a sub-circular pit with surface dimensions of 0.55m by 0.7m was excavated to a depth of 0.18m below the surface of the slate geology of the area. Within the clay silt fill of the pit, (522), 44 sherds of Grooved Ware pottery (Longworth and Quinnell below) had been placed, decoration face down, stacked, one on top of the other. A minimum of five vessels (P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5) are represented, with a large part of one particularly well-decorated pot represented. In addition to the pottery, a single large beach pebble was also recovered from the pit. A layer of small slate fragments was located at the base of the pit. This is thought to represent the result of chemical and physical weathering of the base due to repeated water logging over the past five millennia. The weathered state of the pottery sherds from the base of

98

Chapter 16: Results from the pipeline

Figure 80 Photograph of wall 1004/1007 in section (sealed beneath sand) viewed from south.

Figure 81 Plan of archaeological features in Field R. The whole of field R (top), ditches [516] and [518] (middle), and Grooved Ware pit [523] and other features (bottom).

99

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 82 Photograph of Grooved Ware pit [523] following excavation.

Figure 83 Plan of archaeological features in Field S. All of field S (top) and Middle Bronze Age ditch [552] (bottom).

100

Chapter 16: Results from the pipeline the pit is also considered to result from this process. A Late Neolithic radiocarbon determination of 4175 ± 50 BP, 2893 - 2620 cal BC (AA-26412) was obtained from Pomoideae charcoal within fill (522).

These two deposits were capped by a second layer of thin slate slabs, which extended across the full width of the ditch. The remainder of the ditch had been filled with a mid brown clay silt (608) with slate fragments.

A second slate covered pit [610] was exposed 5.4m to the west of pit [523]. This measured 0.44m in diameter and was 0.12m deep with a concave base. It was filled by a clay silt (611). Nothing other than slate fragments and charcoal was recovered from the feature.

Due to the character of the fills, and the abundance of the Bronze Age pottery, the easement to the north of the trench was also excavated. A northern extension to the ditch was revealed, measuring between 0.5m and 0.75m in depth and 1.2m to 1.8m in width, which became both shallower and narrower to the north. Three deposits, fills (559), (560) and (557) were associated with the initial infilling of the ditch. These combined to produce a depth of some 0.1m of pinkish grey, clay silt, with occasional stone inclusions. Slate slabs (558) with individual dimensions of approximately 0.2m - 0.4m by 0.02m had been placed flat over these deposits to cover the full width of the ditch. A grooved whetstone S1 was recovered from within this layer in ditch [552] (see Figure 99).

A linear feature [612], with a north north-east to south south-west alignment was uncovered 1.1m to the east of pit [610]. This probable land drain had an average width of 1m and a depth of some 0.25m and was lined with slate slabs. It was filled with tightly packed angular stones and slate. No finds were recovered. Twelve metres to the west, a shallow, sub-circular pit [524] measuring 0.8m in diameter by 0.18m deep was uncovered. It was filled by (525) a mid brown clay silt. Again, no finds were recovered. Two parallel linear ditches were exposed to the west of this cluster of features. The ditches were 6.5m apart and were orientated north north-east to south south-west. The westerly ditch [516] measured 0.34m deep and was 0.5m wide. It was filled by (520) a mid brown clay silt. The second, ditch [518] measured 1.2m wide and was 0.2m deep. It was filled by (519), which was also a mid brown clay silt. No finds were recovered from either of the ditches.

Fills (555), (556) and (561) had each been deposited on top of slates (558), and in turn sealed by further slates. Fill (556), a mid grey, friable clay silt, contained animal bone and a further perforated slate, in this case, with a

Field S: Bronze Age ditch [552] and boundary [532] Two linear ditches were found to cut the slate geology of this field. Ditch [552] was located 76m to the west of the eastern field boundary (presented in simplified form on Figure 83). When initially exposed within the pipe trench, a slightly concave-sided, rather ‘V’ shaped section with a width of 2.8m and a depth of 1m was recorded (Figures 84 and 85). This held two yellow clay fills containing an abundance of slate fragments, but no archaeological material. However, when the trench for the sewer was subsequently cut slightly to the north (not illustrated on Figure 83), a rather different section was revealed in the northern face. A concave ditch with a depth of a little over 0.75m and a width of 1.5m: two main deposits were recorded. Following some initial silting, the ditch had been lined with thin slate slabs. Two distinct fills had then been deposited to half-fill the cut. These fills were of roughly equal size in section, the one to the west (607) comprised of slate and occasional charcoal fragments in a mid brown clay silt. The deposit to the east (606) was almost completely composed of cockle shells Cerastoderma edule, with occasional fragments of Mytelis edulis (Janice Light, pers comm). Amongst these, a large number of sherds of Trevisker pottery, which included 25 sherds from vessel P11 and a flint flake, were also found.

Figure 84 Photograph of ditch [552] fully excavated taken from the south.

101

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 85 Photograph of ditch [552] in section taken from the south. linear cut surrounded by tooling marks. Both fills (555) and (561) produced cattle bone and teeth (Higbee below), and sherds of Trevisker pottery (see Quinnell below). Fill (555), which was very dark in colour with an ashy silt texture also contained fragments of cockle shell Cerastoderma edule and occasional mussel Mytilus edulis and oyster Ostrea edulis shell (Janice Light, pers comm). A mid grey, slightly pink clay silt, layer (554), covered the upper slate layer, and also produced a sherd of Trevisker Ware. Further sherds came from the more brown coloured, surviving upper fill (553). In total, sherds from at least four Trevisker vessels (P6, P7, P8 and P10) were recovered from this part of the ditch (see Quinnell below). Charcoal from Pomoideae and Quercus recovered from fill (556) produced a Middle Bronze Age radiocarbon determination of 3010 ± 45 BP, 1493 - 1266 cal BC (AA-26413). At a distance of 15m to the west of this ditch, was ditch [532]. This feature measured 0.9m wide, and was 0.15m deep. The bottom of the cut was filled by (531) a loose, silty loam; however, most of the cut held the footings of an unbonded wall of rough-hewn slate slabs 530, which survived up to three courses high. The feature was not directly dated, however, it was aligned roughly east-west, and was therefore on a completely different alignment from the medieval field system. It is possible that it too was of prehistoric date. Field Y, Treator: Grooved Ware pits [711] and [713], ‘cairn / platform’ and Iron Age features Field Y was located just west of the hamlet of Treator (Figure 86). Three closely spaced linear ditches [715],

[717] and [719] were exposed, 23m from the northern field boundary with the road B3276. The north westerly pair lay only 0.25m apart and shared a common north east-south west alignment. Ditch [719] was shallow, measuring 0.3m deep and 1.1m wide. It was filled by (718), a mid-yellow / grey silty clay. Ditch [717] was narrower, measuring 0.22m and 0.2m deep. The cut was filled by (716) a reddish brown silty clay with occasional stones. Neither of the fills of these features produced artefacts. Gully [715] lay a little over a metre to the south-east of ditch [717]. It was aligned more west south- west to east north-east. The gully measured 0.15m in depth and 0.8m wide. It was filled by (714) reddish brown silty clay deposit. The gully contained no artefacts. However, artefacts were recovered from two circular pits which were located 23m further along the pipe easement to the south-east. The larger pit [713] measured 0.83m (east-west) and 0.94m (north-south) at the surface, with a slightly concave base at a depth of 0.38m. It was filled by (712) a mid reddish brown silty clay. This deposit produced a rounded scraper, manufactured from a clean, dark flint and two sherds of Grooved Ware pottery, similar to those in pit [711] (Quinnell below). The second pit [711] situated 1.5m to the south-east of [713] measured 0.65m in diameter and was 0.36m deep (Figure 87). The single fill (710) was similar to that of pit [713], but also included angular quartzite lumps, two water-rounded stones, charcoal fragments and occasional burnt or oxidized clay lumps. It also produced seven small sherds of Grooved Ware pottery, which were probably from two vessels (Quinnell below) and seven struck flints, including 102

Chapter 16: Results from the pipeline

Figure 86 Plan of archaeological features at northern end of Field Y. Ditches [715], [717] and [719] (top), Grooved Ware pits [711] and [713] (middle), and ditch [654] (bottom).

Figure 87 Photograph of Grooved Ware pit [711] fully excavated. 103

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast three blades (Gent and Quinnell below). Five of the flints, including the three blades, were struck from a similar clean flint to that producing the scraper found in the adjoining pit. A radiocarbon determination was obtained on Pomoideae charcoal within the fill of pit [711]. This fell in the Late Neolithic period 4055 ± 50 BP, 2860 - 2471 cal BC (AA-26416). Both pits were also found to contain beach pebbles within their fills. At a distance of 6.5m along the trench from pit [711] was gully [709]. Gully [709] measured 1m wide and 0.2m deep, orientated north east to south west. It was filled by layer (708), a mid to light brown clay fill with occasional stone fragments. The gully was devoid of artefacts. Towards the southern end of the field two further ditch sections were exposed. The nearest to the field boundary, ditch [654] measured 2.5m in width, with a flat, uneven base at a depth of 0.2m. This wide gully was orientated north east to south west and filled with layer (655) a yellow brown silt clay. This fill produced 65 flints including two flake cores, a blade core and a retouched flake. Eleven of the lithics were burnt. Seven and a half metres to the north-west, was field drain [724]. A section was excavated to through the fill (725) which revealed that the feature measured 0.55m wide and 0.6m deep. A layer of vein quartz (729) was exposed during removal of topsoil from the line of the pipe trench approximately

midway across the field (Figures 88 and 89): (729) is described as spar on Figure 88. The soil among the quartz blocks is described as context (728). This layer extended along the trench for a distance of some 18m, the centre of the area at a depth of 0.3m, the edges falling away to a depth of 0.5m, lying just above the level of the slate geology. Subsequently a parallel trench was excavated, leaving a baulk, thereby forming a sub-rectangular area of some 22m by 6m in an attempt to define the extremities of the layer, locating the northerly and south-westerly edges, which were approximately 18m apart. However, the full extent of the vein quartz was not found either to the east or west, or within the extension to the south west, although the layer lay almost directly upon the slate on the eastern side, suggesting that the edge have been near. A total of 149 struck flints were recovered from this area, 122 lying in (728) upon or amongst vein quartz (729). Forty-four came from points to the east of the baulk running centrally through the exposed area, 49 from the western side. Twenty nine flints were also recovered as unstratified finds during excavation of this layer. All were stuck from small, local beach pebbles, and included only one retouched flake. The vein quartz layer was patchy, with some areas relatively free from this material. Others, particularly in the northern quarter, were covered with an almost continuous layer, producing a reasonably ‘cobbled’ surface which may have

Figure 88 Plan of archaeological features at the southern end of Field Y, including features below layer (729) (shaded), pit [908] and trimmed slate outcrop 910. 104

Chapter 16: Results from the pipeline

Figure 89 Photograph of the eastern side of layer (729) becoming exposed (taken from the north). been a cairn or platform. The quartz was random in size, with pieces averaging some 0.12m in overall dimension, the largest with maximum dimensions of circa 0.3m. At the southern edge, a 0.5m wide band of quartz curved gently around the main platform, separated from it by a bare area of 1.5m in width (not shown on plan). A sub-circular pit [732] had been dug to a depth of 0.1m through the quartz blocks and into the material lying beneath (729), layer (730). This pit measured 0.5m diameter and was 0.10m deep. It was filled layer (733), which produced a single, unglazed sherd of pottery of medieval date. A ‘natural’ slate protrusion 910 measuring 3.2m in length was exposed in the eastern side of the quartz layer (729), lying approximately midway across the exposed platform, the westerly end of the stone not fully exposed (Figure 90). A flat, plough truncated, surface lay level with the top of the quartz. Removal of the 0.34m deep layer of quartz and underlying ‘make up’ material deposited around this stone revealed that it was a natural outcrop of the local slate geology. The sub-rectangular top to the stone measured between 0.6m and 0.8m in width. The sides to the north and east were steep and apparently untruncated. Although entirely natural and bonded with the slate bedrock, the slate had the appearance of a recumbent standing stone. A shallow, concave based pit had been cut on the southern side, directly alongside and running parallel with the linear outcrop. This cut [908] was 3.1m long and 0.9m wide, with a depth of 0.2m, and closely resembled a grave. A sparse cover of vein quartz covered the silty clay fill (909),

and abutted the slate outcrop. An Iron Age radiocarbon determination of 1970 ± 45 BP, 407 - 197 cal BC (AA26417) was obtained on Quercus charcoal within the fill, (909) (Figures 91 and 92). Other features were sealed beneath quartz layer (729) and two distinct layers of material underlying it, redeposited natural (730) and (731) both deepest at the centre, which were 0.3m and 0.35m thick. These features were amorphous, the majority being curvilinear or linear in form (shaded area on Figure 88 plan). The excavators suggested that it was likely that these ‘features’ were produced by animal burrowing. Tank trench: Mesolithic horizon A trench measuring 7.5m by 20m was excavated by machine in Trevone Bay car park, the long axis aligned with the road. This was dug to a depth of 2.15m to the south and 3.1m at the northern end of the trench, where the slate geology of the area was exposed. All deposits uncovered relate to activity within inter-tidal zones or areas lying only just off a relict beach. From bottom to top, the general profile comprised the following sequence. Bands of both clean and slightly dirty marine clays, interleaved by layers of loose slate ‘shillet’, overlay the slate natural to depths approximately 1m. Loose, yellow wind-blown sands (913) covered these deposits to depths of between 0.5m and 0.8m, these in turn supporting the development of a 0.2m to 0.5m depth of sandy soil.

105

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 90 Photograph of ‘stone’ 910 fully exposed, pit [908] in the foreground (taken from the north). However, at the southern end of the trench a 0.2m deep layer of mid-brown, stony, silty clay (916) lay directly beneath the sand at the southern end of the trench, forming the upper layer of the mixed clays (Figure 93). This material produced a flint core and 11 worked flints and flecks of charcoal. The charcoal, from Quercus, resulted in a radiocarbon determination with a range of 6363 ± 53 BP, 5471 - 5225 cal BC (AA-26418), which falls in the latter part of the Mesolithic period. The 0.4m deep layer of yellow-brown silty clay (917), which lay below this deposit, produced 2 flint flakes. At the north-west corner of the trench, layer (916) was overlain by a deposit of clean, grey marine clay (914), deposited unevenly to a maximum depth of 0.35m. More central to the trench at this end, and closer to the sea, this clay overlay a 0.2m depth of loose, grey sand (915) overlain by water-worn slate slabs, which contained animal bone (see Higbee below) and charcoal.

Figure 91 Photograph of ‘grave-shaped’ Iron Age pit [908] beside ‘stone’ 910 prior to excavation (taken from the west). 106

Chapter 16: Results from the pipeline

Figure 92 Photograph of ‘grave-shaped’ Iron Age pit [908] under excavation, with slate block 910 on right.

Figure 93 Photograph of buried layers beneath sand in the tank trench, Trevone Bay car park. 107

Chapter 17: Pottery from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline Henrietta Quinnell with petrographic comment by Roger Taylor Grooved Ware Ian Longworth and Henrietta Quinnell with petrographic comment by Roger Taylor Field R Y Y Total

Context 522 710 712

Details Fill pit 523 Fill pit 711 Fill pit 713

Fabric 1 33/390 P1, 4, 5

Fabric 2 11/156 P2, 3

33/390

11/156

Fabric 3 7/28 2/4 9/32

Totals 44/546 7/28 2/4 53/578

Table 25: Details of Grooved Ware, by sherd numbers and weight in grams. Note: about 40 crumbs of Fabric 1 are included in the weight. Fabrics

Fabric 2

Roger Taylor

Gabbroic from the Lizard.

Sherds of the five vessels from pit [522] and a representative sherd from material in Field Y were microscopically examined.

P2 Feldspar – soft white altered sub-angular grains, 0.051mm, rarely 1.5-2mm; magnetite – sparse black glossy sub-angular magnetic grains, 0.1-0.6mm; quartz – sparse translucent to white sub-rounded grains,0.2-0.5mm; mica – biotite, dark brown cleavage flakes, 0.1 and 0.3mm; ferruginous pellets – a scatter of soft black sub-rounded grains, 0.05-0.2mm; matrix – smooth clay with some grains of feldspar less than 0.05mm. Comment. A gabbroic fabric: the biotite may be derived from granite in the Lizard area.

Fabric 1 This was probably sourced from the upper tidal reaches of the Camel estuary. P1 Ferruginous grains – soft dark brown to medium brown, rounded grains, 0.1-0.8mm, rarely 2mm; feldspar – sparse white altered sub-rounded grains, 0.3-1mm; quartz – rare sub-rounded grains, 0.2mm; vein quartz – smoky-brown angular grain, 2mm; matrix – smooth clay. Comment. Clay with indigenous inclusion of altered feldspar from a remote granitic source. P4 Ferruginous grains – soft dark brown and ochre, angular; quartz – sparse, transparent to translucent colourless angular to sub-rounded grains, 0.2-1.1mm; vein quartz – white angular grain, 3mm; feldspar – sparse white soft altered angular to grains, 0.5-1mm; mica – biotite, single dark brown cleavage flake, 0.5mm, muscovite, cleavage flakes, 0.1 and 1.2mm; rock fragments – micaceous slate, silvery tabular fragments,1.2-2mm; matrix – silty finely micaceous clay. Comment. A local clay with some granitic input, possibly sourced from the upper tidal reaches of the Camel estuary. P5 Ferruginous pellets – soft reddish brown angular to sub-rounded, 1mm; quartz – sparse translucent angular to sub-rounded grains, 0.1-1.2 mm; vein quartz – orange stained and white angular grains, 3mm and 2.5mm; feldspar – soft white angular to sub-rounded grains, some harder and showing cleavage,1.1-2mm. Comment. A local clay with some indigenous granitic input, possibly sourced from the upper tidal reaches of the Camel estuary.

P3 Feldspar – soft white altered angular to sub-rounded and rare translucent cleaved grains, 0.05-2.2mm; magnetite – sparse black glossy sub-angular magnetic grains, 0.11.1mm; quartz – rare translucent colourless to white angular to rounded grains, 0.2-1.5mm; ferruginous pellets – sparse soft black glossy grains with brown interior, 0.5mm.; matrix - smooth clay with some fine mica and grains of the main included minerals less than 0.05mm. Comment. A gabbroic fabric. Fabric 3 [710] sherd. Feldspar – a scatter of variably altered and softened white sub-angular grains, 0.1-1mm, cavities may represent eroded feldspar grains; mica – muscovite cleavage flakes, 0.1-0.5mm, rarely 1.1mm; quartz – sparse colourless translucent angular grains, 0.1-0.8mm; chlorite – rare soft dark greenish flaky aggregates, 0.5 and 0.8mm; matrix – an abundantly micaceous clay. Comment. A fabric possibly derived from a source of kaolinised granite: the nearest source to the site is some eighteen kilometres to the south on the St Austell Granite.

108

Chapter 17: Pottery from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline

Figure 94 Pottery: Grooved Ware vessels P1 and P2, pit [522] Field R, Trevone (2).

Field Y, Treator Pit [711], fill (710) Seven abraded sherds, probably from two vessels, in Fabric 3. One vessel has a vertical wall and a pointed rim, with close set, near vertical, incised lines on the exterior reaching right up to the rim: the interior of the rim is bevelled and the bevel has deep slanting incisions. The second vessel appears to be an open straight sided bowl, with a rounded rim, short slanting incisions below the rim and below these close-set near-horizontal lines: five body sherds probably come from this bowl. All sherds are badly abraded, probably due to bioturbation, and therefore do not merit illustration. The bowl is the first to be recognized in Cornwall although these occur in Grooved Ware assemblages in many parts of Britain and Ireland (for example, Barclay 1999, fig 2.2). Pit 713, fill (712) Two body sherds in Fabric 3 which have suffered similar surface abrasion to those in pit [711]. Comment A radiocarbon determination, AA26416 4055 + 50 BP calibrating to 2860 – 2471 BC came from Pomoideae charcoal from fill (710) of pit [711]. The sherds are made from a fabric probably sourced inland around the St Austell Granite, and thus differ from the local estuarine

and gabbroic material from pit [523] located 1 kilometre to the north west. Field R, Trevone (2) A total weight of 546 grams of Grooved Ware was recovered from fill (522) of pit [523] representing a minimum of five vessels. The assemblage is described as ‘Trevone (2)’ to distinguish it from the smaller group found in soil below a small cairn on the coast in 1971/2 (Longworth 1972): this ascription was used in a summary paper by Jones and Quinnell (2011, panel 2). Illustrated sherds (Figures 94, 95 and 96) P1 (Figure 94) Twenty eight sherds come from a small flat-based, tub-shaped vessel, with a mouth diameter of 105mm, a height of 95mm, and a base diameter of 75mm. The fabric, local estuarine Fabric 1, is compact with fine grit inclusions, externally reddish brown, internally greyish brown with a dark grey core. Small voids suggest the one time presence of organic matter. Both faces have been well-smoothed. The sherds vary from unweathered to heavily weathered. Decoration. Internally, beneath the rim, a band of eight circumferential horizontal fine grooved lines. Externally, the vessel is divided into two zones, the upper on a slight collar being less deep than the body zone with a long horizontally perforated box-lug being placed at the junction. All the decoration is in fine grooving. The upper 109

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 95 Pottery: Grooved Ware Vessel P3, pit [522] Field R, Trevone (2).

zone consists of multiple inverted arcs, internally filled with opposed arcs and short diagonal lines, the spaces above by opposed diagonal lines with, in one area, a lozenge between the arcs filled with horizontal lines. The zone is enclosed above and below by a single circumferential line. The lug carries herringbone. On the body, the field beneath the lug comprises a raised panel within slight vertical cordons outlined by horizontal and vertical lines. The decoration enclosed is eroded but appears to resemble the upper zone. Two better preserved sherds show that elsewhere on the lower body the decoration consists of a complex design incorporating vertical chevrons, outlined by two to three lines. The chevrons were then filled with transverse lines, the lines crossing the ridges of the outlining lines giving these a ‘notched’ effect. Through the apexes of the chevrons have been drawn light vertical lines to create a feeling of panelling (see detail of P1, Figure 94). The zone is enclosed between single circumferential lines. P2 (Figure 94) Four small joining sherds come from the body of a vessel of compact, relatively fine fabric with sparse fine grit inclusions, reddish brown externally, with the remains of carbon encrustation internally. Gabbroic Fabric 2. The outer surface is well-smoothed.

Decoration: Finely incised. Two vertical lines enclose a reserved vertical panel adjoining a group of horizontal lines above a field of diagonal lines. P3 (Figure 95) Nine heavily weathered sherds from the body, including the base, of a vessel of coarse fabric with heavy fine to medium grit inclusions, light brown externally, grey to brown internally with carbon encrustation on the inner surface. Gabbroic Fabric 2. Decoration: Six of the sherds (two joining) show the remains of incised decoration. Two further sherds carry the remains of a vertical cordon decorated with incised vertical lines. P4 (Figure 96) Four relatively unweathered sherds, including the rim, come from a vessel of compact, light yellowish brown fabric, with grey core and fine to medium grit inclusions. Local estuarine Fabric 1. Both faces have been well-smoothed. Decoration: Beneath the rim, linear incised filled triangles are bordered above by a single horizontal line and separated from a lower zone by a further horizontal line.

110

Chapter 17: Pottery from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline

Figure 96 Pottery: Grooved Ware vessels P4 and P5, pit [522] Field R, Trevone (2).

The lower band of decoration consists of the beginnings of opposed filled triangles, one triangle being filled with short diagonal to vertical impressions, probably finger nail impressions, an adjoining triangle with impressed dots made with a pointed implement. This sherd has broken across a perforation probably made before firing. A further more weathered sherd may also belong to this vessel. P5 (Figure 96) A thick walled sherd from the body of a large vessel of coarse, brown fabric with grey core and medium to fine grit inclusions. Local estuarine Fabric 1.The internal surface is weathered. Decoration: Triangle(s) outlined by groups of three grooved lines are filled with impressions made with a blunt implement pushed diagonally into the clay. Discussion of the Grooved Ware A radiocarbon determination, AA26412 4175 + 50 BP calibrating to 2893 - 2620 BC on Pomoideae charcoal from pit [523] accords well with the reassessed chronology for Grooved Ware published by Garwood (1999). It falls

within the earlier part of the period indicated for the life span of the tradition and supports the relatively early chronology apparent for structured pit depositions (ibid, 154). The sherds from pit [523] when found added a fifth site to the gazetteer of sites with Grooved Ware recorded from Cornwall (Longworth and Cleal 1999): the pit group from Trevorva Cott, Probus, included in the gazetteer, awaits publication (Longworth forthcoming). This site has radiocarbon determinations AA-29731 4055 + 70 BP calibrating to 2873 - 2465 cal BC and AA-29732 3930 + 65 BP calibrating to 2579 - 2206 cal BC (see Figure 103 below). The sherds from Treator (above) add a sixth site. There is now also the unstratified sherd from Field 36 on the north Cornwall pipeline (Quinnell above). More recently an assemblage with a minimum of 21 vessels from a pit group at Tremough, Penryn, was found in 2002 (Quinnell 2007). These were associated with two radiocarbon determinations, Wk-14999 4079 + 39 BP calibrating to 2861 - 2489 cal BC and Wk-15001 3928 + 40 BP calibrating to 2566 - 2292 cal BC. A nearby site at Penryn College awaits publication. However, two radiocarbon determinations, one on charcoal 4005 ± 30 BP, 2580-2467 cal BC (SUERC-19979) and another 111

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast on ceramic residue, 4080 + 30 BP, 2857-2495 cal BC (SUERC-19984) are associated with the Grooved Ware (Quinnell in preparation). A few sherds identified in the assemblage from Zennor Quoit were published in the Tremough report (Quinnell 2007, 53). An assemblage of over 200 sherds has been found in recent field walking of areas of Clodgy Moor in Paul, West Penwith (Jones et al 2013). In 2011/2 two further sites were found during excavations in advance of development, at Mylor, on the Fal Estuary (information AC Archaeology) and at Tregunnel, Newquay (information Cotswold Archaeology). These bring the current total of sites in Cornwall to twelve, or thirteen including the sherd from Field 36. Earlier attempts to define and classify Grooved Ware concentrated upon the definition of broad styles emphasising the differences between the three main substyles found across southern Britain - Clacton, Woodhenge and Durrington Walls - rather than those features commonly shared between them (Wainwright and Longworth 1971). As more discoveries have been made, recent work has drawn attention to the range of traits shared between vessels of the Clacton and Woodhenge sub-styles and, at the same time, radiocarbon determinations have pointed to the possibility that these might constitute a single ceramic sequence within the Grooved Ware tradition distinct from the Durrington Walls sub-style (Garwood 1999, 157). The sub-styles remain, however, to a large extent overlapping and features of more than one can occasionally be found on the same vessel. In the case of pit [523], the majority of sherds display features typical of the Durrington Walls sub-style. P1 with its elaborate finely grooved decoration and squat tub-shape fits easily, showing the bipartite division of the decorative scheme common in the style. The zone of circumferential lines internally beneath the rim though often executed in twisted cord is also found grooved, even at the type site (Wainwright and Longworth 1971, P329), while the division of the body zone into vertical panels is one of the defining features of the style. The long perforated horizontal box lug, though rare, can again be matched at the type site (ibid, P220), though the raised panel beneath is not. Sherds from three of the other vessels, P2, P3 and P4, also carry incised decoration in the Durrington Walls style. P2 is a fragment of body with vertical incised, lines defining a ‘reserved’ vertical division alongside a panel filled with incised lines, while P3 carries the remains of a vertical cordon decorated with vertical grooved lines. The rim P4 has a typical scheme of filled and opposed triangles but here including a triangle filled with short diagonal strokes and another apparently with the beginnings of dot infilling more typical of the Clacton sub-style. The thick walled sherd P5, in contrast, is in pure Clacton style showing stabbed infilling of a triangular field outlined by groups of grooved lines.

The presence of highly weathered as well as unweathered sherds of P1 make it unwise to read too much into sherd condition regarding the temporal relationship of the group. It seems likely though that the sherds form a broadly synchronous deposition pointing to the contemporaneity on this occasion in the region of both the Durrington and Clacton sub-styles. The assemblages from Tremough (Quinnell 2007) and Trevorva Cott (Longworth forthcoming) also have features of both the Durrington Walls and Clacton sub-styles. The discovery of Grooved Ware consigned to a pit follows a pattern increasingly familiar across southern Britain. Sometimes, though not always, evidence has been recovered for the apparent careful placement of the sherds. One or more, often several, vessels are usually represented in the deposit, the placing of whole pots being a rarity. The evidence from pit [523] is therefore consistent with previous discoveries but with the bonus that deliberate placement of some of the sherds, that is to say, decoration down, nesting and confinement to the southern half of the pit, has been documented while the presence of a slate stone ‘capping’ rounds out the impression that the pit and its contents were not simply a casual disposal of rubbish but had been treated with care, implying due ritual process. To the modem eye such ritual appears loose since the actual contents of Grooved Ware pits vary considerably in their make up, sometimes including exotic items like the pit at Amesbury, Wiltshire (Harding 1988) with its decorated chalk plaques, or more extensive deposits as at Radley (3196), Oxfordshire (Barclay and Halpin 1999, 73) incorporating worked flint and bone work together with animal bones and charred plant remains. Others, like pit [523], simply contain pottery, the amount of each vessel represented varying widely. Further interpretation is largely hampered by the lack of surviving above ground contexts, for across southern Britain, excepting now the recently discovered sites in central Wessex, the majority of finds of Grooved Ware have come from subsoil features. Lack of ‘living’ sites occupied for any length of time creates an imbalance in the evidence. The ritual importance of burying pottery carefully in pits therefore cannot be easily assessed against pre-depositional usage. All that we can conclude is that the social requirement was to bury often only a small token sample from vessels which had previously been in use. Evidence is mixed as to whether some deposits could have passed through an intermediary phase within a midden rather than sampled directly from primary use. It is perhaps worth noting in this connection that if midden material has been incorporated, the radiocarbon determination may relate to this earlier phase rather than the final deposition in the pit and a further time off-set will be represented by the possibility of some curation prior to placement in either midden or pit. Given the level of imprecision in the radiocarbon technique, however, this may be of little significance.

112

Chapter 17: Pottery from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline Middle Bronze Age Trevisker Ware Field Field I Field R Field S

Context 858 520 553

Details Unstratified Fill ditch 516 Fill ditch 552

Field S Field S Field S Field S Field S Field S Totals

554 555 561 559 557 606

Fill ditch 552 Fill ditch 552 Fill ditch 552 Fill ditch 552 Fill ditch 552 Fill ditch 552

Gabbroic admixture 2/32 1/4 5/171 P6 2/8 P7 6/30 P8 4/60 3/44 P10 15/46 47/246 25/180 P11 110/821

Gabbroic

6/26 P9

Comment Flat girth cordon Fabric as Trevisker Also 1 sherd 2 g

Undecorated sherds Also 3 sherds 59 g Undecorated sherds Undecorated sherds

6/26

4/61

Table 26: Details of Middle Bronze Age Trevisker by sherd numbers and weight in grams. Total quantity in ditch [552] 117 sherds weighing 872 grams.

The majority of this material came from the fills of ditch [552] in Field S. The unstratified sherd from (858) in Field I was Trevisker style fabric and had a flat-faced horizontal girth cordon. The small sherd from ditch [516] in Field R was of Trevisker style fabric. The fabric of each sherd illustrated has been subject to microscopy by Roger Taylor. Illustrated sherds, all from ditch [552] Field S P6 (Figure 97) (553) fill ditch [552]. Upper part of large vessel 320mm+ in diameter, with incised chevron decoration bordered by two surviving horizontal lines on the lower edge. Gabbroic admixture. Rock fragments – soft weathered pale greenish grey (white and dark mottled) angular fine-grained rock fragments, 0.1-4mm, rarely 6.5mm. Probably a finegrained basic igneous (‘greenstone’) rock: micaceous slate/hornfels, rare irregular fragments, 5mm: feldspar – soft altered off-white to buff angular grains and some less altered grains showing cleavage, 0.1-1.5mm: magnetite – a scatter black glossy magnetic grains, 0.1-0.6mm, rarely 2mm: quartz – sparse transparent to translucent colourless angular grains, 0.1-0.6mm: amphibole – sparse greenish grey cleaved elongated grains, 0.5-1mm: matrix – finely micaceous clay with some areas containing fine sand/silt grade fragments of crushed rock and some fine sand/silt grade grains of the other minerals. Comment. A gabbroic admixture fabric with substantial amounts (circa 30%) of added crushed rock probably from the area of the site. P7 (Figure 98) (553) fill ditch [552]. Rim and upper part of vessel, rim out-turned with marked internal bevel, external diameter 164mm, incised decoration forming simple zigzag pattern. Gabbroic admixture. Rock fragments – quartzitic sandstone, translucent sub-angular fragments, 0.2, 1.5, 2.2 and 3mm: feldspar – white variably altered angular to sub-

angular grains, 0.05-0.9mm, rarely 2.5mm: amphibole – greenish grey, cleaved and fibrous elongated grains and aggregates, 0.1-1.1mm, rarely 3.3mm: quartz – sparse sub-rounded translucent colourless and light brown stained grains, 0.3-0.5mm, an off-white sub-angular grain, 1.5mm: magnetite – rare black sub-angular grains, 0.2 -0.5mm: matrix – finely sandy/silty with grains of the main tempering minerals and some fine mica. Comment. A gabbroic admixture fabric with a relatively sparse (circa 10%) mineral content. The rock fragments may come from the area of the site. P8 (Figure 98) (553) fill ditch [552]. Body sherd with two finger tip impressions close together, possibly a token representation of a lug. Gabbroic (admixture). Rock fragment – basaltic fragment, rounded, < 7 mm: feldspar – white altered angular to subangular grains, 0.05-2.25mm, some less altered translucent cleaved grains, 0.5mm: amphibole – greenish grey to dark greenish cleaved grains and aggregates,0.2-2mm, rarely 4mm: composite – feldspar/amphibole aggregates, 2-6mm: quartz – sparse transparent to translucent colourless angular to rounded grains, 0.1-0.2mm, rarely 1.5mm: magnetite – rare black glossy sub-angular grains, 0.2-0.6mm: matrix – grains of the main tempering mineral less than 0.05 mm common. Comment. A typical gabbroic fabric with basalt fragment probably derived from dykes cutting gabbro. P9 (Figure 98) (553) fill ditch [552]. Rim and upper part of vessel, rim, internal diameter 150mm, out-turned with marked internal bevel, incised decoration forming simple chevron pattern, coarser and more deeply incised than P7. Gabbroic. Feldspar– soft white altered grains and some less altered grains showing cleavage and rare plagioclase twinning, 0.05-2.5mm: amphibole – sparse greenish grey cleaved angular grains, tending to be elongated, 0.6-1.5mm: quartz – sparse transparent to translucent

113

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 97 Pottery: Trevisker vessels P6 and P1, ditch [555] Field S. colourless, sub-angular to rounded grains, 0.2-0.3mm, rarely 2mm: magnetite – sparse black glossy magnetic grains, 0.1-0.5mm; composite – fine-grained feldspar amphibole fragments, 3 and 4mm: matrix – smooth slightly silty/sandy clay. Comment. A gabbroic fabric without admixture. P10 (Figure 98) (561) fill ditch [552]. Body sherds, incised chevron decoration with row of finger nail impressions below. Gabbroic admixture. Rock – feldspar/amphibole angularsub-angular fragments, probably doleritic greenstone, 2, 3.5, 4.2 and 8mm: feldspar – white variably altered angular to sub-angular grains and some translucent grains showing cleavage, 0.1-1mm, rarely 2mm: amphibole – greenish grey to dark green cleaved angular grains and aggregates, 0.6mm: magnetite – sparse black glossy angular to sub-

angular grains, 0.1-1mm: quartz – sparse transparent to translucent colourless sub-angular to sub-rounded grains, 0.1-1mm: matrix – smooth finely micaceous clay. Comment. A typical gabbroic fabric with some rock fragments that may have been included at source. P11 (Figure 97) (606) fill ditch [552]. Rim, slight expansion with marked internal bevel, internal diameter 380mm, decorated with five horizontal bands of impressed cord: the upper two are of opposed twist, commonly described as plaited cord, the lower three more complex each with three impressed lines in which the twist changes direction through each zone. Gabbroic admixture. Ferruginous fragments – soft black to brown sub-angular to rounded, probably limonite, fragments, 0.3-7mm: feldspar – white variably altered angular to sub-angular grains, 0.05-1mm: magnetite – a 114

Chapter 17: Pottery from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline

Figure 98 Pottery: Trevisker vessels P7, P8, P9, and P10, ditch [555] Field S. scatter of black glossy magnetic angular to sub-angular grains, 0.5-1.2mm, rarely 1.2mm: quartz – sparse translucent colourless sub-angular grains, 0.1-0.6mm: amphibole – rare dark greyish green cleaved grains, 1.5mm: matrix – smooth clay with grains of the main tempering mineral less than 0.05mm. Comment. A finegrained gabbroic fabric with an unusual content of soft black fragments that appear to be an added component, possibly from the area of the site. Discussion of the Middle Bronze Age Trevisker pottery Radiocarbon determination from fill (556) in ditch [552], AA26413 3110 + 45 BP on Pomoideae charcoal,

calibrated to 1493 - 1266 cal BC. The ditch appeared to have filled fairly rapidly and so, although there were no conjoins between layers, the date may be regarded as covering all the material from ditch [552]. All the vessels have formal and decorative features which are well known in Trevisker assemblages of the Middle Bronze Age, especially those from the North Cornish sites of Trethellan Farm, Newquay (Woodward and Cane 1991) and the settlement at Trevisker, St Eval (ApSimon and Greenfield 1972). Following the formal classification put forward by Parker Pearson (1995), P6 is Style 3/4, appropriate for cooking, as is P10: P11 is Style 1, appropriate for storage. P8 is Style 6A, suggested as individual drinking / eating utensils. Both P7 and P9 are small vessels with 115

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast incised decoration: in Parker Pearson’s classification they fall among the smallest of Style 3/4. Very small Style 3/4 vessels are comparatively few amongst Trevisker assemblages and were not distinguished by Parker Pearson from incised vessels of larger size. But in terms of function P7 and P9 seem best intended as individual drinking / eating utensils. In this case half of the vessels in the ditch [552] assemblage served this purpose, unusual amongst a domestic Trevisker assemblage. Most of the sherds are fresh, possibly broken immediately before deposition, and it is quite certain that not all the assemblage was retrieved as the ditch fills containing sherds together with shell and bone ran off beneath baulks. The food debris together with the pottery might suggest that the ditch held the remnants of some special food preparation and service, rather than representing the normal rubbish expected on domestic sites of this date. It is possible that the whole ditch infill is an example of Middle Bronze Age structured deposition.

to correctly separate gabbroic from gabbroic admixture fabrics without microscopic examination. The remaining vessels in ditch [552] are in gabbroic admixture fabrics, made from gabbroic clay with non-gabbroic materials added. This is by far the most common fabric across Cornwall for the Middle Bronze Age. The work of Roger Taylor has now demonstrated on a number of sites such as Tremough, Scarcewater and Feock that gabbroic clay was transported and mixed before potting with materials from the broad vicinity of the sites on which the pots were used (Quinnell 2012, 162-3). P6, P7 and P11 appear to have been made with similarly transported and mixed gabbroic clays, while the non-gabbroic materials in P8 and P10 were probably mixed with gabbroic clays in the Lizard. This provides an unusually complex picture for the pattern of clay use and mixing, but is the first assemblage, in which, although small, all the illustrated vessels have been microscopically examined by a petrologist.

The only vessel in gabbroic fabric without any additional material, whether from the Lizard or elsewhere, is P9. It is quite usual for a small proportion of Trevisker assemblages to be in ‘pure’ gabbroic fabrics, for example from Structure 392 at Tremough, Penryn (R Taylor in Quinnell 2007, table 6) and at Trethellan Farm, Newquay (D F Williams in Woodward and Cane 1991): it however, almost impossible

The single gabbroic admixture sherd with a flat-faced cordon unstratified from (858) in Field I has a number of comparanda in published Trevisker assemblages, for example No 37 from Trethellan Farm (Woodward and Cane 1991, fig 46) and PP37 from Tremough (Quinnell 2007, fig 28).

Iron Age and Roman period pottery from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline Context 572 Field C 576 Field C 680 Field C 697 Field C 741 Field C 750 Field C 762 Field C 772 Field C 789 Field C 805 Field C 820 Field C 825 Field C 827 Field C 833 Field C 834 Field C

Details Fill of ditch 571

Gabbroic

Fill of gully 575

2/38

2/38

Comment ‘Other’ South Devon ware Iron Age WMG

Fill pit 679

1/10

1/10

Iron Age, base angle WMG

2/15 1/4

Roman period cordon standard gabbroic Type 13; ‘Other’ South Devon ware Standard gabbroic

Old land surface below 1/10 sand across Field C Fill pit 740 1/4

Other 1/10

Totals 1/10

1/5

Fill ditch 749

1/3

1/3

WMG Iron Age

= old land surface 697

1/38

1/38

WMG Iron Age, base angle

In wall 771

1/88

1/88

Fill pit 788

1/52

1/52

Fill pit 804

1/2

1/2

Late 2nd century onward standard gabbroic Type 13 1st cent BC to early 2nd cent AD WMG Type F/G ‘Other’ Iron Age granite derived

Fill linear 821

1/2

1/2

Other’ Iron Age granite derived

Fill cut 824

9/84

9/84

Iron Age WMG

Slate surface

1/10

1/10

Iron Age WMG

1/14

1/14

Other’ Iron Age granite derived

1/3

1/3

Iron Age granite derived

Fill pit 832 = old land surface 697

1/13

116

Chapter 17: Pottery from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline Context 851 Field C 853 Field C 859 Field C 1014 Field C 650 Field F 909 Field Y Totals

Details Fill pit 850

Gabbroic 12/122

Fill pit 852

1/6

1/6

Comment Includes WMG Type 19 bowl not later than late 2nd century Iron Age WMG

u/s

6/56

6/56

Standard gabbroic including Type 4 rim

No data

5/14

5/14

Standard gabbroic

Fill ditch 651

1/10

1/10

Fill pit 908

1/8

1/8

Well-made gabbroic South Decorated rim Standard gabbroic Roman

45/553

Other

Totals 12/122

6/36

Western

51/589

Table 27: Pottery from Fields C, F and Y in context number order.

The Iron Age and Roman pottery is presented together as these ceramics run in a continuous sequence in Cornwall with no distinctive point at the Roman conquest. The gabbroic fabrics are described either as ‘well-made’ or as ‘standard’ (Quinnell 2004, 108-9). The former is found occasionally from the later stages of Early Iron Age (Quinnell 2011a, 148) and thus accommodates the radiocarbon determination AA-26419 2439 + 42 BP calibrating to 754 - 406 cal BC from (825) fill of ring gully [824]. Well-made gabbroic fabrics are the principal, and generally the only, fabric of the Middle Iron Age and South Western Decorated ware and of Late Iron Age Cordoned Ware. Well-made gabbroic fabrics continue to be made into the second century AD. It is thus not possibly to date well-made sherds without formal or decorative traits at all closely. Standard gabbroic fabric, less wellmade and finished, is occasionally found from the Early Iron Age and replaces well-made gabbroic entirely during the second century AD. In the Roman period this has a distinctive ‘wiped’ surface (Quinnell 2004, 109). The radiocarbon date referred to above indicates that activity in Field C started during the Early Iron Age. The presence of several sherds in a granitic derived fabric in contexts in Field C may also indicate Early Iron Age activity as by the Middle Iron Age and circa 300 cal BC gabbroic fabrics form 90% or more of assemblages (Quinnell 2011a, 180-1) and non-gabbroic fabrics are generally more common on Early Iron Age sites in Cornwall than they are subsequently. It is not possible to distinguish any Middle Iron Age pieces but it seems highly likely that some well-made gabbroic sherds belong to this period: the complex stratigraphy of Field C shows no obvious evidence for any gap in activity. Continuity may well continue into the Late Iron Age and beyond.

The ‘Type F/G’ from (787) fill of pit [788] refers to the classification devised by Threipland (1956). Type F/G vessels, probably for drinking, occur through the first and second phase forms of Cordoned Ware, in the Late Iron Age from the late second century BC and after the arrival of Rome in the late first and early second centuries AD Quinnell 2011b). The radiocarbon determination AA26414 1,970 + 45 BP calibrating to 89 cal BC - AD 130 from (755) aceramic fill of pit [744] is contemporary with parts of the first and second phases of Cordoned Ware. Numerical Types such as Type 4 jars refer to forms during the Roman period and follow the classification devised by Quinnell (2004, 11-126). Type 4 jars, with an example unstratified in Field C, start during the second century AD and continue to the fifth / sixth centuries. Type 13 are storage jars, here unusually in standard gabbroic fabric, with rolled rims and cordons and belong to the third phase of Cordoned Ware from the later second century onwards, with an example in (772) wall [771] and in land surface (697). The two sherds of South Devon ware, from (697) and (572) fill of ditch [571], are imports from Devon and more common in Cornwall in the third and fourth centuries AD than earlier (Quinnell 2004, 107). The Roman period pottery thus is uncertainly dated but could indicate activity extending as late as Roman-style pottery was made and used; this style continued without much change into the fifth and sixth centuries AD. Two sherds do not come from Field C. The rim from (650) ditch [651] in Field F has the characteristics of a rim of South Western Decorated ware and is likely to belong to the third to first centuries cal BC. The standard gabbroic body sherd from (900) fill of pit [908] in Field Y may date anywhere from the second to the fifth / sixth centuries AD.

117

Chapter 18: Prehistoric and Roman stonework from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline Henrietta Quinnell with petrographic comment by Roger Taylor S1 (Figure 99) (558) fill of ditch [552] Field S with Trevisker ceramics. A flat slate cobble, 125 x 72 x 8mm, had sharpening grooves worked in both flat surfaces. These grooves have intersected with each other, leaving an irregular slit. Both sharpening grooves are surrounded by other smaller grooves and scratches, obscured on one side by a soil concretion. Roger Taylor comments: Devonian purple slate from the locality, piece probably from a beach. Scratches and grooves made by pointed objects rather than edges such as knives. S2 (Not illus) A fragment of a Trethurgy bowl, a large stone mortarium with a skeuomorph handle on the

exterior, was effectively unstratified from soil (697) in Field C. This fragment appeared to be of greisenised granite (Roger Taylor) of which the closest source is the St Austell Granite. The bowl was circa 400mm in diameter, and unusually thick-walled, circa 35mm. One side only of the skeomorphic handle survived. These bowls appear to date from, probably, the late third century AD through to the early sixth century (Quinnell 2004, 138) and thus the fragment appears to support later Roman period activity in Field C. Trethurgy bowls and the smaller Cornish mortars, made in both elvan and greisen, have been found at a number of sites along or just inside the North Cornwall coast (Quinnell 1993, fig 1).

Figure 99 Stonework: Ditch [552] S1grooved slate whetstone.

118

Chapter 19: Lithics from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline Tim Gent and Henrietta Quinnell

A total of 255 lithics was recovered during the project, 60 as unstratified finds from limited, defined areas, and the remaining 195 from sealed contexts. Two hundred and twenty-six, or 88.6%, were recovered from a single field (Field Y). Of these, 95 came from layer (728), the soil around stony layer [729]. Fifty six of the 60 unstratified pieces also came from Field Y. All but four of the lithics derive from local beach pebble sources, with almost all displaying the heavily abraded exterior typical of this raw material. This material varied widely in colour, apparent quality and patination levels. Two of the beach pebble flakes were of chert. Three pieces can be excluded from the pebble flint group with a degree of certainty, all from the northern side of Field Y. One, a scraper from pit [713], is of a clean, dark grey flint, similar to that found in the Beer region of southeast Devon (Figures 100 and 101). Two flakes in a similar material, one with chalk-derived cortex, were recovered from neighbouring pit [711] (Figure 101). Both pits contained Grooved Ware sherds and this use of non-local flint is thus of Late Neolithic date. The scraper was the only piece in [713] but in [711] this non-local flint was associated with four pebble flint blades and flakes. The work of Newberry (2002) has shown a number of possible sources for this dark grey flint in Devon apart from Beer. A total of 147, or 57.6%, of the flints is comprised of primary flakes taken from pebbles, pebble cores, struck pebbles, or, in two cases, the untouched pebble itself, indicating the transportation of this source material in an unworked form. All primary preparation of the pebbles appears to have taken place at the point of demand rather than at collection. The overall assemblage is not only dominated by the beach pebble source material, but the production of blades or bladelets. Thirty-one percent of the whole is comprised of blades, bladelets, broken blades, blade cores or obvious blade production waste. In conjunction with the small average size of the beach pebbles, this results in equally small size of the individual lithics, the average weight for a piece from this group being only 7.3 grams. The well-made, almost circular, scraper in non-local flint from Grooved Ware pit [713] represents the only true implement found during the project (Figure 101). It has a little use wear on its edge but is otherwise fresh. Three pebble flint blades from [711] all exhibit use wear to varying degrees. One (Figure 100 left shown ventral side up) has been broken across its distal end but has heavy use wear along both sides. The second (Figure 100 centre)

Figure 100 Scraper in non-local flint from [713] (upper): pebble flint blades with use wear from [711] (lower): broken blade with use wear on both edges, shown proximal end at top (left); fine serration on left edge, shown proximal end at top (middle; use wear on lower right edge (right). has use wear producing fine serration along its left edge. The last (Figure 100 right) has a small amount of use wear on the proximal right edge. These pieces with use wear were otherwise in fresh condition, as were the other four, apparently unused, pieces from [711]. The condition of the lithics in [713] and [711] suggests deliberate deposition with the pits’ infill rather than accidental redeposition. The scraper can therefore be regarded as being of Late Neolithic date. There were no lithics from the Grooved Ware pit [523] in Field R. 119

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast have been retained later in Cornwall. This could, in part, be the result of isolation caused by the form and topography of the county. However, the source material itself may also be a determining factor. The continued production of blades may have represented the optimum utilisation of the beach pebble source material, reducing wastage and providing a useable basis for tool production from small nodules. As a result, a blade orientated technology may have been retained for some time in coastal areas of the peninsular as a response to the character of the available flint.

Figure 101 Scraper in non-local flint from [713].

No implements, other than the scraper from pit [711], have been specifically fabricated. However, 12 pieces from soil (728) had distinct use wear traces. A total of 48, or 19%, of the assemblage had been burnt. The small size and strongly blade-specific nature of the assemblage as a whole could suggest a Mesolithic or earlier Neolithic date of production. The complete absence of microliths in the assemblage tends to reduce the likelihood of a Mesolithic date. The small size of the lithics can be attributed, in part, to the source material, the size of the beach pebbles imposing a reciprocal limitation on any procured item. This material may also have a bearing on the overall technology employed, with a possible resultant masking of its date of manufacture. Mesolithic preference for blade production, carried over into the earlier Neolithic throughout mainland Britain, may

Where the density of flintwork is highest, surrounding and overlying layer 729 in Field Y, its presence does not appear to be explained by domestic requirements. The character of the assemblage has been described above: it lacks implements, has a tendency towards blade / bladelet production, with little indication of subsequent use or development, and is dominated by primary preparation of raw materials. It is suggested that this assemblage may represent some form of repetitive structured activity on, or in the vicinity of, a ritual feature. Only 29 of the 255 lithics were recovered from locations other than Field Y. This is particularly unexpected in light, not only of the number of undoubted prehistoric features located during the project such as pit [523] containing Grooved Ware in Field R, but also the density of known prehistoric activity in the area as a whole. This relative absence of flintwork is particularly notable towards the western end of the route, in the area of Harlyn Bay and Trevone, where a significant density of prehistoric funerary activity is already recorded. A commensurate density of flintwork might also be expected. Only 5 flints were recovered to the west of Trevone, with a further 19 coming from the buried beach horizons in Trevone Bay.

120

Chapter 20: Faunal remains from Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline Lorraine Higbee

Introduction A little over 200 bone fragments was recovered from sites along the pipeline: this material has been assigned broad date ranges (Table 28 below). The assemblage was analysed using the following methods: age estimates are based on Silver (1969); the zonal recording system (Dobney et al (1988); and measurements follow Von den Driesch (1976). The assemblage is too small for any meaningful results / conclusions to be drawn, however; it is briefly described here and more detailed information can be found in the site archive. Description by Area Field B A single undiagnostic fragment of (cattle-sized) humerus was recovered from the fill (781) of a large shallow circular pit [780] in this field. Field C Iron Age and Romano-British settlement remains yielded 96 bone fragments. Represented in this material are the remains of the three common domestic species cattle, sheep (or goat) and pig. Butchery marks were recorded with the greatest frequency on cattle bones and take the form of chop marks made with a cleaver; these marks are typically in the mid-shaft region of limb bones and at an oblique angle to the transverse plane. In addition to domestic species, two red deer bones have been identified, a metacarpal from posthole [818], fill (819), and an off-cut of antler from ring-gully [824], fill (825). The antler consists of the basal portion of the main tine at its junction with the brow tine. Both tines had been removed for further working using a fine toothed saw.

one from the leg (tibio-tarsus). A layer (915) of probable prehistoric / Roman data yielded several bones from the three common domestic food species. Condition of Assemblage Overall the state of preservation of bone fragments is poor; many specimens are brittle and chalky as a result of weathering. Exfoliation (flaking off of the cortical bone) and acid etching are the most common forms of weathering effecting the assemblage. A few fragments were recorded with edge abrasion indicating that these specimens might have spent sometime on the surface before being deposited within open features. The cumulative affect of these types of weathering has been to efface surface detail and reduced the number of diagnostic specimens in the assemblage. Fortunately butchery marks made with a cleaver are deep, sharp and clearly visible although fine cut marks, if present, have been obliterated by these forms of weathering. Summary conclusions The assemblage is too small to merit any detailed analysis; the majority of specimens are from domestic species with cattle as the most common species. In terms of the distribution of skeletal elements there is a strong bias towards loose teeth and bones from the fore and hind limbs. Representation of the axial portion of the carcass is limited to a few vertebrae, ribs are entirely absent. Small numbers of red deer bones, mostly fragments of antler, have also been identified. Unfortunately it is not possible to determine whether shed antlers were collected or whether the animal was hunted and the whole carcass exploited based on the limited information available. What is clear is that antler was a valued resource retained for further working.

Species Cattle Sheep/Goat Pig Red deer Chicken Cattle-sized Sheep-sized Unidentifiable Total

Field S The primary and secondary fills of ditch [552], which have been dated to the Middle Bronze Age, produced faunal material. The majority of this material could be identified as either being cattle or sheep / goat; the only other diagnostic specimen is the tip of a red deer antler tine which was recovered from layer (556). Tank Trench

Total 39 20 7 5 2 30 18 80 201

Table 28: Number identified specimens from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline per species (NISP).

A ditch of probable post-medieval date produced two chicken bones, one from the wing (carpo-metacarpus) and

121

Chapter 21: Radiocarbon determinations from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline

Introduction A range of samples were submitted from contexts along the pipeline corridor. These contexts included pits, old land surfaces and ditches. All but one of the samples, which was on animal bone were on charcoal. Two of the samples were on oak (Quercus), and a third was unidentified fragments. However, the remainder were on short-lived species. Ten samples were submitted for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating at the University of Arizona in 1997. All the radiocarbon determinations have been recalibrated to OxCal (v4.1) as part of this project (Table 29 and Figure 102). Results Mesolithic layer The earliest radiocarbon determination 6363 ± 53 BP, 5471 - 5225 cal BC (AA-26418) was from charcoal in layer (916) associated with a group of flints. This layer

appears to have been an old land surface of Mesolithic date. However, the flints were not diagnostic and the layer was only seen in section in the Tank trench at Trevone. Neolithic pits Three of the radiocarbon determinations were obtained from pits which were scattered along the route of the pipeline. The earliest from pit [844] in Field C 5065 ± 50 BP, 3968 - 3714 cal BC (AA-26415), dates to the earliest part of the Neolithic period. Unusually it was devoid of finds and there were no features which can be definitely assigned to this period in the near vicinity. Two pits containing Grooved Ware produced radiocarbon determinations. The earlier, 4175 ± 50 BP, 2893 - 2620 cal BC (AA-26412) was obtained on charcoal from within slate-capped pit [523] in Field R. This pit was located beside another slate-capped pit, which was without any finds. The second radiocarbon determination 4055 ± 50 BP, 2860 - 2471 cal BC (AA-26416) came from pit [711] in Field Y. It was also associated with a second pit [713]

Feature

Material

Lab. no

Age BP years

Calendrical years 95%

Pit [523] fill (522) Field R Ditch [552] fill (556) Field S Pit [744] fill (755) Field C Pit [844] fill (845) Field C Pit [711] fill (710) Field Y Cut [908] fill (909) Field Y Layer (916) Tank Trench Ring-gully [824] fill (825) Field C Buried soil (1003) Field E Buried soil (1005) Field E

Charcoal: Pomoideae

AA-26412

4175 ± 50

2893 - 2620 cal BC

and AA-26413

3110 ± 45

1493 - 1266 cal BC

Charcoal: Quercus

AA-26414

1970 ± 45

89 cal BC - AD 130

Charcoal: Fragments

AA-26415

5065 ± 50

3968 - 3714 cal BC

Charcoal: Pomoideae

AA26416

4055 ± 50

2860 - 2471 cal BC

Charcoal: Pomoideae

AA26417

2268 ± 54

407 - 197 cal BC

Charcoal: Quercus

AA26418

6363 ± 53

5471 - 5225 cal BC

Bone

AA26419

2400 ± 55

754 - 406 cal BC

Charcoal: Pomoideae and Prunus AA26420

3350 ± 44

1741 - 1526 cal BC

Charcoal: Prunus

4120 ± 47

2876 - 2573 cal BC

Charcoal: Quercus

Pomoideae

AA26421

122

Chapter 21: Radiocarbon determinations from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline

Figure 102 Radiocarbon determinations from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline. which contained Grooved Ware but was not dated. Both of the radiocarbon determinations fall within the current nationally accepted date range for Grooved Ware pottery (see Quinnell above), and are closely comparable with other dates from Cornwall (Figure 103). Bronze Age boundaries Three radiocarbon determinations were obtained from features and layers which were associated with boundary features. Two radiocarbon determinations were taken from below and above wall 1004/1007 in Field E. Charcoal from the buried soil (1005) from beneath the wall, 4120 ± 47 BP, 2876 - 2573 cal BC (AA-26421), dated to the Late Neolithic period. A second date on charcoal from soil (1003), 3350 ± 44 BP, 1741 - 1526 cal BC (AA-26420) which was located above the wall fell in the Early to Middle Bronze Age. The date of the wall is therefore likely lie somewhere in the earlier Bronze Age. The third determination was derived from charcoal within ditch [522] in Field S, 3010 ± 45 BP, 1493 - 1266 cal BC (AA-26413). This date is Middle Bronze Age and is

consistent with the Trevisker pottery from the ditch fill (Quinnell above). The Iron Age Three radiocarbon determinations were obtained from features of Iron Age date. Two were obtained from cut features associated with the Iron Age settlement in Field C. The earlier of these, 2439 ± 42 BP, 754 - 406 cal BC (AA-26419), was on animal bone within ring-gully [824]. The second was on charcoal from pit [744]. This charcoal produced a radiocarbon determination 1970 ± 45 BP, 89 cal BC - AD 130 (AA26414). The dates span most of the Iron Age and along with the pottery from the site indicate that the settlement was long-lived. A third date Iron Age date, 1970 ± 45 BP, 407 - 197 cal BC (AA-26417) was obtained on charcoal from the ‘graveshaped’ pit [908] which appears to have been cut into the quartz spread / cairn (729) in Field Y. This date is of interest as it is indicative of the reuse of an earlier site.

123

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 103 Radiocarbon determinations from contexts with Grooved Ware in Cornwall.

124

PART 3: Discussion and synthesis Andy M Jones and Henrietta Quinnell

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast

Introduction

Contrasts and connections

The archaeological recording along the two pipeline corridors presented an unprecedented chance to look at two broadly similar sized slices through the coastal landscape of north Cornwall; a 5.5 kilometre strip along the north Cornwall pipeline and a 6.5 kilometre corridor along the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline. Both schemes led to the discovery of a fascinating range of principally prehistoric sites, which predominantly date to the later fourth to first millennium cal BC. The recording programmes have not only increased the number of identified sites, but their joint presentation has also allowed us to compare and contrast the results from the two schemes in ways that would not have been possible if they had been published as single, stand alone, publications.

The two strips of land along the north Cornish coast both show wide ranging and intensive use throughout prehistory, but in spite of being close to one another, they have rather different landscape settings which may have influenced the nature and intensity of interactions which communities enjoyed with the wider world. The low estuary environment of the Harlyn Bay area contrasts with the dramatic high cliffs and narrow inlets of the coastline between Tintagel and Boscastle, and this may have resulted in interrelated but distinctive communities developing rather different patterns of long distance contact.

The following section will therefore attempt to draw out and integrate the key findings from the fieldwork along both pipelines and place them within a broader temporal and spatial context. As part of this process we start by considering the similarities and contrasts between the two areas, and contemplate how differing access to safe harbourage might have influenced interactions with the wider world. This section is followed by a discussion of the results from the major sites. This is largely organized chronologically, although where more appropriate we adopt a more thematic approach. In particular, we discuss the results with regard to their contrasting landscape biographies and also consider the way that social memory, sometimes over considerable periods of time, appears to have influenced and given structure to the development of sites and their settings, as well as the practices which took place within them. At the same time, we also discuss the development of more localized practices and consider how these may have become ingrained into the subconscious dispositions and routines of the communities who inhabited the north Cornish coast. Finally, this section will conclude with a synthetic overview of the results which sets them in a broader context. In this overview we examine the contrasting cycles of practice, the short-term versus long-term, old traditions and new innovations, and try to understand how these competing trends have led to the production of the archaeological record which is left to us today.

It has long been suggested that Harlyn Bay may have been an important anchorage during the prehistoric period (Crawford 1921; Hencken 1932, 181). Crawford (1921, 295-8) drew attention to the fact that Harlyn Bay was a sheltered bay which could have provided access to the Camel estuary (Figure 104). This is significant, as the Camel estuary is one of only a few navigable river mouths on the north Cornish Coast and Padstow has been an important settlement and harbour since at least the early medieval period (Manning and Stead 2002-3). It is therefore possible that the Camel estuary would have provided adequate harbourage to maritime visitors in prehistory, with substantial anchorage protected from the weather, and this may help to explain the large number of crop-mark sites associated with both open and enclosed settlements which are found in along the Camel estuary (Young 2012). However, in common with other larger estuaries on the north coast of both Cornwall and Devon, the extreme tidal range results in exceptional surges within the confines of these large bodies of water, and the area around Padstow itself is known for its treacherous sandbars. Navigation can therefore be extremely hazardous for small vessels, especially those from more distant places which were unfamiliar with the local tidal conditions. Conversely, the Harlyn Bay area would have been free from such hazards, while still being more than adequately protected from the prevailing south-westerly winds by both Trevone Head on the east side of the bay and Cataclews Point to the west (Figure 65). The Bay would also have been distinctive for approaching vessels, with the headlands either side of it, and Gulland Rock offshore, would have made a clearly recognizable day-mark from the sea. Although, today, the river which runs inland from Harlyn is little more than a shallow stream with no 125

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 104 Photograph of Harlyn Bay from Cataclews looking east (Photograph Andy M Jones).

navigable access, it is possible that it was more a more substantial waterway in prehistory. Trenching across the mouth of the river demonstrated both the depth and breadth of the wind-blown sand deposits across the valley, and marine clays were found at a considerable depth below current ground levels. It is therefore possible that shallow bottomed prehistoric vessels could have travelled further inland. Some support for this hypothesis is also provided by the place-name evidence. It has been suggested by Padel (1985, 270) that the name Harlyn is derived from the two Cornish elements Ar, meaning beside, and Lyn, meaning pool, or perhaps in this case the bay itself. Interestingly, both parts of the place-name are early elements and they may reflect the early importance of the bay as a safe harbourage. A sheltered harbour at Harlyn would have had a significant impact on the development of the area, particularly during the prehistoric period when the importance of a secluded harbourage for small sewn plank or hide seagoing vessels would have been paramount (Van der Noort 2009; McGrail 1996). Evidence for long distance exchange patterns are found throughout the Early Bronze Age, and it has been

suggested that communities gained prestige through obtaining ‘symbolically’ charged objects from distant places (Needham 2000; 2009). Such journeys are of course well-documented in the anthropological record, where, in addition to gaining valued objects, ties and obligations with overseas people can be created which enhance the prestige of individuals (Helms 1998; Malinowski 1922, chapter 3; Weiner 1987, 154-7). The sheer number of sites, especially Early Bronze Age funerary monuments, in the immediate area are perhaps indicative of the importance of the Harlyn Bay, and the finding of more exotic artefacts such as the two gold lunulae demonstrate wider contact. This latter find possibly reflects a key position on a network of exchange routes from Ireland through Cornwall, to the north western French coast (Taylor 1980; Jones et al 2011). By contrast, the sheer cliffs of the coastline to the east of the Camel estuary are far less accessible to seagoing vessels and would have provided fewer safe anchorage points. Many of those who inhabited the coastal area between Tintagel and Boscastle may have turned southwards into the hinterlands of Bodmin Moor for their contacts with the wider world.

126

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast It would be wrong, however, to overplay these contrasts as although local groups around Harlyn Bay undoubtedly engaged in exchanges with distant communities, groups living in both areas would have been linked together through more local interactions and are likely to have shared understandings of the world. These can be seen in the similarity of the field patterns, the presence of shared material culture such as Bronze Age Trevisker pottery, by the evidence for funerary and ceremonial activity, and the lunula from St Juliot, near Boscastle (Mattingly et al 2009), which may have been obtained through contacts with communities in the Harlyn Bay area. It is also evident that the inhabitants of the north Cornwall pipeline area were not devoid of information about or contact with the wider world. The people who used the Middle Bronze Age roundhouse at Trevalga were certainly aware of the latest triangular copper alloy racloirs, which are found on the Continent and were able to manufacture these items for themselves, or support a craftsman from the continent, and possibly even export them (see O’Connor, Jones, Quinnell and Taylor above). In other words, the evidence from the two pipeline corridors and from the adjacent areas supports a picture of contrasting patterns of contact which may have reinforced localized differences between communities on the one hand, but on the other there appears to have been a wider understanding of the world which was common to both areas. The remaining sections of this discussion will therefore consider the results from both pipelines together and will draw upon contrasts, similarities, changes to and continuity of practices. The Mesolithic: a scattered picture Just two Mesolithic sites were recorded within the pipeline corridors. One site was found on the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline and the second was found on the north Cornwall pipeline. This low number of sites is perhaps a little surprising, in light of the known find-spots of this date along the north coast of Cornwall, and the dense and extensive concentrations of lithics around the Trevose Head area, approximately two kilometres to the west of Harlyn Bay (Johnson and David 1982; Norman 1977; Cave 1985). Very little diagnostic Mesolithic flint was recovered from Harlyn Bay. Indeed the identification of the flints from the Tank trench in Trevone Bay was entirely dependant on a radiocarbon determination, 6363 ± 53 BP, 5471 -5225 cal BC (AA-26418). This of course means that in addition to the general paucity of flint from the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline as a whole, it is also possible that the Mesolithic material is underrepresented in the archaeological record through a lack of diagnostic pieces. The site at Trevone Bay was sealed beneath substantial deposits of wind-blown sand sealing layered deposits of clay. The assemblage was too indeterminate and small

to make any observations beyond the fact that it was indicative of small-scale activity close to the shoreline. This is likely to reflect the utilization of an interface between two ecozones, which would have been predictably rich in resources, such as fish, shellfish, mammals and wildfowl (Pollard 1996; Mellars 1987, 1). The second site was located along the route of the north Cornwall pipeline. This site was located within Field 35 near to Tintagel (Figure 9). In contrast to the Harlyn Bay pipeline, later Mesolithic diagnostic tool types were found within an area measuring approximately 5m in diameter. This site appears to have been short-lived and the make up of the assemblage suggests that activity on the site involved the knapping of flint pebbles collected from the beach. No hearths were identified within the pipeline corridor; however, burnt flint within the assemblage implies that activities may have taken place around a nearby fire or hearth (see Lawson-Jones above). The evidence for the later Mesolithic period was sparse from the pipelines, but the two sites found suggest that inhabitation of the coastal zone in ways which may have differed from those which resulted in the large well-known scatter sites, such as those at Trevose Head. Pits Neolithic and later: a long-term practice The most common feature found along both pipelines was the shallow bowl-shaped pit. Unexpectedly the dates from these ranged from the forth millennium cal BC through to the sixth century AD. The results from the pipeline corridors therefore highlight the importance of these features and the difficulty of ascribing dates for the majority of them, which are without diagnostic finds (excluding lithics) or radiocarbon determinations. Nonetheless, as a class of feature they demonstrate the principal long-term practices of routine deposition and, as we shall hope to demonstrate, localized trends of deposition too. Early Neolithic pits The earliest pits recorded along the pipeline corridors date to the Early Neolithic period. One Early Neolithic pit was located on the Harlyn Bay pipeline and at least eight along the route of north Cornwall pipeline. This figure is almost certainly an underestimation, as other pits without surviving artefactual associations were not dated. As a consequence, some periods, such as the Middle Neolithic where diagnostic pottery is scarce in the south west region (Jones and Quinnell 2011b), may have been missed altogether. Unlike some other parts of Britain (Darvill 2012), there is little evidence for the formal burying of artefacts or settlement-related residues during the Mesolithic period in the south west peninsula, with the exception of Poldowrian on the Lizard (Smith and Harris 1982). On current evidence, shallow bowl-shaped pits appear to have start being dug in the south west at the start of the

127

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Neolithic period from around 3900 cal BC (Cole and Jones 2002-3; Jones and Read 2006; Gossip and Jones 2007, 7; Whittle et al 2011, 515-20). This activity is 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, in Cornwall on the comparatively small numbers of sites excavated, pits constitute the most widely occurring evidence for the Neolithic period (Garrow 2012). However, by contrast with some parts of eastern Britain (Garrow 2007) where pits are located in large groups, in the south west region they are so far found as isolated features, in pairs or small groups of less than a dozen pits. They are also infrequently found in the same areas as flint scatters, which implies some spatial segregation of activities. The earliest dated pit [844] was an isolated feature found at Harlyn Bay in Field C. It was a shallow pit with no artefactual associations (Figure 71). A radiocarbon date of 5065 ± 50 BP, 3968 - 3714 cal BC (AA-26415), places it very early in the Neolithic period but unfortunately its wider context is unknown as the pipeline trench was narrow and the surrounding area was full of features associated with the Iron Age settlement. No Early Neolithic pottery or diagnostic artefacts were found within any of the adjacent pits, which suggest that the formal deposition of Neolithic artefacts does not appear to have taken place in the immediate area. It is possible that the charcoal in the pit was redeposited, the determination on which only proves a terminus post quem date for the pit. The pit was sealed beneath stone surface (827). Although this covering is of Iron Age date, it would, given the number later prehistoric pits with stone coverings over them during the later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods in the Harlyn Bay area, be interesting if the stone directly above the pit was earlier (see below). All the remaining Early Neolithic pits were found along the north Cornwall pipeline. The earliest with secure dating 4755 ± 26 BP, 3637 - 3384 cal BC (SUERC-42048), was pit [185], an isolated feature in Field 21 (Figure 4). This was an oval pit which had been filled with charcoal, burnt hazelnuts, burnt quartz blocks and burnt stone; it also contained a number of flints, some of which had been burnt (Lawson-Jones above). The sides of the pit showed signs of burning – which implies that it had been used as a hearth-pit. The contents of the pit are suggestive of a shortlived occupation, involving the preparation of food and cooking, which was followed by the clearance and burial of at least some of the debris associated with inhabitation. The largest group of pits assigned with certainty to the Early Neolithic period were the five located in Field 27 (Figure 15). Three [235], [238] and [237] were lay close together but were not intercutting. Two [235] and [237], produced radiocarbon determinations of 4690 ± 23 BP, 3625 - 3372 cal BC (SUERC-42047) and 4703 ± 23 BP, 3628 - 3375 cal BC (SUERC-42049). These dates place activity within the group toward the end of the Early

Neolithic period. Both of these pits produced nodular flint, charcoal and quartz fragments. Pit [235] also contained a sherds of a finely made gabbroic Early Neolithic SouthWestern / Hembury open bowl (P8) (Figure 54), sherds from a vessel in a local fabric, an arrowhead blank, burnt hazelnut shell and a very small quantity of charred cereal remains. Pit [238] only contained vein quartz fragments. Two further pits [290] and [291] were recorded to the south. These were not dated, although pit [290] contained a flint flake and a hammerstone. Despite only two of the pits having radiocarbon determinations and two being devoid of artefacts, it seems likely that they were a coherent group. They fall into two subgroups, located either side of a small upright stone the erection of which can not be dated. The fallen standing stone in Field 6 shows that standing stones were erected locally in the prehistoric period. However, as mentioned above, small standing stones can also date from the early medieval period in this part of Cornwall or have been reset at a later date (Nowakowski and Thomas 1992; Hartgroves et al 2006). It is also possible that the stone is of post-medieval date and had been erected as a cattle rubbing stone. Leaving the stone aside, the pits do seem to have formed a discrete group, and but did they represent several visits to the site or one? The radiocarbon dating does answer this question. The similar flint assemblages including fresh nodular flint in both pits [235] and [237] (see Lawson-Jones above), however, indicates that these two pits were broadly contemporary with one another. There was nothing to indicate that the pits had been marked at the surface, although it is possible that disturbed patches of ground would have been visible if there had been frequent or annual visits. However, care appears to have been taken not to have disturbed the contents of earlier pits. This lack of intercutting is noticeable at other pit clusters across Cornwall including groups at Tregarrick Farm, Portscatho, Tremough and Penmayne (Cole and Jones 2003-3; Jones and Read 2006; Gossip and Jones 2007; Gossip et al 2012), and this implies a social memory of place and a desire not to expose material which had been placed into the ground before. By contrast with pit [185], none of these pits showed any signs of in situ burning. This implies that residues from activity which included flint working and cooking were placed within the pits in this area, but that the pits had no apparent role in their production. Pit [235] produced a mixture of burnt hazelnut shell and a small amount of cereal grain. The small quantity of cereal grain matches findings from other Early Neolithic pits from Cornwall (Jones and Reed 2006; Jones and Quinnell 2011b) and the mix of nutshell and grain is paralleled elsewhere in the British Isles too (for example, Stevens and Fuller 2012). By contrast, none of the other pre-Middle Bronze Age pits along the pipeline produced any cereals, which could suggest that prior to the second millennium cal BC cultivated cereals were only a minor part of the diet and perhaps in a Neolithic context, a short-lived one too (ibid).

128

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast Site Cornwall Field 27, pit [235]. Penmayne, Penmayne, Penhale, pit. Penhale, posthole. Poldowrian, pit. Portscatho, pit. Portscatho, pit. Portscatho, pit. Portscatho, pit. Tregarrick, pit. Tregarrick, pit. Tregarrick, pit. Tregarrick, pit. Tregarrick, pit. Tremough PAC, pit. Tremough PAC, pit. Devon Waylands, Tiverton, pit.

Context/association

Lab. no

Age BP years

Calendrical years 95%

Hazel charcoal, found with open bowl pottery a quarzitic pebble and a leafshaped arrowhead (this paper). Pit [403], hazelnut found in pit with carinated bowl sherds (Gossip et al 2012). Pit [403], hazelnut found in pit with carinated bowl sherds (Gossip et al 2012). Pit [254], within structure 3299, charred cereal grains associated with pottery (Whittle et al 2011, 514) Posthole [3221], within structure 3299, hazel charcoal associated with pottery (Whittle et al 2011, 514). Pit [106], Oak and Pomoideae charcoal found with pottery (Smith and Harris 1982) Pit [512], hazel charcoal found in pit with carinated bowl P1 (Jones and Read 2006). Pit [504], hazel charcoal found in pit with sherds of Neolithic pottery (Jones and Read 2006). Pit [502], hazel charcoal found in pit with sherds of Neolithic pottery (Jones and Read 2006). Pit [505], hazel charcoal found in pit with sherds of Neolithic pottery (Jones and Read 2006). Pit [40], hazel charcoal found with carinated bowl P6 (Cole and Jones 20023). Pit [48], hawthorn charcoal found with sherds of Neolithic pottery (Cole and Jones 2002-3). Pit [19], hazelnut shell found with sherds of Neolithic pottery (Cole and Jones 2002-3). Pit [45], hazelnut shell found with sherds of Neolithic pottery (Cole and Jones 2002-3). Pit [27], hazelnut shell found with sherds of Neolithic pottery (Cole and Jones 2002-3). Pit [102], Charcoal, Hazel dated. Sherds of Neolithic pottery (Gossip forthcoming C). Pit [105], Charcoal, Hazel dated. Sherds of Neolithic pottery (Gossip forthcoming C).

SUERC-42047

4690 ± 23

3625 - 3372

SUERC-315182

4770 ± 30

3641 - 3384

SUERC-315183

4775 ± 30

3641 - 3386

Wk-9839

5001 ± 75

3953 - 3657

Wk-9840

4951 ± 61

3942 - 3639

HAR-4323

5180 ± 150

4331 - 3696

Wk-13259

4713 ± 45

3635 - 3372

Wk-13257

4805 ± 51

3696 - 3382

Wk-13256

4818 ± 48

3704 - 3385

Wk-13258

4952 ± 45

3912 - 3644

Wk-14916

4914 ± 40BP

3773 - 3641

Wk-14918

4908 ± 47

3791 - 3636

Wk-14913

4839 ± 42

3705 - 3524

Wk-14917

4768 ± 43

3643 - 3380

Wk-14915

4776 ± 44

3644 - 3379

SUERC-29387

4750 ± 40

3640 - 3377

SUERC-29383

4750 ± 40

3640 - 3377

4722 ± 30

3634 - 3376

Pit [1510], Oak charcoal found in Wk-27272 association with sherds of Neolithic pottery (Leverett and Quinnell 2010).

Table 30: Pits with Early Neolithic pottery with closely associated radiocarbon determinations from Cornwall and Devon.

129

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 106 Radiocarbon determinations from contexts with Early Neolithic open bowl and carinated pottery in Cornwall and Devon.

Figure 105 The distribution of pits with Early Neolithic pottery in Cornwall. 130

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast The distinctive Early Neolithic pottery from pit [235] came from one of only two pits with pottery dating to this period. Two pits [286] and [287] were located in Field 22 (Figure 4). Pit [286] had been backfilled with a deposit which contained charcoal but which was devoid of artefacts. However, pit [287] contained charcoal, flints, including a leaf-shaped arrowhead, and sherds of moderately abraded Neolithic bowl pottery (P7). Although not radiocarbon dated the assemblage has clear parallels with the pits in Field 27 and in particular with pit [235], and is of Early Neolithic date. The selection of the South-Western / Hembury pottery for deposition in pit [235] also has resonances with another pit, [403], which was excavated at Penmayne near Padstow, approximately 18 kilometres along the coast to the west of Tintagel. This pit was associated with carinated bowl pottery and has radiocarbon determinations of 4770 ± 30BP, 3640 - 3510 cal BC (92.5%) (SUERC-315182) and 4775 ± 30BP, 3650 - 3510 cal BC (93.9%) (SUERC-315183) (Gossip et al 2012). There are now a growing number of excavated pits along the north Cornish coast and elsewhere in the south west region which contain South-Western / Hembury pottery (Table 30 and Figure 105), many of which are radiocarbon dated to the middle centuries of the fourth millennium cal BC, towards the end of the Early Neolithic period, and even into the Middle Neolithic period, when Peterborough Ware was in use elsewhere (Gibson 2002, 80) (Figure 106). This dating may indicate the continued use and deposition of older forms of bowl and carinated pottery as part of the ritualized deposition following occupation-related activity into the middle centuries of the fourth millennium cal BC. Late Neolithic pits Three pits were associated with Grooved Ware pottery, and a fourth is likely to have also been of Later Neolithic date. All the Grooved Ware pits were on the Harlyn Bay pipeline, and they represent the first Grooved Ware to be found in the area since, the discovery of sherds beneath the slate cairn at Trevone (Buckley 1972). One sherd of Grooved Ware was also recovered from the north Cornwall pipeline but this was unstratified and not associated with a pit (Quinnell above). Two pits were located in Field R (Figure 81), a site now described as Trevone (2) (see above). Pit [523] was stone capped and contained sherds of pottery from five vessels which had been deposited face down. This pottery included sherds from P1, a vessel decorated in a highly visually distinctive style (Figure 94). A radiocarbon determination of 4175 ± 50 BP, 2893 - 2620 cal BC (AA-26412) was obtained on charcoal. The second pit [610] was located a few metres from pit [523]. It was devoid of finds, and was not dated. However, it was of similar dimensions to [523] and also had a slate capping on it. This may suggest that the features were contemporary with one another. The careful placing of the sherds from a visually distinctive vessel as P1, which may well have had its own extended biography

of use, is strongly suggestive of a ritualized activity and the deliberate structured deposition of artefacts. Given the unusual form of the vessel, this act is unlikely to represent the mere sweeping away of residues following the consumption of food, but is instead to constitute a more considered action. Likewise, the stone capping over both pits may also represent a deliberate attempt to seal the contents of the pits in this field. It is also interesting to note that in this area, pits containing cremated human remains were also sealed by stones during the Early Bronze Age (Jones et al 2011) and it a possibility that the capping of pits with stones represents a tradition established in the later Neolithic period. The second pair of Late Neolithic pits, [711] and [713] were found in Field Y (Figure 86), now described at Treator. A radiocarbon determination of 4055 ± 50 BP, 2860 - 2471 cal BC (AA-26416) came from pit [711] which may place it a little later than pit [523]. Although pit [713] was not dated, both of these pits contained a small number of Grooved Ware sherds of similar fabric – differing from those in pit [523] and similar small flint assemblages which indicates that they were broadly contemporary with one another. The lithic material from pits [711] and [713] was distinctive. One flake from pit [711] had cortex indicative of a primary chalk source and the character of some of the other flints from these pits was similar, indicating a more ‘exotic’ distant provenance than the most of the flints from the pipeline, predominantly manufactured from pebble flint (see Gent and Quinnell, and Lawson-Jones above). The form of lithic deposition within the two similar sized and closely-spaced pits was similar, each containing beach pebbles (one from each pit, and a quartzite hammerstone from pit [711]): the relative quality of the flint-work suggests a deliberate, structured, deposition. The sharing of nicely worked flint between two pits is reminiscent of the pattern between Early Neolithic pits [235] and [237] (see above). The discovery of two Grooved Ware sites along the Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline allows the opportunity to compare and contrast practices at each. On both sites the Grooved Ware pits were found in pairs and at both sites there was evidence for the selection of materials which entered the pits. Similar patterns have been noted at other Grooved Ware pit sites across Cornwall, including those at Probus (Nowakowski forthcoming a), where two pits were located side by side, and at Tremough where selected sherds of Grooved Ware were deposited into pits (Gossip and Jones 2007, 30). However, there were contrasts between the two pairs of pits. Stone caps were a feature of pits [523] and [610] but they were not recorded over either of the pits in Field Y. Similarly, only a small number of Grooved Ware sherds were recorded in pits [711] and [713], rather than a larger number in pit [523]. In contrast with pit [523], the pottery in pits [711] and [713] did not appear to have been placed 131

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast into them with any particular care. In addition, distinctive nodular flints were recovered from both pits in Field Y, yet flintwork did not form part of the assemblage of the pits in Field R. These contrasts suggest that, although there may have been a broader repertoire of what was appropriate for inclusion within pits, actual content could differ. In the case of Harlyn Bay to Padstow pipeline pits, it seems that the most important criterion was the inclusion of something valued, a vessel in Field R and rare nodular flint in Field Y. The Bronze Age Three pits proved to be of Bronze Age date, all on the north Cornwall pipeline. One of these, pit [210] is described in the Middle Bronze Age section below. However, two pits [113] and pit [101] will be discussed further here because they arguably represent important shifts in depositional practices during the second millennium cal BC. Pit [113] was located on Field 11 (Figure 25). The exposed section of the feature indicated that it was rectangular in plan and it appeared that the sides of the feature had been lined with stone. Sherds of Beaker from one or more probably two vessels (P4a and P4b) were recovered from the fill of the pit. As will be discussed below in relation to pit [210], it is possible that this feature may represent a stone-lined cooking pit comparable to the feature at

Boscaswell (Jones and Quinnell 2006a). However, it is perhaps more likely given the absence of fire-cracked stones that it is a cist, and is therefore comparable with cist sites such as those found at Try in West Penwith and Harrowbarrow in east Cornwall (Russell and Pool 1964; Thomas and Hartgroves 1990). In either scenario, the formalization of the pit cut with vertically set stones marks some shift from simple bowl-shaped pits which are characteristic of the Neolithic period. Similar stone-lined cuts appear from the Beaker using period elsewhere in Cornwall too, most notably in West Penwith (Jones et al 2012), and it has been suggested that formalized lining of pits with stone may have acted as a framing and helped to render events within them (whether for the burial of human remains or family heirlooms) more memorable. The act of stone-lining cuts in north Cornwall and beyond was also subsequently to become deeply associated with the formal burial of human remains throughout the Bronze Age and the Iron Age periods, and beyond (see below). If this feature had held human remains it could represent one the earliest indications of burial activity along the coastal zone and the first of the known ‘cist’ burials in this area. However, it must be stressed that elsewhere in Cornwall simple bowl-shaped pits may contain Beaker ceramics and represent a continuation of probable structured deposition from the Neolithic period (see sites listed in Chapter 3, Field 11 above).

Figure 107 The distribution of Bronze Age pits, cists and barrows along the north Cornish coast. 132

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast Likewise, the contents within pit [101] in Field 9 (Figure 27) also represented a change in emphasis in content of pits, which up until the late third millennium cal BC have been demonstrated to be associated only with the deposition of occupation-related deposits. The fill of the pit [101] contained a substantial amount of cremated human bone. However, other finds were more reminiscent of past practices, as a burnt flint blank for a leaf-shaped arrowhead, and a water rounded quartz pebble were recovered from the pit fill. The projectile blank was probably of Neolithic date and it had deliberately was set vertically in the fill, pointing downwards as if it had been thrust into the pit, yet the cremated bone was radiocarbon dated to 3555 ± 26 BP, 2010 - 1776 cal BC (SUERC-42056). Beyond the confines of the pipeline corridors, concentrations of barrows and cists have been recorded in large numbers along the north Cornish Coast (Christie 1985; Jones et al 2011). A similar pattern has also been identified in West Penwith (Bonnington 2011), where Early Bronze Age barrows and cairns are frequently sited on the coastal strip in areas which were to become enclosed by later prehistoric field systems. It therefore seems possible that during the Early Bronze Age the zone between the sea and the land was viewed as a liminal area and one of those appropriate for burial (Jones 2009-10; forthcoming b) (Figure 107). Pit [101], and possibly pit [113], therefore may represent a new tradition of interring human remains which may have been seen as especially appropriate in the coastal zone. However, these also include objects which already had their own pasts or biographies and associations, which would not have been out of place within any of the earlier Neolithic pits considered above. Into the post-Roman period At least one of the recorded pits was found to date to the post-Roman period. In Field 31 (Figure 10) pit [308] had two radiocarbon determinations on animal bone with near identical dates, 1505 ± 35 BP, cal AD 435 - 639 (SUERC-39366) and 1510 ± 35 BP, cal AD 434 - 635 (SUERC-39367). These determinations are of interest because the pit also contained a flint core, humanly modified shells and animal bone (see Lawson-Jones, Walker and Randall above). Aside from the bone, which had survived as a result of the large number of shells, the pit did not differ in form or content from the Neolithic pits and without the benefit of radiocarbon dating it is likely to have been assigned to the Neolithic or Bronze Age periods. This not only highlights the problem of accurately dating pits without radiocarbon determinations, but also indicates that the deposition of material into specially cut features continued into the post-prehistoric period. Indeed, other sites in Cornwall have produced comparable pits that are of Romano-British and post-Roman date. These include Stencoose where the boundary of a field system was marked with pits dating to the Romano-British period

(Jones 2001-2) and the enclosure at Hay Close, where a pit fill included post-Roman pottery and a perforated stone weight (Jones forthcoming c). Two aspects of pit [308] merit comment. There is the suggestion that many of the shells deposited in it were connected with dyeing, an aspect for which there is rarely any data on archaeological sites in Cornwall. There is also the possibility that the flint core may have been collected and deposited as an object of some significance. Although it is not being suggested here that any meanings which were associated with the infilling of pits were constant over the potential span of 4000 or more years, it does seem likely that infilling of pit [308] in the postRoman period had a ritualized aspect to it which involved the placing of objects associated with specific events, places or activities into the open pit. The ritualized aspect to this deposition may have resulted from firmly held, uncontested and deeply embedded dispositions which informed people how to inhabit the landscape (Jones forthcoming b). Summary and Implications Pits were the most commonly recorded type of feature found along both pipeline corridors, and have provided the greatest time-depth of any of the other site types which were recorded. As such, despite their diminutive size, they provided the best evidence for reflecting on long-term depositional practices and therefore landscape inhabitation practices along the north Cornish coast. In the past, Neolithic pits were frequently interpreted as being places of casual discard, however, following more recent consideration (Thomas 1999; Pollard 2001), new interpretations have been put forward which identify the deposition of material within pits as a new Neolithic ritualized expression utilized for the discard of objects. Some artefacts included within the Early Neolithic pits within the south west may have been treasured items (for example, Cole and Jones 2002-3), and the nodular flint, the arrowheads from pits [235] and [287] and the SouthWestern / Hembury open bowl pottery from pit [235] may fall into this category. However, it is also the case that most pits appear to have primarily contained residues that had been produced by domestic occupation, such as charred plant remains, and charcoal from firewood, which had been swept into them without much apparent care. However, it is worth emphasizing that cereals were, as has been found elsewhere in Cornwall, seldom recovered, and grains were only found in one of the pre-middle second millennium cal BC pits along the pipeline corridors, and no charred grains were recorded from the Grooved Ware pits. The small numbers of grain recovered from the south west generally (Wilkinson and Straker 2008) raises the question as to how important were cultigens to the regional Neolithic economy. Although it has been found that cereals

133

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast emerge very early in the Neolithic (Brown 2007; Steven and Fuller 2012), there are still problems with regional variation across Britain. In particular, the presence of cereal in north Cornwall raises the question as to where it was grown. Does the presence of corn in a special context equate with agriculture in the immediate vicinity? Or had corn like other materials such as stone axe heads been exchanged over considerable distances? This question might appear to be akin a ‘Jack and the beanstalk’ scenario, but given the growing conditions which prevailed across much of the south west peninsula - more difficult than areas inland or further east, is it likely that any early forms of corn were being grown anywhere near the north Cornish coastline. Foodstuffs such as cattle and cereals (Thomas 1991; Fairbairn 2000; Pollard 2006; Ray and Thomas 2003) are likely to have been bound up to being ‘Neolithic’ as much as pottery and subsequently monuments, such as megalithic tombs and enclosures, were. Having access to the right foods which could be consumed and shared at certain occasions could have been as important to the maintenance or establishment of a Neolithic activity as the greenstone axe. Indeed this may be indicated by the large quantities of charred grains, which have been found within certain pits within Early Neolithic enclosures such as Hambledon Hill (Mercer and Healy 2008, 280) and possibly Hembury (Liddle 1932, 171, but see Whittle et al 2011, 481). In all areas it must have been impossible to ‘source’ all parts of this identity at a local level. Instead it is possible that in the south west region, at least, cereals formed part of a network and flow of reciprocal exchanges between communities which included nodular flint, axe heads, as well as people and animals. Seen in this light, the small quantities of cereal grain found in Early Neolithic contexts in the south west region could be viewed as being part of a ‘corn exchange’ associated with the consumption of a specialized food, as much as the deposition of South-Western / Hembury pottery could be seen as the burial of the ‘best china’. It is likely therefore, that pits in the south west contained material which had been produced by both ‘mundane’ occupation-related activity as well as more ‘special’ deposits which may have been formally deposited less frequently (Anderson-Whymark 2012; Thomas 2012). It has been argued that the term ritual would have been meaningless in a prehistoric context (Brück 1999). This is because an action such as filling a pit would have been carried out with the intention of achieving practical outcome, and consequently there would have been no clear divide between the sacred and the secular or the ritual and the domestic. It is therefore perhaps better to understand the pit deposition of material as part of a continuum or network of ritualized practices which range from the subconscious routine through to the conscious and formal (Jones forthcoming b). It is important to remember that what can appear to be apparently ‘mundane objects’ can in some circumstances be linked with unspoken concepts essential to social organization (Lemonnier 2012, 150). The act of deposition may have been a reciprocal return of

artefactual and subsistence items to a location which had been occupied the landscape. In this way, it is possible that communities saw the ‘ritualized’ deposition of specially selected items or residues from occupation in a particular place as a way of fixing a community to the land into which the pits were dug (Jones forthcoming b), or as a means of placating the spirits of the place which they had dwelt in. In either scenario, these actions may have been part of a correct way of dwelling in the landscape. The evidence for the Late Neolithic period was much more limited. However, the contents of the four excavated pits appear to accord with the suggestion of several writers that the period saw an increasing complexity of pit-associated deposit (Thomas 2012; Anderson-Whymark 2012). The Grooved Ware in pit [523] and the nodular flint in pits [711] and [713] could certainly be used to support such an idea; however, the organization of the contents of Grooved Ware pits have proved to be very variable across Cornwall (Nowakowski forthcoming a; Gossip and Jones 2007, 30) and a similar number of pits dating to the earlier Neolithic period along the route of both pipelines, appeared to have a similar level of complexity in their contents. Rather than looking at chronology, we may again be seeing variations of intentionality within a wider sphere of practice associated with depositing artefacts within closed contexts. The major changes to pit digging appear have come about in the Early Bronze Age, when the contents of pits were expanded to include human remains and pit shape was adapted accordingly. Stone-lined pit [113] could reasonably be interpreted to be a cist, and it was associated with Beaker pottery. As such, it could represent one of the earliest cist burials along the coastal zone, and arguably could relate to the establishment of this zone as a place for funerary activity in the later part of the third or early second millennium cal BC. The Early Bronze Age saw the definite burial of the cremated remains of an individual within pit [101]. But, aside from the burial, the pit was wholly typically of those of the third millennium cal BC and the accompanying artefactual assemblage, which included a leaf-shaped arrowhead, had these connotations too, demonstrating apparent continuity of earlier traditions alongside innovations. Long-term trends were also evident in the latest pit [308], which extended ritualized activity into the sixth century AD. It has been suggested that this pit should be seen as being part of the end of a long cycle of depositional practices or deeply embedded ‘attitudes’ to occupation materials which stretched back millennia into prehistory. The Middle Bronze Age: settlement, fields, and burial? Three types of Middle Bronze Age activity were recorded within the pipeline corridors: field systems, possible funerary-associated activity and a roundhouse. Two features associated with field systems were encountered along the route of the Harlyn Bay pipeline and sites 134

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast associated with all three activities were found along the north Cornwall pipeline. The field systems One of the most unexpected findings from both projects was the discovery of field walls and ditches of Bronze Age date. The features along the Harlyn pipeline had survived because they had become buried beneath later inundations of sand, whereas those along the North Cornwall pipeline were sealed beneath colluvial deposits. In both cases, chance circumstances have led to the preservation of features which would not otherwise have survived the subsequent millennia of ploughing. The stone walling located in Field E (Figures 65, 80) appears to have been constructed during the Bronze Age. The walling itself was not directly dated, but a radiocarbon determination from soil beneath the boundary 4120 ± 47 BP, 2876 - 2573 cal BC (AA-26421) fell in the Late Neolithic and a second from a soil layer above, 3350 ± 44 BP, 1741 - 1526 cal BC (AA-26420), fell in the latter part of the Early Bronze Age. Interestingly, a buried soil was also recorded at approximately 100m to the east of Field E during archaeological recording at the Harlyn Inn (Whitton 2004). A radiocarbon determination of 3482 ± 43 BP, 1908 - 1692 cal BC (Wk-14323) was obtained on a hazelnut from this layer. The extent of the associated field system is uncertain. The remains of a similar wall to 1004/7 were visible in the low sandy beach cliff below Sandy Lane just north of Field E, and this may represent the continuation of the same wall: it would certainly appear to be part of the same field system. Likewise, it is possible that other walling recorded in the immediate area, including the wall found during the excavation of the Iron Age cemetery on the opposite side of the road to Sandy Lane in 1900 (Bullen 1912, 54), could be of the same date. On the eastern side of the bay, aerial photographs have also revealed traces of ditched field boundaries which are on a different alignment to the current field pattern (Cornwall Historic Environment Record MCO21024). Although many elements are not dated, altogether this gives the impression of the existence of a sizable area enclosed by later prehistoric field systems at Harlyn Bay. The footings for a dry-stone wall 530 were also recorded in ditch / or construction trench [532] in Field S (Figure 83). Its close proximity and right angled relationship with ditch [552] may be significant (see below), in light of the suggested date of a similar wall located in Field E described above. Ditch [552] itself produced a considerable quantity of fresh Trevisker pottery, which included sherds from at least six vessels (Quinnell above), in association with a large quantity of marine shells, including cockles, mussels and crab remains, and also sheep teeth, indicating mixed marine and pastoral elements to the depositors diet. An associated radiocarbon determination of 3010 ± 45 BP, 1493 - 1266 cal BC (AA-26413) is consistent with the

second millennium date of the pottery. This feature is of interest, as although securely dated Middle Bronze Age field ditches have been recorded in east Devon and Dorset (Fitzpatrick et al 1999, 64; Pearce et al 2011; Yates 2007, 65-68; Ladle and Woodward, 361), ditched boundaries in Cornwall have typically been found to be of Iron Age or later date (Johns 2008; Jones and Taylor 2010, 49-54). The infilling within the ditch may have been produced by ‘domestic’, rather than an overtly ritual activity, however, it would be wrong to separate these two spheres of activity (Bradley 2005). As has already been discussed in relation to the pit groups, the materials generated by occupationrelated activity can end up being treated in a ritualized manner. There are hints in the range of vessels present that the activity represented differed somewhat from that on sites associated with residential structures (Quinnell above). Boundary features can become the focus for deposits which represent more than just the casual discard of ‘mundane’ waste (Chadwick 2012). This point will be discussed further below. Unfortunately, the limited exposure provided by the Harlyn to Padstow pipeline prevents any further comment on the significance and possible deliberate placement of material within the ditch. Evidence for pre-medieval field systems was also picked up in three locations close together along the north Cornwall pipeline in Fields 29, 31 and 35 (Figure 14). These boundary walls are far less well-dated than those at Harlyn Bay. However, in each case they are on a different alignment from the extant field pattern which is of medieval origin, and the dry-stone build and carefully constructed character is similar to those at Harlyn Bay. Furthermore, Bronze Age Trevisker pottery was also recovered from wall 270, which if not redeposited in some way indicates construction in the second millennium cal BC. The extent and pattern of these field systems cannot be fully established. The walling complex in Field 29 appears to have been comprised of walls, some of which were around 20m apart, and the right angled joins between walls in both Field 29 and Field 31 is indicative of a rectilinear field pattern (Figure 14). An area of rectilinear field system has also been recorded to the west of Tintagel at Pentire on aerial photographs (Cornwall Historic Environment Record MCO21298). It is possible that there may have been a field system of comparable scale to that found at Gwithian (Nowakowski et al 2007), with some small areas used for cultivation and others for grazing. Although the boundaries recorded in both schemes are known to varying levels of accuracy, the results are significant because evidence for Bronze Age enclosure in lowland Cornwall is extremely limited and has only rarely been identified (for example, Nowakowski 1991; Nowakowski et al 2007). The boundary features identified in the pipeline corridors confirm that field walls extended beyond the upland areas of Bodmin Moor and West Penwith into the low-lying coastal area of north Cornwall. The construction of these boundaries was far less monumental than those found in the uplands which are well-defined and include large blocks of stone (Fleming 1988, fig 42; Jones 135

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast and Quinnell 2011a), and they reflect locales and locally available building materials. For example, ditch [552], possibly to provide material for a bank, was dug at Harlyn Bay, and the local slate was used along the north Cornwall pipeline. Linearity may have been a feature of all of these systems, and the land, as on Dartmoor or east Devon, may have been divided into regular blocks (Fleming 1988, 51; Fitzpatrick 1991, fig 6; Pearce et al 2011, fig 15). The frequent discovery of Bronze Age boundaries across the region indicate that the changes to tenure in the second millennium cal BC which have been suggested for other parts of the south west and elsewhere were (for example, Yates 2007, 110-111; Herring 2008) was also occurring in the lowlands of Cornwall. However, although there may have been a reorganization or redefining of boundaries between communities during the middle centuries of the second millennium cal BC this does not in itself necessarily mean that that there was a split from deeply embedded traditions (Jones 2008a; Yates 2007, 135) or that we need see the process of enclosure as being anyway directly analogous to the market driven farming economies of the early twenty first century. Indeed in non-western communities, boundary construction can instead be linked with the reproduction of communities and the non-verbal communication of social relationships and obligations (Lemonnier 2012, chapter 1). Although it is certainly true that dividing the land would have formalized and limited the movement of people and

animals through it, the decisions about where the boundaries could go would have involved careful consideration and negotiation between and within community groups. This would have been based on existing understandings over access to land and tenure, as well as to traditional conceptions of space. It may, for example, be significant that the potentially prehistoric field walls in Field 35 appear to have been aligned onto a large rocky outcrop (Figure 108) which lay to the north of the pipeline corridor: this same outcrop may have also been the focal point for the probable Early Bronze Age cairn 327 and demonstrates potential long continuity of its significance. Prominent rocky outcrops are known to have been important focal places for communities in the south west since at least the start of the Neolithic period, when enclosures, pits, and subsequently cairns were located around, over, beside or aligned onto prominent rocks in the landscape (Tilley 1995; Cole and Jones 2002-3; Jones 2005, chapter 5). Given the widespread anthropological and historical evidence for the mutable nature of people animals and inorganic features in Europe and Asia (Ovid, 2004; Sturluson 2005; Hutton 2001, 60; Price 2001), it is not surprising that distinctive landscape features may have been considered to be animate in their own right (Scarre 2009; A Jones et al 2011, 34) and to have embodied the spirits of ancestors or other supernatural beings. By the Middle Bronze Age there is evidence that some communities around the south west region were building their roundhouses into rocky outcrops or were including

Figure 108 Photograph of the rocky outcrop to the north of the pipeline corridor. This feature may have been a focus for boundary alignments and cairn 32. 136

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast them within the lines of their field systems. This process can for example be seen at Rocky Valley on Exmoor and at Kynance Gate on the Lizard peninsula (Jones 2008a; Riley and Wilson North 2001, 44), as well as on Bodmin Moor at Leskernick (Bender et al 2007, 112), where roundhouses and field boundaries are located in very stony areas. Ethnographic study also offers some potential explanations for this kind of phenomena; for example on the island of Gawa, Papua New Guinea, stones are important for the delineation of property divisions, and they are also thought to contain the spirits of their ancestors (Munn 1986, 80-5). In other words, the outcrop to the north of Field 35 may have been a long established landscape feature, which was of symbolic importance for local communities, and the field system may have been deliberately aligned onto it. Its inclusion as a point of reference within the field may have been for apotropaic reasons to bring good luck or fertility into the fields and to help define rights of tenure to the land. The patterns of artefact deposition are also of interest. Ditch [552] at Harlyn and wall 270 in Field 29 were both associated with artefactual assemblages. As discussed above, ditched boundaries dating to the Middle Bronze Age are rare in Cornwall, and comparatively small numbers have been excavated in Devon. However, where excavations have taken place, artefactual assemblages, including Trevisker Ware ceramics are commonly found (Pearce et al 2011; Fitzpatrick 1999, 47), and there is some evidence that this material did not enter into the ditches purely by chance. At Castle Hill in east Devon concentrations of Trevisker pottery were recovered at the eastern end of the enclosure near to the ditch terminals (Fitzpatrick 1999, 47). More recently, at Old Rydon Lane in Exeter 95 sherds from a single Trevisker vessel, and unpublished excavations in the surrounding area have also led to the recovery of sherds from other vessels within field ditches (Pearce et al 2011). The apparently deliberate deposition of large quantities of artefactual and faunal material into the ditch [552] therefore has direct comparisons with the practices in the very limited number of Middle Bronze Age boundary ditches that have been excavated in the south west region. The field walls along the north Cornwall pipeline were less directly associated with artefactual assemblages; however, wall 270 was associated with a large sherd from a Trevisker vessel, as well as flints. Bronze Age field walls in the west of Cornwall have also been found to include artefactual assemblages and human remains. At Towednack a metalwork hoard which included objects of gold was incorporated within a field wall (Pearce 1983, 426) and the Middle Bronze Age Mulfra hoard with palstaves may have been deposited within a field bank (Pearce 1983, 416). The Late Bronze Age hoard at Kenidjack Cliff also seems have been placed within a field wall (Borlase 1879, 191). During the Middle Bronze Age at Gwithian cremation pits were placed along the line of one of the major field walls (Nowakowski et al 2007). This pattern of marking boundaries extends beyond Cornwall and the south west

region, and it has become evident that during the Bronze Age, the edges of landholdings were marked with ‘special deposits’ (Bradley and Yates 2010). The question therefore arises as to how we should interpret this material. The decision to incorporate prized, exotic artefacts and human remains within or along the lines of boundaries is unlikely to be accidental. However, it is also perhaps unlikely that much of the material which ends up in ditches / boundaries was placed into them with any great deal of formality, and it is also possible that it was derived from a variety of sources (Chadwick 2012), ranging from midden material to occupation material, residues from special feasts to valued objects. The undertaking of rituals and the marking of boundaries to ensure fertility is welldocumented within the anthropological record (Weiner 1987, 83; Munn 1986, 80-6), and these concerns are likely to have been important to prehistoric communities too. Rather than seeing a complete split between the ‘mundane’ and the ‘esoteric’ or technical versus magical acts, it may be better to view the artefactual assemblages as representing a continuum of practices which ranged from the routine marking of boundaries with cultural material through to special episodes of deposition (Brück 1999; Jones forthcoming b). Seen in this light, the material from ditch [552] which included animal bone, shell and numerous fresh sherds of Trevisker pottery could have been deposited into the boundary after a feast. The distinctive pottery from wall 270 (P9) could have been part of a ‘known’ vessel which had its own biography. Although the material in these cases may have been given as an offering to the fields, it may well have been deposited as part of a ‘routine act’, which was part of a natural way of inhabiting the land. By contrast, the deposition of metalwork or human remains into or along field walls may reflect much more overtly managed acts, undertaken to achieve specific aims or outcomes. Whether carried out with formality or as routine activity the deposition of artefactual and faunal remains is likely to have been linked to the marking of the edges of defined spaces. Field walls and ditches not only delimit and help create paths of habitual movement through the landscape but also engender ties to it by becoming bound up with the construction of social identity (Sillitoe 1999; Ingold 2000, 204; Jones and Quinnell 2011a; Chadwick 2012). As a consequence, they can become linked with landscape cosmologies and associated with ritualized practices, intended to reinforce ties between the community and the place in which they lived. A form of this practice, for example survived into the post-medieval period with the ‘beating of the bounds’ which was intended to diffuse disputes between communities (Hole 1978, 252). In the Bronze Age, the aligning and incorporation of symbolically charged natural features with field walls and boundaries, along with their marking with culturally derived material, would have helped to define where people belonged, to make links between people and places and to sustain cosmological schemes of belief. 137

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast The Trevalga roundhouse The Trevalga roundhouse was the only Middle Bronze Age occupation site to be uncovered along the route of either pipeline. It is the first Middle Bronze Age roundhouse to be found along the north coast to the east of Wadebridge just up the Camel from Padstow (Figure 109). Unlike many of the roundhouses which have been excavated across Cornwall (Nowakowski 1991; Jones 1998-9; Jones and Taylor 2010, 69-70) Trevalga was not found in association with ancillary buildings or within the context of a wider settlement, and despite a wide area being stripped around it, the roundhouse appeared to be an isolated structure. No traces of external features were found and there were no indications of the stone-walled field boundaries which were located on the coastal plain a little to the north-west. This might suggest that the settlement pattern in this area is more dispersed than those around other excavated roundhouses. Individual roundhouses may have been located above the fields, but it is perhaps unlikely that field walls would survive in this area without a protective layer of colluvium to preserve them. The architecture of the roundhouse was also unusual in that it did not readily conform to either the hollow-set

roundhouses which are found across lowland Cornwall (Nowakowski 1991; Jones and Taylor 2010) or with the stone-walled houses that are found in the uplands. Instead the building appeared to be a hybrid. In common with lowland roundhouses it was set into a cut, the perimeter of which was lined with stones However, rather than being within a true hollow, it was set into a cut the side of the hill-slope. It was therefore more of a terraced house than a sunken-floored house, like those at Trethellan or Scarcewater (Nowakowski 1991; Jones and Taylor 2010, 16-26). Likewise, the stone walling in the entrance area had resonances with upland houses (for example, Mercer 1970), although most of the wall actually comprised an earth and rubble core derived from the excavation of the hillside to create a level terrace. Unlike most lowland houses there was no evidence the formalized abandonment practices which have been found at other roundhouses, or for its transformation into barrowlike site and the end of its ‘life-span’ (Nowakowski 2001; Jones 2008a; Jones and Taylor 2010, 75-9). However, the lack of evidence for a planned abandonment is likely to be due to the way that the building met its unplanned for demise, with water and clay soils pouring in through the doorway which faced uphill towards the south east. Such an event would have meant that the house would have

Figure 109 The distribution of lowland roundhouses in Cornwall. 138

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast become naturally infilled before it had reached the end of its cycle of occupation. The broadly southern facing entrance is common to many of the Middle Bronze Age roundhouses which are found across the south west peninsula (Mercer 1970; Nowakowski 1991; Jones and Taylor 2010, 70; Jones and Quinnell 2011a; Butler 1997, 126). This orientation is of interest as there has been a long running debate over the reasons for doorway alignment. On the one hand it has been suggested that roundhouse doorway alignments were primarily of a functional nature, involving maximising favourable climatic conditions and sunlight. Peter Drewett (1982, 339), for example suggested that that at Blackpatch, daylight was being used to facilitate activities such as weaving, leather and bone working within the roundhouse. On the other hand, it has been argued that doorway orientation was based on cosmological preferences (Parker Pearson 1996). However, a purely functional explanation for entrance orientation can hardly have been the case at Trevalga, where the doorway opened against the side of the hill. As a consequence, the interior of the roundhouse must always have been a gloomy affair, and lighting would have been dependant the dull glow from the hearth. The house itself was well-constructed with exquisite slate dry-stone walling, a beaten clay floor, and substantive post-ring, all of which appear designed to be looked at. The evidence suggests therefore that at Trevalga maintaining the cosmology of a south facing entrance was more important to the occupiers than the maximization of daylight. The function of the roundhouse is uncertain. The wear to the clay floor indicates that it may have been heavily used or that the presence of a continually damp floor could have led to it being quickly eroded by feet. The few charred cereal grains from the roundhouse indicate that food was consumed there. Their sparsity may indicate that the later stages of grain preparation were not carried out within the house. It is perfectly possible that the roundhouse may have been a relatively short-lived ‘domestic dwelling’ and there is nothing in the archaeological record to contradict this interpretation. The four radiocarbon determinations all fall within a fairly tight period circa 1400-1300 cal BC, and there was no sign of structural features being renewed. It is also possible that its isolation from nearby roundhouses may be indicative of a more specialist function, and the unusual ceramic assemblage may also be an indicator of difference too (see Quinnell above). Elsewhere in Cornwall, Middle Bronze Age ceremonial / cult structures have been argued to be set apart from the main settlement areas (for example, Nowakowski 1991; Jones 2008a; 2008b) and it is possible that this was the case at Trevalga too. The stone mould S7 would have been associated with production of metal objects. The presence of an unusually large number of stone artefacts with pestle wear, probably from the pounding of rock or hard substances may also point to

specialist activity. Given the widespread anthropological and historical evidence for magical practices and gender divisions associated with the production of metal objects, it is possible that this could have been a secretive or magical activity (Herbert 1993; Eliade 1988, 472-4; Helms 1993, 59-60). A desire for secrecy could certainly account for the sunken entranceway into the house, which would have obscured the interior of the roundhouse from prying eyes. However, as Richard Bradley has argued (2005), ritual and domestic activities are likely to have been deeply entwined and not easily separable: for example, a building used by a metalworker could still be used as a dwelling, or as a cult house by a community elder. Whichever scenario was appropriate here, the roundhouse contained comparatively few artefacts and beyond the hearth there was little trace of occupation within it. Nonetheless several significant worked stones were recovered from the roundhouse, which appear to provide evidence for structured deposition or are an unusual character (Quinnell above). Worked stones, including a hammerstone and a pestle were recovered from the wall matrix (S1 and SF38). Another four worked stones, including two saddle quern fragments, a pestle and a weight were found in postholes (S2, S3, S4 and a saddle quern fragment). A large grinding cobble was also recovered from beam slot [168]. Further worked stones were also recovered from the collapsed walling in the entrance area (Table 9). All these objects may have originally been placed within the fabric of the building. The incorporation of these stones is unlikely to be coincidental and it seems likely that they were deliberately incorporated into the fabric of the building. They can be seen as a version of a foundation deposit. It may also not be coincidental that a number of them are associated with grinding or with the processing of grain, and indeed stones of this type are being increasingly found within the walls and post-sockets of Middle Bronze Age roundhouses (see Jones and Taylor 2010, 76). Comparable stonework assemblages have been found at numerous roundhouse sites, including two roundhouses at Trethellan, and Callestick and Scarcewater (Nowakowski 1991; Jones 1998-9; Jones and Taylor 2010, 23), as well in later Iron Age ceremonial sites (Jones and Taylor forthcoming). Given that querns and rubbing stones were used for the transformation and breaking down of substances from one form into another, for example cereal grain into flour for cooking, they had the potential to possess symbolic connotations. Joanna Brück (2001) has argued that the life-cycle of objects and people could have become metaphorically associated so that just as after death people could be fragmented and buried, so might objects such as querns. If this were the case, querns may well have been viewed as holding particular properties, and their inclusion within the fabric of the building may have been considered beneficial to the structure. They need not, however, have relevance for the actual activities carried out within the house.

139

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 110 Photograph of the propped outcropping stone covered with cup-marks at Hendraburnick (Photograph Andy M Jones).

Figure 111 Photograph of cup-marked an in situ cup-marked stone at Tintagel Island (Photograph Andy M Jones). 140

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast By contrast, several objects were recovered from the bottom of the lower infill deposit and from the floor. The worked stone artefacts include; hammerstone SF29, racloir mould S7, cobble weight S8, bevelled pebble S9, slate SF7 and cobble SF17. A small amount of pottery was also found including sherds from P6. The material in this layer is likely to have been present in the roundhouse at the time of the ‘flooding’ episode and these were probably not deposited with any formality into the structure. Two of the worked stones are of particular interest and deserve further discussion as they reveal contrasting biographies and patterns of association. The first, a cupmark stone is indicative of long established practices and symbolism, the second a mould stone is emblematic of contacts with the wider world. The cup-marked stone S10 and some comments upon cupmarked stones in Cornwall The cup-marked stone S10 (Figure 61) within the Trevalga roundhouse is of interest as it provides another significant example of the incorporation of earlier practices into the domestic sphere during the Middle Bronze Age. Cup-marked rocks and pebbles are found in relatively small numbers across Cornwall, with denser concentrations in the west of the county and along the north coast (Hartgroves 1987; Jones and Kirkham in preparation). Dating for the origins of these sites with cup-marks is poor, although they are found on the capstones of Neolithic megalithic monuments and within Early Bronze Age barrows, which indicates that they had a long pedigree, which certainly predated the later Bronze Age (Jones and Kirkham 2013). The majority of identified cup-mark sites are found in west Cornwall, but there is also a notable distribution of cupmark sites along the north Cornish coast and its hinterlands. Cup-marks have been found at a number of sites in the near vicinity of the Trevalga roundhouse. These sites include a large distinctive propped stone situated at Hendraburnick Down (Barnatt 1982, 248; Jones in preparation) (Figure 110), which lies approximately 5 kilometres to the east of Trevalga, and at Tintagel Island 3 kilometres to the west, a panel of in situ cup-marks has also been discovered (Thomas 1993, 49-50) (Figure 111). However, the greatest numbers of cup-marked stones are associated with Early Bronze Age barrows. Indeed, a considerable number of excavated Early Bronze Age round barrows along the north Cornish coastal zone and its hinterland have been found to contain stones of varying sizes bearing cup-marks. These sites include Tregulland, Starapark, Tichbarrow, Treligga and Nancecuke (Ashbee 1958; Trudgian 1976a, 1976b; Christie 1985). Several of these aforementioned barrows, such as Tregulland, incorporate cup-marked stones as structural elements, for example within the kerb. A number have also been found to contain much smaller portable cup-marked slates and pebbles which are found within the mounds and on the

floors of barrow sites (Christie 1988; Dudley 1961; 1962; Jones 2004-5). Although it has been posited that cupmarked pebbles must have had practical purposes (Christie 1986), including a suggestion that they may have been used as nutcrackers (Roe 1985), their recurring occurrence on barrow sites suggests that they were used in barrowassociated rituals. Although some of these objects may have fulfilled a functional purpose, they could also be seen as part of the increasingly portable nature of symbolic stones. Seen in this way, the cup-mark was a symbol first found on large in situ boulders, and subsequently found on smaller slabs and pebbles (Jones and Kirkham 2013). The association between cup-marked stones, small cup-marked pebbles and barrows is one that is found across Britain (Bradley 1992; 1997, 136-50). This association has recently been argued as being unlikely to be coincidental (O’Connor 2009) and it is possible that cup-marked stones featured very prominently in barrow-associated rituals, with some being physically removed from significant places in the landscape, and others possibly being carved for the purpose as part of funerary rituals (O’Connor 2009). In this way, cup-marked stones may have been used to make links and refer to associations between barrow sites, other places in the landscape, and individual people. Given their frequent inclusion within barrows along the north coast, cup-marked slabs and pebbles may have played a significant role in barrow-associated ritual. These observations are important because they provide a link between rock art and the changing contexts in the south west peninsula in which this is found, and because they suggest that the size of the reused slab or the cupmarked pebble is less important than some writers have previously suggested. That is to say, cup-marks do not become less symbolic according to the size of the stone upon which they were found. The recovery of cup-marked stones from barrows in the wider vicinity is also significant because they demonstrate that the marking of stones with cup-marks was an established tradition in the north Cornwall area since at least the earlier part of the Bronze Age. Until fairly recently it was accepted that there was an ideological split between the Early Bronze Age with its large numbers of ceremonial monuments and the Middle Bronze Age with increasing number of identified farming settlements and roundhouses. However, writers such as Richard Bradley (2005) have highlighted the importance of ritualized practices within the domestic sphere and recent archaeological recording in the south west has revealed the persistence of Early Bronze Age traditions into the later Bronze Age within the context of the settlement (Jones 2008a). These traditions include the transformation of abandoned houses into barrow-like structures and continuing evidence for the ritualized deposition of artefacts within pits and postholes inside them.

141

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Cup-marked stones may provide yet more evidence for continuity or adaptation of practices and the persistence of social memory. In the last few decades several lowland Bronze Age settlements dating to Middle Bronze Age have been investigated. A surprising number, in common with the Trevalga roundhouse, have produced cup-marked stones and / or cup-marked pebbles. In common with the barrows mentioned above, cup-marked stones are found in secondary deposits, as well as being incorporated into the actual fabric of the roundhouse. At Scarcewater roundhouse 1500 and Callestick structure 26, cup-marked pebbles were found within the infill deposits of the roundhouses (Jones and Taylor 2010, 120-22; Jones 1998-9) and at Trethellan Farm one cup-marked slab was found within roundhouse 2001 and two more within two ritual hollows 136/2021 and 2765 (Nowakowski 1991). More recently, during the excavation of an Iron Age roundhouse at Camelford School, a cup-marked slab was found. Although residual, this slab appears to have been associated with a group of features belonging to a Bronze Age occupation which predated the Iron Age roundhouse (Jones and Taylor forthcoming). A slate block with a single cup-mark was also recovered from an excavation trench at St Piran’s Church. The stone was from deeply buried wall [405], which was associated with sherds of Trevisker pottery. It is not known what type structure the wall belonged to but it was associated with settlement activity dating to the Middle Bronze Age (Cole 2007). In addition to smaller cup-marked stones from deposits inside roundhouses, at Gwithian site GM/IX, a cupmarked slab was set vertically into the wall of structure [1079] (Nowakowski 1989, fig 5; Nowakowski et al 2007) and at Little Bay, St Martins a stone with a single cup-mark, described as a ‘pivot stone’ was found in the entrance to building 3/4 (Neal 1983). Three further unstratified cup-marked stones from Little Bay were also referred to as ‘pivot stones’, including one with opposed cup-marks (ibid). There was, however, no evidence that the unstratified stones had been used as pivots and the interpretation of the stone in the entranceway to building 3/4 is also open to question. There is also now a substantial body of literature on the question of stones with possible cup-marks, which more usually in the past have been referred to as pivot holes, found in the courtyard houses and related sites of the Romano-British period. An added complication is that some of these later hollows were probably mortars (Quinnell 2004, 6.12.3). This aspect of the subject is complex and can not be pursued further here. It seems likely that cup-marked stone S10 at Trevalga may have occupied a comparable position to those at Gwithian and Little Bay. Although it was found in the entrance area amidst tumble from the wall, it is possible that it had been a prominent stone within the wall of the house, and its location beside the entrance may have been more than fortuitous. It is also worth noting that the stone is a distinctive green colour which would have stood out from the surrounding

slate in the wall. Recent excavation of house 3 at Bosiliack also identified a visually distinctive blue tourmalized stone beside the entrance into the roundhouse (Jones forthcoming a), and it has been suggested that it had been deliberately selected for its colour. Several writers (Jones and MacGregor 2002; Bradley 2000a, 45) have argued that distinctive coloured stones could be incorporated within ceremonial monuments, and across the south west region coloured soils and white quartz was included within barrows (Owoc 2002; Miles 1975; Jones and Quinnell 2012). There is also evidence that white quartz was used in ritualized contexts in Middle Bronze Age settlements, to infill buildings or to demarcate the edges of roundhouse hollows (Nowakowski 1991; Jones 1998-9). It is possible thresholds into roundhouses could be marked in similar ways by other types of distinctive stones. It may also be significant that in the case of the Trevalga slab, the cup-marks had been carved into the upper, weathered side of the stone and several notches around the edges of it could have been caused by it being levered off the parent rock. It was not possible to source the stone precisely but it is similar to the chlorite schist which outcrop along the north coast between Tintagel and Boscastle, and it may have been taken to the roundhouse from an in situ outcrop which had already been inscribed with cup-marks. If this were the case it would be analogous to the incorporation of ancient cup-marked stones into Early Bronze Age barrows. It therefore seems a highly unlikely coincidence that a symbol associated with both ‘ancient’, marked, places in the landscape and barrow-associated rituals would appear in Bronze Age roundhouses without some degree of intentionality. Just as cup-marked stones may have been associated with the deceased or memory of places at barrow sites, so in roundhouses they could have been powerful symbols associated with previous occupants, ancestors or as protective amulets derived from powerful places in the landscape. In either circumstance fragments of cup-marked rocks and / or pebbles found within roundhouses are likely to represent continuity, or more probably a transformation, of pre-existing ritual practices into the later Bronze Age. It is also worth noting that two or possibly three of the features (Features 2, 15 and possibly 17) (Figures 112 and 113) at Forrabury, which has been dated to the Iron Age were also associated with re-used slate slabs that were cup-marked. This may again be suggestive of the continuing importance of stones which had been marked with this symbol into the first millennium cal BC (see the Iron Age section below). The racloir mould S7 The mould stone S7 was found in the southern part of the roundhouse at the base of layer (107), the infill deposit. The main part of the mould was used for the manufacture of the copper alloy triangular racloir. As discussed above, racloirs are not commonly found in Britain with three of the four known examples being found in south west Britain 142

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast

Figure 112 Photograph of cup-marked stone from Feature 15 at Forrabury.

Figure 113 Photograph of cup-marked stone from Feature 17 at Forrabury. 143

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 115 Racloir found at Phillack, near Hayle, Cornwall (Photograph Anna Tyacke, Royal Cornwall Museum). Figure 114 Racloir from Lansdown, Bath in Somerset (© Trustees of the British Museum). (see Figure 114 and Figure 115), with one example being found at from Phillack, near Hayle further west along the north Cornish coast (Nankivell 1956-7). Most racloirs are known from north west and western France. However, as discussed above, the mould is made from a locally sourced stone which means that people who inhabited the roundhouse were aware of Continental metalwork forms and could organize their manufacture. This is significant because it indicates that as well as having strongly localized identities communities could also partake in contacts with the wider world. The discovery of the cup-marked stone and the Middle Bronze Age racloir mould stone provide interesting contrasts and oppositions which give a little light on the end of the Bronze Age in north Cornwall. Through the cup-marked stone we can see that the old way of doing things still mattered, it was still important to incorporate a stone with ancestral or symbolic resonances into the fabric of the building. By contrast, the mould stone spoke of the latest fashion which had spread around the Atlantic façade and the Continent. The mould may have shown more of a desire to have new objects which were distinct from those that went before and an aspiration to have an identity which went beyond the confines of the immediate community or tradition. Indeed, this is a pattern which can be seen in the architecture of the house and perhaps in the ceramics too, both of which showed evidence both for continuity and change.

Pit [210] cooking or burial? The final feature of Middle Bronze Age date was much more enigmatic. Pit [210] was a rectangular stone-lined pit (Figure 22). It was not fully excavated and there were few artefacts. Likewise, there were no features in the vicinity of the pit which could be readily associated with it. However, pit [210] produced a radiocarbon determination of 3170 ± 26 BP, 1498 - 1409 cal BC (SUERC-42050). This places the feature firmly in the Middle Bronze Age. The function of the stone-lined pit is uncertain. One possibility is that it could have acted as a cooking pit associated with a burnt mound, perhaps similar to the site which was excavated near to Boscaswell (Jones and Quinnell 2006a). Although comparatively few have been identified in the south west region (for example, WilsonNorth and Carey 2011), a burnt mound on Woodbury Common in Devon has recently been dated to the Early Bronze Age (Tilley 2009) and two burnt mounds have been dated to the Middle Bronze Age at Burlescombe in east Devon (Best and Gent 2007), and other sites have been recently identified in the Exeter area (H Quinnell pers comm): cooking pits are well-documented elsewhere in Britain and Ireland during the Middle and later Bronze Age (see papers in Buckley 1990; Ladle and Woodward 2009, 128). Burnt mound sites typically consist of three components: a large trough or pit, a mound, and a hearth or fire pit. However, only one possible component was located in Field 16. In common with pit [210], the troughs are frequently well-defined rectangular features which can be lined with stone or timber (Hedges 1977; Best and Gent 144

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast 2007). The sizes vary from under 1m long to more than 2m long and over 1m deep (Beamish and Ripper 2000; Barber et al 2006). At 1.44m long by 0.86m wide, pit [210] would fit within this size range, although its depth is unknown. These troughs do not usually showed features related to heating. Burnt mounds are often located away from settlement areas and are frequently devoid of artefactual associations (Drisceoil 1988; Kelly 1992; Topping 1998). It is therefore possible that pit [210] may also have been used for cooking. However, fire-cracked stones used to heat the water for cooking, which are associated with these sites, were not identified in the pit cut or in the adjacent pipeline corridor, and there was no trace of the actual mound of burnt stone or of a hearth, which are typical of these sites. An alternative explanation is that pit [210] was a cist, which held a burial deposit. The cut is for example, of broadly similar dimensions to a cist which was recorded on the coast at Porthcothan to the west of Harlyn Bay, where a deposit of cremated bone and unburnt bone were found within a cist (Harris 1978), and a smaller cist with a few fragments of bone was recorded on the coast at Lellizzick, near Padstow (Patchett 1953). Middle Bronze Age burials are uncommon in Cornwall. However, evidence for the burial of human remains during the Middle Bronze Age has been found in southern central England and in the east midlands, where flat cremation cemeteries and small mounds dating to the Middle Bronze Age are known (for example, Ellison 1980; Bradley and Fraser 2011; Finn 2012, 44-52), and as Harding and Healy (2007, 237-8) have pointed out, it is also the case that most Middle Bronze Age inhumation burials from barrows are without artefacts and have only been identified through radiocarbon dating. This means that they are almost certainly underrepresented in the archaeological record. A number of small-scale ceremonial and funerary monuments have begun to be identified in the south west, which suggests that Middle Bronze Age communities were constructing monuments, albeit on a small-scale (Jones 2012). In particular, a cremation from a small barrow on the cliffs at Godrevy, near Gwithian has very recently been radiocarbon dated to the Middle Bronze Age (Nowakowski forthcoming b), and the cist burial from Constantine Island, a little west of Harlyn Bay, has been dated to the Middle Bronze Age (Jones 2009-10). Finally a cremation burial in a cist at Gunwalloe, on the Lizard has recently been radiocarbon dated to the later Bronze Age (Wood forthcoming). Taken together this indicates the tradition of cist building along the Cornish coast extended into the later Bronze Age. If this interpretation is correct, the location of the burial may prove to be significant. As discussed above, human remains dating to the Early Bronze Age were recovered from the pipeline corridor within pit [101] and it is likely that stone-lined pit [210] may also have been associated

with a burial deposit. Both sites were located in the coastal zone, as was cairn 327 which lay just beyond it. The location of pit [101] may therefore represent a continuity of tradition of viewing the costal zone as a liminal area and an appropriate location for the interment of human remains. At the same time, the zone may, by the Middle Bronze Age, have been enclosed pasture, and we have already suggested, the ‘presencing’ of ancestors within this zone may have been another way of helping tie communities with their land. If the coastal zone had remained a focal point for burials into the Middle Bronze Age, it might not only provide a link with the past back into the Early Bronze Age, but importantly it may also have influenced the future too, as the Iron Age site at Forrabury was sited only a short distance to the east (see below). Summary The investigations along both pipelines have helped fill out the picture of Middle Bronze Age settlement and ritualized practices along the north Cornish coast. This is significant because evidence for this period to the east of Newquay and the north of Bodmin Moor has been quite scant. The only identified structure dating to this period was at Harlyn Bay, which is thought to be a shrine, although one set within a structure generally comparable to the hollowfloored roundhouses of the period but devoid of the usual domestic debris (Whimster 1977; Jones 2008b). A group of hollow-floored roundhouses were excavated at Pawton Gate near Wadebridge but these are not yet published (information Foundations Archaeology). However, the investigations have revealed widespread evidence for Middle Bronze Age activity, in the form of fragmentary fields systems, a roundhouse and a potential cist. In common with other areas of Cornwall, such as West Penwith and Bodmin Moor (Herring 1986; Johnson and Rose 1994) it is now possible to see the coastal zone as containing blocks of enclosed land probably used for the grazing of animals. Boundaries in this zone may have taken their orientations from existing important landscape markers, and they seem to have been the focus for the deposition of culturally derived materials. The coastal zone may also have retained some of its significance as a liminal space close to edge of the land, suited for the deposition of burials. Some of these burials followed the long established cist building tradition. The insertion of human remains into the field system may have been an additional way of maintaining links between the community and their land. Above the fields on the higher north facing slopes was a roundhouse, used for a short period, which retained a cosmology which demanded a south facing entrance. This house may have been associated with the production of copper alloy objects, an activity which may account for its relative isolation. A distinctive cup-marked stone in the entrance may have been intended to ward off harmful influences.

145

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast The evidence obtained from the project gives an imperfect, fragmentary picture of the Middle Bronze Age, but it nonetheless indicates that activity was being structured in ways which were as complex as those in the adjacent uplands of Bodmin Moor, and indicates that further evidence for activity is likely to survive comparatively well. The Iron Age: from settlement to cemetery Three areas of Iron Age activity were encountered along the routes of the schemes. They encompass settlement, ritual and funerary-related activity. Two of the sites were encountered along the route of the Harlyn Bay pipeline and the third was found at the eastern end of the north Cornwall pipeline. However, all three sites present problems and limitations which pose difficulties for interpretation. The slice through the Iron Age and Romano-British settlement in Field C on the Harlyn Bay pipeline was too narrow to sort out stratigraphical relationships or define the extent of the site, and there were indications for earlier Neolithic activity on the site too. A similar problem emerged in Field Y, along the Harlyn Bay pipeline, where an illdefined white quartz spread was probably constructed to form a platform for formal ceremonial activities: sites of this type would normally be assigned to the Early Bronze Age, but a radiocarbon determination points to activity in the Middle to Late Iron Age. Finally the site at Forrabury was exposed but only partially excavated. The range of features here was extensive, and included large pits, stone capped features, and square stone-lined pits. Although chronological relationships between the different types of features are poorly-defined, it does appear that some of the stone-lined features are cists and that the site was in use at least during earlier part of the Iron Age. These problems aside, it is important to discuss these sites in greater detail as they do have the potential to shed some valuable light on the use of land along the north Cornish coast during the Iron Age. The evidence from the sites also feeds into some of the issues of continuity and change which have already formed a large part of the synthetic discussion outlined above. The settlement at Harlyn Bay The first Iron Age site was uncovered within a narrow pipe trench in Field C (Figure 65), on the western side of Harlyn Bay. Although so many features were uncovered within in such narrow trenches, it is evident that they represent the remains of a substantial settlement site situated just 250m from the Iron Age cist cemetery at Harlyn Bay (Bullen 1902; Whimster 1977). Attempting to characterize the settlement in detail is beyond the available data recovered by the project. Nevertheless, a number of characteristics of the site are available, and with the additional information provided by the geophysical survey, the ceramics and the radiocarbon dating, certain aspects of the age, use and form of the settlement can be suggested.

Very little in the way of stratigraphical relationships between the uncovered features can be extracted, save that the deposits exposed in the two trenches are likely to represent domestic activity associated with roundhouse settlement. The geophysical survey suggested that this activity extended across Field C, and that several more ring-gullied structures survive outside the pipeline corridor. Although the northern and southern extent of the settlement is unknown, the western and eastern edges to the activity are suggested by the excavation and the geophysical survey. It is possible that the village extended both north and south for some distance below the low crest of the hill to the west. Although its limits are unknown, given the absence of any evidence of an enclosure ditch it is likely that the settlement was unenclosed. As such it is comparable with other open settlements that have been identified in north Cornwall coast, including Penmayne, near Padstow (Gossip et al 2012) and further inland at Camelford School (Jones and Taylor forthcoming), where several unenclosed Iron Age roundhouses defined by ring-gullies have been identified. Although the scientific dating is restricted to two radiocarbon determinations and the pottery assemblage limited (Quinnell above), it seems probable that the occupation of the settlement is likely to have been long-term and ranged from the middle of the first millennium cal BC to second century AD, with some later activity in the latter part of the Romano-British period. The site was covered by layer (697), which contained some finds from the later Roman centuries (Quinnell above), and it is possible that the settlement had disappeared and been ploughed over by that time. Layer (697) itself may have originated in a sandblow which over time became cultivated. The entire area was covered by a layer of sand (695) which had protected the site from more recent episodes of ploughing. The character of the actual roundhouses within the settlement is uncertain. Only two ring-gullies [824] and [575/[796] at the western end of pipeline corridor appear to have been associated with structures. Feature [824] may have been part of an Iron Age roundhouse with a diameter of 8m. Radiocarbon dating suggests that his building may have stood in middle centuries of the first millennium cal BC. Gully [575/[796] may have formed part of a slightly larger structure with a diameter 10m. It is uncertain whether the gullies acted as eaves drips to provide drainage for the houses, whether they served as ring-grooves and held structural timbers for the roundhouse walling, or whether they marked out the areas which the houses would use. The overall diameters of the ring-gullies are within the ranges of recently excavated roundhouses at Penmayne, Camelford and Threemilstone, Truro (Gossip et al 2012; Jones and Taylor forthcoming; Gossip forthcoming b). A third, possible rectangular, structure may have been defined by walls 690, 669 and 772. However, this putative structure cannot be phased, as there was no real dating evidence from the walling: it would, however, appear 146

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast to be late in the sequence and, if the walls all belonged to one structure it would have overlain and post-dated ditch [749] (see below). Nonetheless, the large number of features, including pits, walling and paved surfaces does at least suggest that activity may have been intensive across the settlement area and is again indicative of a long-term occupation. Although it is not possible to characterize its extent or form, the presence of Iron Age / Romano-British field boundaries, in the form of ditches suggests that the roundhouses sat within a field system. The ‘V’ shaped ditch, [749] exposed in the central part of the pipeline corridor was found to contain Iron Age pottery (Quinnell above) and was one of the most substantial features uncovered. This feature could represent a more significant land division; however, not enough of it was uncovered to be certain of this. Extensive pre-medieval ditched-defined field systems, of both rectilinear and more sinuous form have frequently been found during larger-scale archaeological recording projects across Cornwall (Gossip and Jones 2007, 22-3; Johns 2008; Jones 2000-1; Jones and Taylor 2010, 478; forthcoming). Despite the limitations, the discovery of a field system in this area is, however, of interest as it extends the evidence for later prehistoric enclosure into the coastal zone of north Cornwall. Only very limited indications of subsistence practices were recovered. These are provided by the small and fragmentary collection of skeletal material (Higbee above) and marine faunal remains. The assemblage is far smaller than for other coastal settlements in Cornwall, where conditions have permitted the survival of bone (Hammon 2011; Reynolds forthcoming), and it is restricted to material coming from the fills of ring-gully [824], roundhouse, the ‘V’ shaped ditch [749], within the bonding of wall 772, posthole [782], pit [788], gully [796], pit [798], posthole [818] and linear feature [820]. Although this represents a sizeable number of features, the overall size of the assemblage is small. The identified skeletal material from the settlement included remains from pig, sheep and cattle. The cattle remains comprised both a number of bone fragments and teeth. Although fragmentary, several of the pieces of bone bore signs of butchery. In addition to domestic animals, the worked red deer antler from ring-gully [824] indicates the continuing importance of wild resources and potentially the hunting of game, while the marine shells illustrate the use of the resources from the beach. Taken together it suggests that the occupants of the settlement were fully exploiting the landscape in which they inhabited, grazing cattle in the surrounding fields, collecting shells from the local beach, and killing game which was available to them. The settlement is also of interest as it is located near to the Harlyn Bay cemetery which is located approximately 250m metres to the east of the settlement. Although the cemetery was excavated in the early years of the twentieth century (Bullen 1912), and the precise date of the Harlyn Bay cemetery is currently uncertain, artefacts from the cist graves place it in the latter part of the Iron Age during the

last centuries cal BC (Whimster 1981, 69). If this were the case, it is very likely that either served the community who occupied the settlement in Field C during the latter part of its use, or that at least they were aware of the cemetery’s existence. Given that the cemetery was sited in low-lying ground beyond the edge of the field system it is possible that there was a deliberate spatial separation between the area used for occupation and a more liminal zone used for burial. It may also be significant that the place chosen for the Iron Age cemetery was close to an area which already had a long established history as a place of burial, extending back to the start of the second millennium cal BC (Jones et al 2011), and this tradition may have influenced the siting of the cemetery, and responses it to in terms of where settlement activity could take place. The Trevone ‘ritual’ platform / cairn The second feature of Iron Age date to be uncovered was located to the east of Harlyn Bay at Trevone in Field Y (Figure 88). It comprised a spread of vein quartz stones (729) which appear to have formed a platform or cairn. The stone platform was laid upon two distinct layers of material. The lower layer (731) was a mottled silty clay, with the appearance of an undisturbed subsoil. The layer lying over this (730) more closely resembled a soil. No indication of a surrounding ditch was located within the slate geology, and it would appear that the soil and subsoil surrounding the base of the cairn / platform was scraped from the surrounding underlying slate, then heaped up to produce the required height. The north and south edges to this platform were located within the trench, some 18m apart. The shallowness of the feature to the west suggests that the edge lay not far beyond the excavated area on this side. It is clear that subsequent cultivation in the field had resulted in the plough spreading of the quartz to its present recorded dimensions. Not enough of the feature was uncovered to determine its overall shape, although it could have been circular. However, the apparent intention of the builders was to construct a low, quartz capped cairn, which would have formed a low platform. The feature was set at a height of 42.5m OD, on the lower western slope of the head of the valley that falls to Trevone. It only had views down this valley, and conversely was only visible from this direction, which implies that it was deliberately constructed to be seen and possibly approached from this direction. The vein quartz fragments forming layer (729) which constituted the platform did not appear to derive from the immediate vicinity. It is likely that the collection of the quartz was not a mundane or casually undertaken activity (Cooney 2009) but instead represented a deliberate selection process. Comparable movement of pebbles to form monuments has been identified in East Devon (Tilley 2010, chapter 6) and non-local stones have been found to be incorporated within a range of prehistoric contexts 147

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast across the south west region (Jones forthcoming b). On a much smaller scale, individual water worn pebbles brought inland were also recorded from features at Forrabury (see below). Given the widespread evidence for the movement of unworked stone and pebbles in prehistory over considerable distances, it seems likely that they were deliberately incorporated into the fabric of the monument. This may have been because of their perceived properties, or because they were derived from a sacred locale or special place in the landscape, and there was a desire to transfer these properties to a new monument (Tilley 1994, 59; Taçon 1991). The quartz in the platform ran up to the slate outcrop 910 situated at the centre of the site. The quartz layer surrounding this block was uneven, with some areas almost devoid of cover. Others areas produced a surface similar to cobbling, which probably represents the original character. The subtle modification of natural features is known from the anthropological and archaeological record (for example, Delannoy et al 2012) and it. is likely that a low natural hummock of slate was deliberately shaped to produce a raised area, resembling a recumbent standing stone. This ‘stone’ appears to have been the focus for construction of the quartz platform / cairn (729). It had been truncated in places, and although it must originally have been a little more imposing, it was probably never very high. Although the feature was low, its visibility in the landscape would have been accentuated by the central stone, and capped with vein quartz stones, this would have proved a prominent feature, apparently attracting activity including a considerable number of knapped flint pebbles from local beaches. There is no surviving indication of any ritual activity predating the construction of the mound. However, as a considerable number of flints were also recovered from the surface of the platform / cairn, it is possible that ‘ritualized’ activities involving the repetitive knapping of flint could have been undertaken upon it. Interestingly, broadly comparable knapping was found at a barrow on Constantine Island which lies just a few kilometres to the west of Trevone (Jones 2009-10). On the basis of the associated flint-work, the site would normally be interpreted as being of Early Bronze Age date (see below). However, no secure Bronze Age dating was recovered from the site and no comparable site of this kind has been located elsewhere along the route of the pipeline or indeed anywhere else in Cornwall. Given the widespread evidence for distinctive natural features becoming the focus for later monuments in the south west region and beyond (Bradley 1993, 28-9; 2000b, chapter 7), the incorporation of a natural feature may provide a broad, later prehistoric, probably Bronze Age, date. At the Watch Hill barrow, for example, a small tor was incorporated into a cairn ring, subsequently burials were placed in wooden coffins and the site was finally covered over by a substantial barrow mound (Miles 1975; Jones

and Quinnell 2006b). Radiocarbon dating indicates that these activities took place over several centuries. At Trevone, ritualized activity may also have included activities which involved the interment of a burial. A ‘grave-shaped’ pit [908] was found alongside the natural slate outcrop. It was covered by a sparse covering of the vein quartz which formed the platform / cairn, which would make it appear to be earlier than the platform; however, it is possible that the quartz from the platform had been spread over it by later ploughing. This observation is important because the radiocarbon determination 1970 ± 45 BP, 407 - 197 cal BC (AA-26417) from pit [908] suggests that the site dates to the middle of the Iron Age. The significance of this date will be discussed below. A number of disturbed areas were also found beneath the stone platform. These areas contained vein quartz, contributing to an impression of burrowing animals, such as badgers, drawing material down from areas where tunnelling had broken through the overlying stone layer. The lack of any archaeological material or charcoal from the fills, and the particularly amorphous character of the features further favours animal activity. Prior to the results from the radiocarbon dating, it was presumed that the platform was a monument of Early Bronze Age date, a view was reinforced by the large scatter of flints overlying the stone capping, which should date before the end of the Bronze Age, when flint technology fell out of use. Morphologically the site is comparable with low platform cairns which are found around the county, and as noted above, the inclusion of natural features within sites of this period is relatively commonplace. However, the radiocarbon determination from charcoal found within the ‘grave-shaped’ pit [908] at the centre of the platform produced a Middle Iron Age date. This would at least place the later phases of activity at the site firmly within the Iron Age, and could be taken to imply that the monument is entirely of Iron Age date. Until recently this would have been a problematic interpretation as Iron Age ceremonial monuments are extremely rare. However, two recent excavations in Cornwall have identified sites which are broadly contemporary with the Trevone platform and share some parallels with it too. At Scarcewater, a site was excavated which was initially taken to be a hilltop cairn of Early Bronze Age date. Cairn 2002, with a diameter of less than 10m, was considerably smaller than the platform at Trevone. The site comprised a penannular ring-ditch, with an east facing entrance (Jones and Taylor 2010, 40), which encircled a low platform cairn. Iron Age pottery was recovered from the ditch and a radiocarbon determination obtained 2308 ± 32, 410 - 230 cal BC (Wk-21858), which lies in the Middle Iron Age. As at Trevone, the cairn partly sealed an outcropping rock, as well as number of pits or postholes that did not form any readily discernable pattern. There was no evidence of

148

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast a grave cut, although a shallow truncated pit in the top of the mound may have originally held a cremation deposit. The second site was uncovered at Camelford School (Jones and Taylor forthcoming). With a diameter of 16m, Camelford enclosure 2 was nearer in size to the Trevone platform. It had a low central cairn surrounded by multiple ring-ditches, and would have resembled a ditched platform cairn of Bronze Age date. The cairn sealed tree-boles but there were no identifiable anthropogenic features beneath it. The four radiocarbon determinations are later than the date from Trevone and are indicative of use during the last century of the first millennium cal BC. Neither of these sites provides an exact parallel for the Trevone platform but they do indicate that ceremonial monuments were being constructed during the Iron Age and that the appearance of a monument cannot always be taken to be a certain indicator of its date. The presence of large numbers of flints upon the platform still requires an explanation. One possible scenario might result from cultivation practice. In an area of prolonged cultivation, evidenced by the considerable build up of colluvium in the area, an accumulation of flints may have collected as a result of the plough pulling them over the feature, where they were caught amongst the stones of the platform. A scatter of flints was recovered from across the field, with a noticeable density around the mound, supporting this suggestion. However, this does not explain the absence of flint-work beneath the stones, a situation which would be the likely outcome of the use of such flint bearing soils to build the monument in the Iron Age. It also fails to account for the recorded density of struck flint in the vicinity of the site. Alternatively, it is possible that the site could have could have had a very long period of use or significance in the landscape. This significance may have started in the Early Bronze Age, when the natural slate outcrop was defined and surrounded by a platform of quartz stones. This was followed by flint knapping on the platform. The site may have retained an importance as a ‘special’ or ‘ancestral place’ in the landscape and subsequently been seen as a suitable place for the excavation of a ‘grave-shaped’ pit, possibly for the deposition of an inhumation burial in the Middle Iron Age. Again the reuse or manipulation of older monuments is well-documented (Bradley 2002, 112-24; Jones 2005, chapter 5) and has been demonstrated by recent excavations in the west of Cornwall. At Sennen in West Penwith, radiocarbon dating of pits and postholes around a stone setting, has revealed that it was a long-lived focus over several centuries during the second millennium cal BC. Activities included the digging of pits, the erection of posts and flint knapping (Jones et al 2012). A comparable pattern of extended long-term activity may have occurred at Trevone. In this context it is also worth noting that cairn 327 located to the north of the north Cornwall pipeline corridor, which is of presumed Early Bronze Age date, and the later prehistoric field system both seemed to have

been sited with reference to the rocky outcrop. This again implies a long-term persistence of distinctive places in the landscape along the north Cornish coast. The Forrabury ‘cemetery’ The third Iron Age site was located at Forrabury near to Boscastle. When the site was initially uncovered it was taken to be a cist grave cemetery of probable early medieval date (Figure 37). Early medieval cist graves are certainly known from the area (Nowakowski and Thomas 1990; 1992) and an example was uncovered in Field 39 at the western end of the pipeline (see above). It should be stressed that only Features 1 and 16 were completely excavated and comments on the others are therefore based on incomplete data. It is also worth repeating that the geology in the area does not allow the preservation of non cremated bone. However, the orientations of the graves were not consistent with an early Christian cemetery and the range of cut features, especially their extremely variable size and shape, was also unusual in an early Christian context. Subsequent analyses of the pottery from the site (Quinnell above) revealed that it was of Iron Age date and this was later confirmed by the radiocarbon dating, which places activity at the Forrabury site within the earlier part of the Iron Age. The available comparanda would also place many of the features within an Iron Age, rather than an early medieval tradition. Burials have been argued to be rare nationally, although they are found in Cornwall and the south west region, where cists containing inhumation burials have been recorded (Cunliffe 2010, 205). Cist grave cemeteries have been located in several, mostly coastal locales around the south west peninsula (see Figure 116), where they might have been associated with groups who had links with maritime trade (Henderson 2007, 278). Notable cemeteries include those at Stamford Hill in Plymouth (Bate 1862), St Mary’s and Bryher on the Isles of Scilly (Ashbee 1974, 120-47; Dudley 1960-61; Johns 2002-3), and Trelan Bahow on the Lizard (Jope Rogers 1873). More locally, cist grave cemeteries at Harlyn Bay (Bullen 1912; Whimster 1977) and Trevone (Dudley and Jope 1965) were located on the north Cornish coast. Further along the coast to the west, possible Iron Age burials have also been found at Calartha in West Penwith (Cornish 1883; Russell 1971, 29), at Crantock between Newquay and Perranporth, and at Phillack near Hayle (Polsue 1872, 69; Olson 1981; Turner 2006, 50), although at these latter sites there are later Christian burials (Somerscales 1956-57; Turk 1969) nearby and the dating is uncertain. The burials at Crantock appear have included crouched burials, indicative of Iron Age practices, in addition to non-cisted burials (Olson 1981). Iron Age, non-cisted crouched inhumation burials within pits have also been recorded further along the north Cornish coast at Trethellan Farm, near Newquay (Nowakowski 1991).

149

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast

Figure 116 The distribution of Iron Age burials around the south west peninsula (After Johns 2002-3 but excluding those on the Isles of Scilly). Taken together, this suggests that Iron Age burials were frequently placed in coastal areas of Cornwall and that there was a range of funerary practices, with perhaps crouched inhumation predominating. However, as most cists were excavated fifty years or more ago, dating is, in most cases poor and many are not closely dateable. For example, the cist at Calartha is said to have contained a vessel of Iron Age form and a piece of rusted metal, probably of iron (Cornish 1883). Artefacts from Stamford Hill and Harlyn Bay are indicative of a later Iron Age date (Cunliffe 1988, 87; Whimster 1977) and a similar period is suggested by the mirror from Trelan Bahow (Hill 2002-3), the brooches from Trethellan Farm (Nowakowski 1991; 2011), and Porth Cressa on St Mary’s although these belong in the first century AD (Ashbee 1954). The radiocarbon dating from the cist on Bryher also falls in the last two centuries cal BC (Johns 2002-3). Although limited to just two radiocarbon determinations and pottery, the dating from Forrabury indicates a rather earlier date in the Iron Age than is suggested by the sites mentioned above, and this is of interest as it potentially moves us further back in time towards the cist traditions of the Bronze Age which are also found in this area (Jones 2009-10; Jones et al 2011). A third radiocarbon determination from sherd of pottery from on top of Feature 17, 1838 ± 26 BP, cal AD 88 - 241 (SUERC-42060), gave a date early in the Romano-British period. This might imply that the site was used or at least significant over a considerable period of time. However, as most of the

features are not excavated or dated, it is not possible to explore the origins or final use of the cemetery. Indeed, despite being assigned to the Iron Age, the site still presents difficulties with interpretation as some features appear to have been truncated and only a sample number were excavated. This means that interpretation is difficult and of the thirty recorded features, only fifteen can be discussed. The remaining fifteen, which include two hearth-pits, postholes / pits and a ditch, are completely unphased, and whilst it entirely possible that some of them relate to Iron Age activity associated with the site, it is not possible on current evidence to assign them to this date. The remaining group of features can be placed within two major categories and two single features (Figure 37). The first group comprise near square stone-lined cuts or cists without a surviving stone capping (Features 1, 3, 4, 6, 16 and possibly 12 and 26). These features have parallels with square cists which have been found elsewhere in the south west region. Comparable sites include cist number 2 Par Beach, St Martins on the Isles of Scilly (Ashbee 1974, 132) and Harlyn Bay (Whimster 1977), where several graves, possibly those of children, were recorded. Given the size of the cists at Forrabury, this site type of feature may have reserved for babies or for young children whose bones were placed inside the cist. However, given the range of burial practices which have been identified in the Iron Age, it is also possible that they may have held manipulated or fragmentary remains from one or more individuals (Tracey 2012). Two features of this type, 150

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast Feature 1 and 16 were excavated. One of the sites, Feature 1 had a complete upright pot buried beside it which could have been used to hold offerings of food, or libations. This pot is likely to be of earlier Iron Age date (Quinnell above). A radiocarbon determination of 2449 ± 25 BP, 752 - 410 cal BC (SUERC-42054) was obtained from Feature 16 which is contemporary with the broad date of the vessel from Feature 1. Interestingly, pebbles were recovered from two of the features of this type. Feature 4 contained a water rolled quartz pebble and Feature 16 a large oval pebble. This is significant as other excavated cists have also been found to contain pebbles. They were recorded with the fills of the Stamford Hill burials by Spence Bate in Plymouth (1864), and were found within the cists at Poynter’s Gardens on St Mary’s (Dudley 1960-61). Indeed, quartz is reported to have formed one of the most commonly found artefacts within the Harlyn Bay cemetery (Bullen 1912, 52). Water rolled pebbles have also been recovered during the excavation of other Iron Age features, such as within a pit inside the excavated roundhouse 69 at Penhale (Smith 1988), which indicates that they were deposited into a range of contexts. Expanding this discussion in time and space, quartz pebbles are frequently found within a range of funerary and ceremonial monuments around the Atlantic Façade (Darvill 2002; Smythe 2012; Pannett 2012). In the north Cornwall area quartz blocks and pebbles were found in many of the excavated prehistoric pits (see above) and pebbles are frequently found in association with Early Bronze Age cist burials (Jones et al 2011). For example, the recent excavation of a Middle Bronze Age cist burial on Constantine Island led to the recovery of a large number of quartz pebbles (Jones 2009-10). Pebbles were also placed in graves during the early medieval period, where they were associated with prayers to the dead or with their souls (Crowe 1992; Darvill 2012). Furthermore anthropological study has revealed that the Triboluminescent properties of quartz have led to it frequently becoming associated with magical or shamanic practices. When quartz is broken open or stones are rubbed to together they give off a bright white light which can be associated with supernatural power (Lewis-Williams 2002, 176-7). This is not to argue that pebbles had a continuing set of meanings which had been established by the Early Bronze Age, but rather, like the cists themselves, they became ingrained into appropriate practices associated with burial. These actions in themselves became part of the right way of ‘constructing’ a burial and negotiating death. The second class of site was comprised of stone capped features (Features 2, 13, 15, 17, and possibly 25 and 27). None of these sites were excavated; however, they appear to comprise large cuts which were covered by flat laid slabs or stones of varying sizes. A small quantity of cremated bone, which could not be definitely identified as human, came from Feature 15 (Higgins above). Cists with large covering stone slabs are known from the Isles

of Scilly and Cornwall (Ashbee 1954; Whimster 1981, 71). Further afield, graves covered by slabs have also been recorded outside the hillfort at Broxmouth, in Scotland (Armit et al 2013). These graves have been radiocarbon dated to the later part of the Iron Age. Those features covered by smaller stones are more difficult to parallel locally, however, examples exist elsewhere as at Dryburn Bridge in Scotland, which have been radiocarbon dated to the earlier Iron Age (Dunwell 2007, 63-8). The Forrabury stone capped graves are much larger than the small cist type features, and therefore could possibly represent the burials of adult members of the community, although the variability of funerary practices in the Iron Age makes this impossible to establish on grave form alone (for example, Armit et al 2013). The radiocarbon date on burnt bone from the top of Feature 15, 2425 ± 23 BP, 736 - 404 cal BC (SUERC-42055), places it around the same period as Feature 16 and the earlier Iron Age pottery from Feature 1. It may be significant that two of the stone capped graves, Feature 2 and Feature 15, and a possible third, Feature 17, contained slates which had been pecked with cup-marks (Figures 112 and 113). As discussed above, cup-marks were very long-lived symbols in the south-west peninsula and their incorporation into Iron Age contexts is unlikely to be coincidental. As with the pebbles, we may again be witnessing a reworking of earlier symbols into an Iron Age context. Beach pebbles and a piece of vein quartz were also recovered from Feature 17 during cleaning. Two of the features were single examples of their kind. Feature 18 was defined by flat laid slabs, which had been placed around the perimeter of the cut. It was unexcavated but it is perhaps paralleled by stone edged graves which have been found elsewhere, on the Isles of Scilly (Tebbutt 1934). The small ‘grave-shaped’ cut, Feature 11 can also just about be brought into this discussion, given its close proximity to the largest group of features in the central part of the site. If a grave, the closest local parallels would lie with the pit burials at Trethellan (Nowakowski 1991). The small size of Features 11 and 18 might imply that they were associated with the burials of younger people. However, unexcavated Features 22 and 23 appeared to be hearth pits of some kind, a reminder that there may be a wider range of function than burial for the features at Forrabury. The identified features were spread across an area measuring approximately 65m north-south by 35m eastwest. The northern, eastern and western boundaries were of the site were not established, although activity had dropped off in the southern part of the stripped area. Given the lack of certainty of many of the features, no definite patterns can be established within the uncovered area. However, it is evident that there is a cluster of stonelined cuts (Features 3, 4 and 6) and stone capped features (Features 15 and 27), and ‘grave-shaped’ cut 11, were located in close proximity to one another in the central part of the stripped area. This may be indicative of a family or communal area within the cemetery. A second group 151

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast of features (Features 12, 26 and 13) may form a second cluster a few metres to the south. It is also possible that the graves of children were frequently placed in groups together (Features 3, 4, 6 and possibly 11, and Features 12 and 26). Likewise, orientation of the features was very variable. Some were aligned north – south, others north-east – south-west and one, Feature 13 is oriented north-west to south-east. A few features are aligned east-west. Several of the square stone-lined features were initially ascribed orientations; however, given that they were likely to have been constructed as square features, the orientation is unlikely to have been of importance. The excavation along the remainder of the pipeline did not uncover any evidence for contemporary Iron Age settlement activity, and the nearest recorded Iron Age site, the cliff castle at Willapark, lies approximately 500m to the north of the Forrabury cemetery. This site may have been used as a settlement; however, more recent interpretation of cliff castle locales has suggested that they could have had a variety of functions and may have acted as places for ceremonial gatherings, metalworking and exchanges (Sharpe 1992; Nowakowski and Quinnell 2011, 377-93). Graeme Kirkham (pers comm) has also suggested that some cliff castles may have been associated with the exposure of the dead and the proximity of Iron Age cist graves to cliff castles may not be coincidental. This means that it is not possible to make the same kind of observations concerning the structuring of space between occupation areas and burial activity which was possible at Harlyn Bay. It may nonetheless be significant that the cemetery was located in the coastal plateau, within the same zone where Bronze Age burial activity had also occurred, and as noted above the same is true for the Harlyn Bay cemetery. This might imply that there was a persistence of an underlying ‘social memory’ (Connerton 1989) which informed communities as to which places in the landscape were ‘right’ for burial. Despite the limitations with the evidence from the site, Forrabury is of major interest as it provides the first evidence for earlier Iron Age funerary activity in Cornwall and hints at the kinds of funerary practices which were occurring in north Cornwall between the end of the Early Bronze Age and the later Iron Age when cist burials are much more common. Although findings can only be regarded as tentative, it appears likely that the cist burial tradition which became established in the Early Bronze Age continued into the Iron Age. Certain practices such as the deposition of pebbles, especially those of quartz, may also have much earlier origin and persisted over centuries. Likewise, the inclusion of cup-mark slabs is unlikely to have been accidental and, as Per Nilsson (2010) has argued in relation to the Iron Age reuse of rock ark in Scandinavia, this may reflect complex social relationships and feelings about symbols which were produced in the

distant past. In north Cornwall the association between stone capped graves and cup-marked stones could be indicative of persistent perception of cup-marked stones as symbols of protection. However, these elements need not represent straight forward continuity but may instead reflect deeply ingrained, possibly subconscious patterns of how to proceed in the world. Summary The investigations along the pipeline routes have expanded our knowledge of the Iron Age period along the north Cornish coast, which until these project was carried out, was limited to the cemetery at Harlyn Bay (Whimster 1977), a handful of mostly unexcavated cliff castles, including Trevose Head and Willapark, undated cropmark enclosures, especially around the Camel estuary area (Young 2012) and a evaluated unenclosed settlements at Penmayne (Gossip et al 2012) and Camelford (Jones and Taylor forthcoming). The investigations have demonstrated evidence for unenclosed Iron Age settlement activity, which was potentially long-lived, as well as areas for burial and ceremony. As was the case for the Middle Bronze Age, the coastal lowlands continued to be important places for settlement activity and for other kinds of interactions too. It is also the case that the past may have continued to exercise an influence over present. Near to Trevone, in Field Y, a cairn or platform was constructed around a small slate outcrop, and this was later cut by a ‘grave-shaped’ depression. The platform is likely to have been built in the Bronze Age, yet the ‘grave-shaped’ cut is clearly of Iron Age date. This suggests that the Bronze Age site had continued play a role in the landscape. John Barrett (1999) has suggested that Bronze Age barrows would have had significance in the cultural landscape of Iron Age and has argued that their monumental forms would have provided physical evidence to support a connection with a mythological past. Similarly, Richard Hingley (2009) has argued that the evidence for Iron Age activity in older enclosures could have been connected with a desire to establish genealogies. If the ‘grave’-shaped cut did indeed represent a burial it may also symbolize a desire in the Iron Age to make a link with an existing monument, or represent its appropriation by a later community. The coastal plateau also seems to have continued to have been viewed as being a suitable place for burial. The later Iron Age cemetery at Harlyn Bay, which is located near to an area of Bronze burials, has been known of for a long period of time (Bullen 1912), and may represent a community who were burying their dead near to their ancestors. The site at Forrabury is of particular importance as it not only extends Iron Age burial activity along the coastal zone but also back into the earlier Iron Age, and is again located in the same zone as Bronze Age burials (see above). Not only did these burials seem to represent a continuity or adaptation from a long established cist building tradition originating in the Bronze Age, but they 152

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast also appeared to show evidence for a continuance of other earlier traditions such as the reuse of cup-marked slabs and the deposition of pebbles into the cists.

in the archaeological record it is important to remember to consider the scale of the community in question, as well as keeping the wider background to which events take place.

Settlement activity was confined to just one site at Harlyn Bay, and even here excavations were extremely limited. Nonetheless, evidence from the radiocarbon dating and ceramics that it was very long-lived place of occupation. Perhaps significantly, it was situated within an area which was away from the area of both the Bronze Age burials and the Iron Age cemetery, but which was in a space that was likely to have been enclosed by the Middle Bronze Age. The evidence might suggest that there was a division between living and ancestral areas. Given the lack of evidence for settlement activity in the vicinity of the cemetery at Forrabury, the same conceptual division of space may well have occurred there too.

We would therefore argue that it is by considering the evidence with these things in mind that a better understanding of the events which were played out over the centuries by communities along the north Cornish coast will be developed. The remainder of this section will therefore examine some of the temporal cycles and patterns of long-term landscape inhabitation which have emerged from the study of the results from the project.

Conclusions: something borrowed something new, looking backwards facing forwards, the archaeology of long-term practices The results from the project have revealed evidence for contrasting cycles, some of which are long-term, others which are much shorter. They demonstrate localized practices on one the hand, but which also testify to engagement with the wider world at certain times in certain places on the other. Indeed, the results can be used to consider temporal cycles, the longest of which has been referred to as the longue durée (Braudel 1972, 20-1). This approach involves consideration of very long, repetitive cycles of engagement with places and patterns of practice which occur over many centuries. However, these cycles would have been subject to influences which resulted from the social memory of the participants, and they would have also been affected by ‘ideas’ and ‘practices’, as well as the interpretation of new ‘objects’ which arose through contact with the outside world. As a consequence, we are not arguing that particular meanings which were associated with certain practices were constant, but rather that actions such as pit digging or the use of cup-marked stones in funerary or ceremonial contexts had become engrained into the dispositions of those communities who inhabited the landscape, and as a result became appropriate actions for dwelling in the landscape. In addition to temporal cycles, it is also important to remember that many of the archaeological features which were recorded were essentially produced by the ritualized activities of small-scale non centralized rural societies, who in common with recent communities are likely to have held deeply embedded beliefs and customs (Clebert 1963, 190-5; Evans 1966, 83-90). This is worth recalling because, as Le Roy Ladurie (2002, 308) has argued, even in the case of medieval Christianity with its written liturgy, religion in rural south western France was interpreted in terms of pre-existing social structures which were understood by individuals at the level of the household. In other words, when considering practices which are evident

The Mesolithic inhabitants who lived in this area undoubtedly had well-established long-term cycles of inhabitation involving recurring engagements with particular places in the landscape. It is also very probable that there were strong landscape mythologies involving particular places and landscape features. This is perhaps indicated by the very large numbers of lithics which are concentrated in certain locales, such as Trevose Head, which is a topographically distinctive landscape feature, and perhaps by the very localized flint scatter in Field 35 which was not far from the rocky outcrop. This latter feature is not as distinctive Trevose Head but it does appears to have developed a biography which saw a cairn being constructed near to it in the Early Bronze Age and possibly a prehistoric field system being oriented on to as well (see above). Beyond the concentrations of lithics it is more difficult to establish patterns of activity, for the Mesolithic communities who occupied the north coast do not appear to have left many physical traces in the archaeological record, and it is only from the Early Neolithic period that we can begin to pick up patterns of long-term inhabitation that commence a cycle of ritualized deposition of objects within closed features. It is arguable how much of a break from the past the onset of the Early Neolithic really represents in the south west region (Jones and Quinnell 2011b). What can be said is that once established, new kinds of depositional practices associated with pits rapidly became ‘traditional’. Examples of this process can be seen through the deposition of ceramics of Early Neolithic type, which continued to be deposited into pits during the earlier part of Middle Neolithic in the north Cornwall area, or the persistence in the placing of Neolithic arrowhead forms within pits into the Early Bronze Age. Both artefact types are found in Early Neolithic pits elsewhere but in the north Cornwall they may have become a special part of the pit ‘repertoire’, embedded into localized practice. As we have already seen, the same is true of the pits themselves, with bowl-shaped pits being excavated from at least the onset of the Neolithic circa 3900 cal BC, down to the fifth or six centuries AD (although possibly not continuously). As stressed above, this does not indicate an undying ‘religious belief’ but is suggestive of a disposition rooted in the traditions of local communities. Indeed, so long-lived was this disposition 153

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast that a more pertinent question might be to consider why it died out as a practice? This pattern of embracing the ‘new’, whilst embedding it into the past was particularly evident during the Bronze Age and the Iron Ages. The Bronze Age witnessed radical changes to the landscape at two key phases. The first of these changes or transformations occurred very late in the third or early in the second millennium cal and the second a few centuries later towards the middle of that millennium. The first saw the construction of ceremonial monuments and funerary sites such as large numbers of barrows and cairns, in addition to burials in cists and pits. The second change saw the establishment of fields and roundhouses. Neither wave of change was unique to the area of the north Cornish coast, or to the wider south west region, or indeed to southern Britain (Barrett 1994; Bradley 2007, 153-8; Yates 2007, 1). However, there are hints that these changes, such as the construction of funerary / ceremonial monuments may have been established a little earlier in the Harlyn Bay area (Jones et al 2011), than in other parts of the south west region where most monuments date to the period after 2000 cal BC (Jones 2012). The radiocarbon dating from the buried soils adjacent to the field walls in this area might also suggest that the land was enclosed a couple of centuries earlier than other parts the south west, as so far demonstrated. As discussed above, the rapid uptake of these practices may well have resulted from the flow of ideas from outside the region to communities in the Harlyn Bay area, who may have wished to express their difference or status from immediately adjacent communities. A desire to engage with and be linked to the outside world was also found at Trevalga. Here, despite the hillslope, the roundhouse was constructed on much the same cosmological axis as the majority of other Middle Bronze Age roundhouses which are found across the south west peninsula. This suggests that the builders of the roundhouse wished to show that they were doing things in the ‘right way’ and were aware of this. Likewise, the presence of the racloir mould spoke at least of an awareness of Continental metallurgical forms, indeed if not in fact in direct contact with communities in western France. However, as we have seen above, new practices were rapidly absorbed, and were in many instances incorporated into existing traditions. This can be seen, for example by the burial of human remains within a bowl-shaped pit in Field 9, and at the Trevalga roundhouse a cup-marked stone was built into the fabric of the roundhouse doorway. As has been discussed above, cup-marked stones may have first been carved during the Neolithic period and during the Early Bronze Age were certainly being incorporated into barrows all along the north coast. The inclusion of the stone into the entrance area is therefore likely to have been part of a reinterpretation of a practice which had been drawn into the realm of the domestic settlement. This symbol was also found on the stones associated with the Iron Age cemetery site at Forrabury, and again this is unlikely to have been coincidental.

A balance of conservatism and innovation was most clearly evident with regard to the location of ceremonial features, ritual activity and the treatment of human remains. In the Early Bronze Age, burials and barrow groupings were concentrated along the coastal plateau and upon headlands. As we have seen, notable barrow complexes were located at Harlyn Bay and Cataclews, as well as in other locations along the coast such as Pentire Head and Treligga Head (Christie 1985; Jones 2005, chapter 4). It possible that this density of ceremonial and funerary activity indicates that the zone had become incorporated into a landscape cosmology associated with particular rituals (for example, Turner 1967). Excavations at the Trevone stone platform revealed that the site had probably been reused for repetitive ritualized practices involving the knapping of flint. The excavation of a number of barrows along the north Cornish coast have indicated that they were the focus for small-scale rituals, which perhaps took place over considerable periods of time (Christie 1985; Jones 2009-10). It is possible that the coast and its immediate hinterland may have become conceived as having liminal properties, between the inhabited world and the untamed sea, and particular places within it became focal points for recurring ritualized activity and burial. Significantly, although the frequency and rites of burial may have altered, this spatial arrangement seems to have persisted into the Iron Age. Both the Harlyn Bay cemetery and the Forrabury cemetery sites were within this zone and it is noticeable just how many other Iron Age cemeteries in the south west are found along the coast (Figure 116). Again, this practice is likely to have embedded itself into the subconscious decision making as to where felt right for people to be buried. The same is likely to have been true at Trevone, where it appears that an Iron Age grave was inserted into a probable Bronze Age platform cairn, which had been built around a rock-outcrop. This suggests the persistence of some places as important focal points in the landscape. The second strand of continuity takes the form of the cist grave tradition. Cists were found beneath round barrows along the north coast during the Early Bronze (for example, Christie 1985), and were associated with flat graves as at Harlyn Bay (Preston-Jones and Rose 1987; Jones et al 2011). Once established, from the end of the third or start of second millennium cal BC, the practice of depositing human remains into cut features of varying size, lined or capped with slate stones, formed part of a deeply embedded cycle which governed the appropriate the way human remains were contained after death for many centuries. Along the route of the pipeline broadly comparable structures were found dating to Middle Bronze Age, the Iron Age and in one case the early medieval period, and these examples are reinforced by further comparanda in the along the adjacent coastline. Other writers have noted (Henderson 2007, 278-9) the coastal distribution of Iron Age cist burials, and have suggested that this might have 154

Chapter 22: Insights into the archaeology of the north Cornish coast resulted through maritime contacts and commonalities in ritual practices between south west England and Brittany. Contacts undoubtedly existed between Continental Europe and the south west but they may best be seen as bringing a renewed vigour to the existing deeply embedded coastal tradition of cist burial. Indeed with the radiocarbon dating of the Constantine Island cist to the end of the Middle Bronze Age (Jones 2009-10) and the dating of the Forrabury site to the earlier part of the Iron Age, the only period now lacking evidence for cist burials along the north Cornish coast is the Late Bronze Age. Seen in this light, the major change which resulted from cross Channel contacts may have been the organization of flat cist graves into formal communal cemeteries.

From the foregoing we have hoped to demonstrate that the results from the project have greatly enhanced our knowledge of long-term landscape inhabitation of the north Cornish coast. The archaeological recording has recovered extensive evidence for long-term cycles which structured and in turn were structured by the people who inhabited this area throughout the prehistoric period. This does not mean that people or life-styles were unchanging. It is evident that new ideas, life-ways and probably people arrived from time to time, but rather that representing revolutions, new practices were adopted and absorbed into the fabric of the region. New ideas rapidly became another strand within a much longer pattern of action and they themselves became traditional.

155

Bibliography

Anderson-Whymark, H, 2012. Neolithic to Early Bronze Age pit deposition practices and the temporality of occupation in the Thames Valley, in H AndersonWhymark, and J Thomas, eds, Regional perspectives on Neolithic pit deposition, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 187-199 Andrews, M V, Gilbertson, D D, Kent, M and Mellars, P A, 1985. Biometric studies of morphological variation in the intertidal gastropod Nucella lapillus(L): environmental and palaeoeconomic significance, Journal of Biogeography, 12, 71-87 ApSimon, A M and 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 Armit, I, Neale, N, Shapland, F, Bosworth, H, Hamilton, D and McKenzie, J, 2013. The ins and outs of death in the Iron Age: complex funerary treatments at Broxmouth hillfort, East Lothian, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 32, 73–101 Ashbee, P, 1954. The excavation of a cist-grave cemetery and associated structures near Hughtown, St Mary’s, Isles of Scilly, 1949-50, Archaeological Journal, 111, 1-25 Ashbee, P, 1958. The excavation of the Tregulland barrow, Treneglos parish, Cornwall, Antiquaries Journal, 38, 174-196 Ashbee, P, 1974. Ancient Scilly: From the first farmers to the early Christians, Newton Abbot: David and Charles Ballin, T B, 2005. Re-examination of the quartz artefacts from Scord of Brouster: a lithic assemblage from Shetland and its Neolithic context, Scottish Archaeological Internet Report, 17, 1-36 Ballin, T B, 2011. The Levallois-like approach to Late Neolithic Britain: a discussion based on finds from the Stoneyhill Project, Aberdeenshire, in A Saville, ed, flint and stone in the Neolithic period, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 62-81 Barber, A, Pannett, A, Fairburn, N, Cullen, K, Evans, D, Saunders, K and Thorogood, S, 2006. Archaeological investigations along the Milford Haven to Aberdulais natural gas pipeline: a preliminary report, Archaeology in Wales, 46, 79-86 Barclay, A, 1999. Grooved Ware from the Upper Thames Region, in R Cleal and A MacSween, eds, Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 9-22 Barclay, A and Halpin, C, 1999. Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. Volume I: The Neolithic and Bronze Age monument complex, Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit

Barnatt, J, 1982. Prehistoric Cornwall: the ceremonial monuments, Wellingborough: Turnstone Barrett, J C, 1994. Fragments from antiquity: An archaeology of social life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC, Oxford: Blackwell Barrett, J C, 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 Barrowman, R C, Batey, C E and Morris, C D, 2007. Excavations at Tintagel Castle, Cornwall, 1990-1999, London: Society of Antiquaries Bate, C S, 1864. On the discovery of a Romano-British cemetery near Plymouth, Report of the Transactions of the Devonshire Association, 1, 123-33 Beamish, M and Ripper, S, 2000. Burnt mounds in the east Midlands, Antiquity, 74, 37-8 Bender, B, Hamilton, S and Tilley, C, 2007. Stone worlds: narrative and reflexivity in landscape archaeology, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press Berridge, P, and Roberts, A, 1986. The Mesolithic period in Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology, 25, 7-34 Best, J and Gent, T, 2007. Bronze Age burnt mounds and early medieval timber structures at Town Farm Quarry, Burlescombe Down, Devon, Archaeological Journal, 164, 1-79 Biggam, C P, 2006a. Whelks and purple dye in AngloSaxon England, Archaeo + Malacology Group Newsletter, 9, 1-2 Biggam, C P, 2006b. Knowledge of whelk dyes and pigments in Anglo-Saxon England. Anglo-Saxon England, 35, 23-55 Bigger, F J, 1895. Prehistoric settlements at Portnafeadog, in the parish of Moyrus, Connamara, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 3, 727-732 Bonnington, P, 2011. Earlier Bronze Age cemetery mounds and the multiple cremation rite in western Britain, in S Pearce, ed, Recent archaeological work in south-western Britain: papers in honour of Henrietta Quinnell, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 548, 75-93 Borlase, W C, 1879. Archaeological discoveries made in the parishes of St. Just in Penwith and Sennen, Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, 6, 190-213 Bradley, R, 1987. Flint technology and the character of Neolithic settlement, in A G Brown and M R Edmonds, eds, Lithic analysis and later British prehistory, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 162, 181-185 Bradley, R, 1992. Turning the world-rock carvings and the archaeology of death, in N Sharples and A Sheridan, eds, Vessels for the ancestors: essays on the Neolithic

156

Bibliography of Britain and Ireland in honour of Audrey Henshall, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 168-176 Bradley, R, 1993. Altering the earth: Origins of monuments in Britain and continental Europe, Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Bradley, R, 1997. Rock art and the prehistory of Atlantic Europe: Signing the land, London: Routledge Bradley, R, 2000a. The good stones; a new investigation of the Clava cairns, Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Bradley, R, 2000b. An archaeology of natural places, London: Routledge Bradley, R, 2002. The past in prehistoric societies, London: Routledge 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, and Fraser, E, 2010. Bronze Age barrows on the heathlands of southern England; construction, forms and interpretation, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 29, 15–34 Bradley, R and Yates, D, 2010. Still water, hidden depths: the deposition of Bronze Age metalwork in the English Fenland, Antiquity, 324, 405-415 Braudel, F, 1972. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in the age of Philip II, New York: Harper and Row Briard, J, 1962. A propos des racloirs triangulaires du Bronze Final, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique de France, 59, 18-20 Briard, J, 1965. Les dépôts bretons et l’Age du Bronze atlantique, Rennes: Travaux du laboratoire d’anthropologie de la Faculté des Sciences Brickley, M and McKinley, J, eds, 2004. Guidelines to the standards for recording human remains, British Association of Biological Anthropologists and Osteologists/Institute of Field Archaeologists Bristow, C, 1996. Cornwall’s geology and scenery an introduction, St Austell: Cornish Hillside Publications Brooks, R T, 1974. The excavation of the Rumps, cliff castle, St Minver, Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology, 13, 5-50 Brown, A, 1991. Structured deposition and technological change among the flaked stone artefacts from Cranborne Chase, in J Barrett, R Bradley and M Hall, eds, Papers on the prehistoric archaeology of Cranborne Chase, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 101-133 Brown, A, 2007. Dating the onset of cereal cultivation in Britain and Ireland: the evidence from charred cereal grains, Antiquity, 314, 1042-1052 Brück, J, 1999. Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in European archaeology, Journal of European Archaeology, 2, 313-344 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 Books, 149-160

Buckley, D G, 1972. The excavations of two slate cairns at Trevone, Padstow, Cornish Archaeology, 11, 9-18. Buckley, V, 1990. Burnt offerings: International contributions to burnt mound archaeology, Bray: Wordwell Bullen, R A, 1902. Notes on holocene mollusca from North Cornwall, Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 5, 185-88 Bullen, R A, 1912. Harlyn Bay, Harlyn Bay: Colonel Bellars Burgess, C, 1968. The later Bronze Age in the British Isles and north western France, Archaeological Journal, 125, 1-45 Burrow, S, 2003. Catalogue of the Mesolithic and Neolithic collections in the National Museums and galleries of Wales, Cardiff: National Museum of Wales Butler, C, 2005. Prehistoric flintwork, Stroud: Tempus Butler, J, 1997. Dartmoor atlas of antiquities, volume 5, Tiverton: Devon Books Cave, D, 1985. A collection of artefacts from Trevose Head, Cornish Archaeology, 24, 159 Campbell, G, 2007. Marine molluscs. Appendix g, in B Cunliffe and P Galliou, Les Fouilles du Yaudet en Ploulec’h, Cotes d’Armor. Volume 3: Du quatrième siecle ap. J.-C. à aujourd’hiu, Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph. This Appendix is only available online at: www.arch.ox.ac. uk/appendices.html Cerón-Carrasco, R, 2006. Marine shells, in T Pollard, The excavation of four caves in the Geodha Smoo near Durness, Scotland, Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports, 18 (www.sair.org.uk/sair18) Chadwick, A M, 2012. Routine magic, mundane ritual: towards a unified notion of depositional practice, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 31, 283–316 Challinor, D, 2010. The wood charcoal, in J Lewis, M Leivers, L Brown, A Smith, K Cramp, L Mepham and C Philpotts, Landscape evolution in the Middle Thames Valley, Heathrow Terminal 5 Excavations, Volume 2, Oxford: Framework Archaeology, section 15, 1-29 Christie, P, 1985. Barrows on the north Cornish coast: Wartime excavations by C K Croft Andrew, Cornish Archaeology, 24, 23-122 Christie, P, 1986. Cornwall in the Bronze Age, Cornish Archaeology, 25, 81-110 Christie, P, 1988. A barrow cemetery on Davidstow Moor, Cornwall: Wartime excavations by C K Croft Andrew, Cornish Archaeology, 27, 27-169 Clarke, D L, 1970. Beaker pottery of Great Britain and Ireland, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Clebert, J P, 1963. The gypsies, London: Harmondsworth Coffyn, A., Gomez, J and Mohen, J-P, 1981. L’apogée du Bronze atlantique: le dépôt de Vénat. L’Age du Bronze en France 1, Paris: Picard Cole, D, 2007. St Piran’s Church, Perranzabuloe, Cornwall Archaeological excavation, conservation and management works, Truro: Historic Environment Service archive report

157

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Cole, D and Jones, A, 2002-3. Journeys to the Rock: archaeological investigations at Tregarrick Farm, Roche, Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology, 41-42, 107 – 143 Collier, E, and Standen, R, 1896. Further conchological notes from the west of Ireland, Journal of Conchology, 8, 177-190 Cooney, G, 2009. Mundane stone and its meaning in the Neolithic, in B O’Connor, G Cooney and J Chapman, eds, Materialitas: working stone, carving identity, Oxford: Prehistoric Society, 64-74 Connerton, P, 1989. How societies remember, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cornish, T, 1883. Meetings of the Society, Transactions of the Penzance Natural History and Antiquarian Society, 1, 429 Cornwall County Council, 1996. Cornwall: a landscape assessment, 1994, Truro: Landscape Design Associates in association with Cornwall Archaeological Unit Crawford, O, 1921. The ancient settlements of Harlyn Bay, Antiquaries Journal, 1, 283-299 Crowe, C, 1992. Chris Crowe writes, in J A Nowakowski and A C Thomas, Grave news from Tintagel: an account of a second season of archaeological excavation at Tintagel churchyard, Cornwall, Truro: Cornwall Archaeological Unit, 9 Cunliffe, B, 1988. Mount Batten Plymouth, a prehistoric and Roman port, Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Cunliffe, B, 2010. Iron Age communities in Britain - an account of England, Scotland and Wales from the seventh century BC until the Roman Conquest, London: Routledge (4th edition) Darvill, T, 2002. White on Blonde: Quartz pebbles and the use of quartz at Neolithic monuments on the Isle of Man and beyond, in A Jones, and G MacGregor, eds, Colouring the past: The significance of colour in archaeological research, Oxford: Berg, 73-92 Darvill, T, 2012. Sounds from the underground: Neolithic ritual pits and pit digging on the Isle Man and beyond, in H Anderson-Whymark, and J Thomas, eds, Regional perspectives on Neolithic pit deposition, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 30-42 Department of Culture Media and Sport, 2008. Treasure annual report 2008, London: Department of Culture Media and Sport Dannoy, J J, Bruno, D, Genest J-M, Margaret, K, Marker, B, Whear, R L and Gunn, R G, 2000. The social construction of caves and rockshelters: Chauvet Cave (France) and Nawarla Gabanmang (Australia), Antiquity, 87, 12-29 Devaney, R, 2005. Ceremonial and domestic flint arrowheads, Lithics, 26, 9-22 Dickinson, W H, 1900. King Arthur in Cornwall, London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer. Dobney, K and Reilly, K, 1988. A method for recording archaeological animal bones: the use of diagnostic zones, Cicerea, 5, 2, 79-96

Dobson, D P, 1931. The archaeology of Somerset, London: Methuen Driesch, von den, A, 1976. A guide to the measurement of animal bones from archaeological sites, Peabody Museum Bulletin 1, Harvard: Peabody Museum Drewett, P L, 1982. Later Bronze Age downland economy and excavations at Blackpatch, East Sussex, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 48, 321-400 Drisceoil, M, 1988. Burnt mounds: cooking or bathing?, Antiquity, 62, 671-680 Dudley, D, 1956. An excavation at Bodrifty, Mulfra, near Penzance, Archaeological Journal, 113, 1-32 Dudley, D, 1960-61. Some cist-graves in Poynters Garden, St Mary’s, Isles of Scilly, Proceedings of the West Cornwall Field Club, 5, 221-229 Dudley, D, 1961. The excavation of the Otterham barrow, Cornwall, Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, 4, 62-80 Dudley, D, 1962. The excavation of a barrow at Glendorgal, Newquay 1957, Cornish Archaeology, 1, 9-16 Dudley, D and Jope, E M, 1965. An Iron Age cist-burial with two brooches from Trevone, North Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology, 3, 18-23 Dunwell, A, 2007. Cist burials and an Iron Age settlement at Dryburn Bridge, Innerwick, East Lothian, Scottish Archaeological Internet Report, 24 (www.sair.org.uk) Dupont, C, 2011. The dog whelk Nucella lapillus and dye extraction activities from the Iron Age to the middle ages along the Atlantic coast of France, Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 6, 3-23 Edmonds, M R, 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 R. 1995. Stone tools and society: Working stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain, London: Batsford Eliade, M, 2007. Shamanism, archaic techniques of ecstasy, London: Routledge Ellison, A, 1980. Deverel-Rimbury urn cemeteries: the evidence for social organisation, in, J Barrett, and R Bradley, eds, Settlement and society in the British Later Bronze Age, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 83, 115-126 Evans, G E, 1966. The pattern under the plough; aspects of the folk-life of East Anglia, London: Faber and Faber Fairbairn, A, 2000. On the spread of wheat crops across Neolithic Britain, with special reference to southern England, in A Fairbairn, ed, Plants in Neolithic Britain and beyond, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 107-122 Finn, N, 2012. Bronze Age ceremonial enclosures and cremation cemetery at Eye Kettleby, Leicestershire; The development of a prehistoric landscape, Leicester: University of Leicester Fitzpatrick, A, Butterworth, C A and Grove, J, 1999. Prehistoric and Roman sites in east Devon: the A30 Honiton to Exeter Improvement DBFO Scheme, 19969 Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology

158

Bibliography Fleming, A, 1988. The Dartmoor reaves: investigating prehistoric land divisions, London: Batsford Fletcher, R F, 2005. The role and significance of bevelled pebbles in the British Mesolithic. An experimental investigation, Unpublished BA Dissertation: University of Bristol Gaudron G and Soutou, A, 1961. Les racloirs triangulaires de la fin de l’Age du Bronze et la route de l’étain de Nantes à Narbonne, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique de France, 58, 583-593 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, 2012. Concluding discussion: pits and perspective, in H Anderson-Whymark, and J Thomas, eds, Regional perspectives on Neolithic pit deposition, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 216-225 Garwood, P, 1999. Grooved Ware in southern Britain: Chronology and interpretation, in R Cleal and A MacSween, eds, Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 145-176 Geological Survey of Great Britain, 2005. Map sheet 335336 Gent, T, 1997. Padstow to Harlyn: a transect across the landscape, Exeter: Exeter Archaeology unpublished archive document 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 Gibbons, M and Gibbons, M, 2004. Dyeing in the Mesolithic?, Archaeology Ireland, 18, 28-31 Gibson, A, 2002. Prehistoric pottery in Britain and Ireland, Stroud: Tempus Gomez de Soto, J and Milcent, P-Y, 2000. De la Méditerranée a l’Atlantique, in T Janin, ed, Mailhac et le Premier Âge du Fer en Europe occidentale: hommages à Odette et Jean Taffane, Lattes: Monographies d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne 7, 351371 Gossip, J, 2011. Trevalga roundhouse excavation, Truro: Historic Environment Service archive report Gossip, J, forthcoming a. A Middle Bronze Age roundhouse at Boden, St Anthony in Meneage, archive report Cornwall Archaeological Society excavation 2008, Cornish Archaeology Gossip, J, forthcoming b. Life outside the round - Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement at Higher Besore and Truro College, Threemilestone, Truro, Cornish Archaeology Gossip, J, forthcoming c. Neolithic pits and tree throws at Tremough PAC, Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology Gossip, J and Jones, A M, 2007. Archaeological investigations of a later prehistoric and a RomanoBritish landscape at Tremough, Penryn, Cornwall, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 443

Gossip, J, Jones, A M and Quinnell, H, 2012. Early Neolithic activity and an Iron Age settlement at Penmayne, Rock, St Minver, Cornish Archaeology 51, 165-189 Green, B, 1977. Bronze Age metalwork in the Norwich Castle museum, Norwich: Norfolk Museums Service Green, H S, 1980. The flint arrowheads of the British Isles, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 75 Green, H S, 1984. Flint arrowheads: typology and interpretation, Lithics, 5, 19-39 Hammon, A, 2011. Iron Age mammal and fish remains, in J A Nowakowski and H Quinnell 2011, Trevelgue Head, Cornwall: the importance of CKC Andrew’s 1939 excavations for prehistoric and Roman Cornwall, Truro: Cornwall Council, 294-305 Harding, J and Healy, F, 2007. The Raunds project, a Neolithic and Bronze Age landscape in Northamptonshire, London: English Heritage Harding, J R, 1950. Prehistoric sites on the north Cornish Coast between Newquay and Perranporth, Antiquaries Journal, 30, 156-69 Harding, P A, 1988. The chalk plaque pit, Amesbury, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 54, 320-327 Harris, D, 1978. A cist at Trevemedar, St Eval, Cornish Archaeology, 17, 197-9 Hartgroves, S, 1987. The cup-marked stones of Stithians reservoir, Cornish Archaeology, 26, 69-8 Hartgroves, S, Jones, A M, and Kirkham, G, 2006. The Eathorne menhir, Cornish Archaeology, 45, 97-108 Hather, J G, 2000. The identification of northern European woods; a guide for archaeologists and conservators, London: Archetype Publications Hawkes, C, 1981. The Lansdown sun-disc, in H Lorenz, ed, Studien zur Bronzezeit: Festschrift für Wilhelm Albert von Brunn, Mainz/Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 119-30 Healy, F, 1985. And to Cornwall, Lithics, 5, 18-20 Healy, F, 1989. Afterthoughts, in I Brooks, I and P Phillips, eds, Breaking the stony silence: Papers from the Sheffield Lithics Conference 1988, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 213, 187-198 Healy, F, 2012. Chronology, corpses, ceramics, copper and lithics, in M J Allen, J Gardiner and A Sheridan, eds, Is there a British Chalcolithic? People, place and polity in the later third millennium BC, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 144-163 Helms, M, 1988. Ulysses’ sail: ethnographic odyssey of power, knowledge and geographical distance, Princeton: Princeton University Press Helms, M, 1993. Craft and the kingly ideal; art, trade and power, Austin: University of Texas Hencken, H O’N, 1932. The archaeology of Cornwall and Scilly, London: Methuen Henderson, J C, 2007. The Atlantic Iron Age: settlement and identity in the first millennium BC, London: Routledge

159

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Henry, F, 1952. A wooden hut on Inishkea North, Co. Mayo, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries in Ireland, 82, 163-178 Herbert, E W, 1993. Iron, gender and power; rituals of transformation in African societies, Bloomington: Indiana University Press Herring, P, 1986. National Trust West Penwith survey, Mayon and Trevescan cliffs, Sennen, Truro: Cornwall Archaeological Unit Herring, P, 2008. Commons, communities and fields in prehistoric Cornwall, in A M Chadwick, ed, Recent approaches to the archaeology of land allotment, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 1875, 70-95 Hill, J D, 2002-3. The mirror, in C Johns, An Iron Age sword and mirror cist burial from Bryher, Isles of Scilly Cornish Archaeology, 41-42, 32-36 Hillson, S, 1992. Mammal bones and teeth and introductory guide to methods of identification, London: Institute of Archaeology Hillson, S, 2005. Teeth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd edition) Hingley, R, 2009. Esoteric knowledge, ancient bronze artefacts from Iron Age contexts, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 75, 143-166 Historic Environment Projects, 2011. North Cornwall STW Pipeline: archaeological mitigation Archive Report, Truro: Historic Environment Service archive report Hole, C, 1978. A dictionary of British folk customs, London: Paladin Hutton, R, 2001. Shamans; Siberian spirituality and the western imagination, London: Hambledon Ingold, T, 2000. The perception of the environment, essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill, London: Routledge Jackson, J W, 1917. Shells as evidence of migrations of early culture, Manchester: Manchester University Press Jacobi R M, 1979. Early Flandrian hunters in the South West, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society, 37, 48-93 Jacobi, R M, 1980. The early Holocene settlement of Wales, in J A Taylor, ed, Culture and environment in prehistoric Wales, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 76, 131-206 Johns, C, 2002-3. An Iron Age sword and mirror cist burial from Bryher, Isles of Scilly, Cornish Archaeology, 4142, 1-79 Johns, C, 2008. The excavation of a multi-period archaeological landscape at Trenowah, St Austell, Cornwall, 1997, Cornish Archaeology, 47, 1-49 Johnson, N and Rose, P, 1994 Bodmin Moor: an archaeological survey, volume 1, London: English Heritage Johnson, N and David, A, 1982. A Mesolithic site at Trevose Head and contemporary geography, Cornish Archaeology, 21, 67-103 Jones, A, Freedman, D, O’Connor, B, Lamdin-Whymark, H, Tipping, R and Watson, A, 2011. An animate

landscape, rock art and the prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland, Oxford: Windgather Press Jones, A and MacGregor, G, 2002. Colouring the past: The significance of colour in archaeological research, Oxford: Berg Jones, A M, 1998-9. The excavation of a later Bronze Age structure at Callestick, Cornish Archaeology, 37-8, 5-55 Jones, A M, 2000-1. The excavation of a multi-period site at Stencoose, Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology, 39-40, 45-94 Jones, A M, 2004-5. Settlement and ceremony; archaeological investigations at Stannon Down, St Breward, Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology, 43-4, 1-141 Jones, A M, 2005. Cornish ceremonial landscapes c. 25001500 BC, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 394 Jones, A M, 2008a. 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, 2008b. A note on the Harlyn Bay structure, Cornish Archaeology, 47, 117-121 Jones, A M, 2009-10. The excavation of a barrow on Constantine Island, St Merryn, Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology, 48-9, 67-98 Jones A M, 2012. Going west: ceremony, barrows and cairns in the south west peninsula, in W Britnell, and R J Silvester, eds, Reflections on the past: Essays in honour of Frances Lynch, Welshpool: Cambrian Archaeological Association, 172-194 Jones, A M, forthcoming a. Archaeological excavations at Bosiliack, Madron, Cornwall, 2011, Cornish Archaeology Jones, A M, forthcoming b. 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 Jones, A M, forthcoming c. Hay Close, St Newlyn East: excavations by the Cornwall Archaeological Society, 2007, Cornish Archaeology Jones A M, in preparation. Archaeological investigations of a cup-marked propped stone at Hendraburnick: Camelford, Cornish Archaeology Jones A M and Kirkham, G, 2013. From landscape to portable art: the changing settings of simple rock art in south-west Britain and its wider context, Journal of European Archaeology, 16, 4, 636-659 Jones A M and Kirkham, G, in preparation. A corpus of cupmarked stones from Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology Jones, A M, Marley, J, Quinnell, H and Hartgroves, S, 2011. On the beach: new discoveries at Harlyn Bay, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 77, 89-110 Jones, A M, and Quinnell, H, 2006a. Cornish Beakers: new discoveries and perspectives, Cornish Archaeology, 45, 31-70 Jones, A M and Quinnell, H, 2006b. Redating the Watch Hill barrow, Archaeological Journal, 163, 42-66

160

Bibliography Jones, A M and Quinnell, H, 2011a. Bosiliack: a later prehistoric settlement in Penwith, Cornwall, Archaeological Journal, 168, 80-117 Jones, A M and Quinnell, H, 2011b. 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, 197-230 Jones, A M and Quinnell, H, 2012. Monuments and images: new views of well-known sites. The Try menhir and cairn and barrows on the St Austell granite, Cornish Archaeology, 51, 201-208 Jones, A M, Lawson-Jones, A, Quinnell, H and Tyacke, A, 2013. Landscapes of stone: contextualising greenstone working and lithics from Clodgy Moor, West Penwith, Cornwall, Archaeological Journal, 170, 2-29 Jones, A M and 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 and Taylor, S R, 2010. Scarcewater, Pennance, Cornwall: archaeological excavation of a Bronze Age and Roman landscape, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 516 Jones, A M and Taylor, S R, forthcoming. Archaeological investigations of a Late Iron Age settlement at Sir James Smith’s Community School, Camelford Cornwall 2008-9, Cornish Archaeology Jones, A M, Taylor, S R and Sturgess, J, 2012. A Beakerassociated structure and other discoveries along the Sennen to Porthcurno SWW pipeline, Cornish Archaeology, 51, 1-67 Jope Rogers, J, 1873. Romano-British or late Celtic remains at Trelan Bahow, St Keverne, Cornwall, Archaeological Journal, 30, 267-272 Kelly, R S, 1992. The excavation of a burnt mound at Graeanog, Clynnog, Archaeologia Cambrensis, 141, 74-96 Kirkham, G, 2013. ‘Rip it up, and spread it over the field’: post-medieval agriculture and the destruction of monuments; a case study from Cornwall, Landscapes, 13, 1-20 Knight, J, 1991a. Vein quartz, Lithics, 12, 37-56 Knight, J, 1991b. Technological analysis of the anvil (bipolar) technique, Lithics, 12, 57-80 Ladle, L and Woodward, A, 2009. Excavations at Bestwall quarry, Wareham, 1992-2005, volume 1: the prehistoric landscape, Dorchester: Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society Lawson-Jones, A, 2002-3. The flint, in D Cole and A M Jones, Journeys to the rock: archaeological investigations at Tregarrick Farm, Roche, Cornish Archaeology, 41-42, 123-131 Lawson-Jones, A, 2006. Flint and stone, 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, 11-14 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 Lawson-Jones, A, 2009. Watergate Bay, SWW replacement pipeline, Cornwall, Archaeological watching brief, Truro: Historic Environment Service archive report Lawson-Jones, A, 2010. Flint and chert, in A M Jones and SR Taylor, Scarcewater, Pennance, Cornwall: archaeological excavation of a Bronze Age and Roman landscape, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 516, 133-138 Lawson-Jones, A, 2011. Lithics, in J A Nowakowski and H Quinnell, Trevelgue Head, Cornwall: the importance of CKC Andrew’s 1939 excavations for prehistoric and Roman Cornwall, Truro: Cornwall Council, 280-293 Lawson-Jones, A, forthcoming a. The flint, in A M Jones, Archaeological excavations at Bosiliack, Madron, Cornwall, 2011, Cornish Archaeology Lawson-Jones, A, forthcoming b. Discoveries along the North Lands End pipeline, Cornish Archaeology Lawson-Jones, A, forthcoming c. Flint, in Jones, A M and S R Taylor, Archaeological investigations of Late Iron Age settlement at Sir James Smith’s Community School, Camelford Cornwall 2008-9, Cornish Archaeology Lawson-Jones, A, forthcoming d. Lithics, in J A Nowakowski and C Johns, Bypassing Indian Queens – archaeological excavations 1992-1994: investigating prehistoric and Romano-British settlement and landscapes in Cornwall, The Highways Agency and Cornwall Council Lee, K, 2001. Experimental heat-treatment of flint, Lithics, 22, 39-44 Lemonnier, P, 2012. Mundane objects; materiality and non verbal communication, Walnut Creek: Left Cost Press Le Roy Ladurie, E, 2002. Montaillou: Cathars and Catholics in a French village 1294-1324, London: Harmondsworth Leverett, M and Quinnell, H, 2010. An Early Neolithic assemblage from Waylands, Tiverton, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society, 68, 1-20 Lewis-Williams, D, 2002. The mind inside the cave; consciousness and the origins of art, London: Thames and Hudson Liddell, D, 1932. Report of the excavations at Hembury fort Devon, third season, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Exploration Society, 1, 162-190 Light, J, 1995. Marine molluscs, in J Ratcliffe, Duckpool, Morwenstow: a Romano-British and early medieval industrial site and harbour, Cornish Archaeology, 34, 142-52 Light, J, 2011. Mollusc shell deposits, in J A Nowakowski and H Quinnell, Trevelgue Head, Cornwall: the importance of CKC Andrew’s 1939 excavations for prehistoric and Roman Cornwall, Truro: Cornwall Council, 306-313 Longworth, I H, 1972. Report on the Pottery from Trevone: the Grooved Ware vessel, in D G, Buckley, The

161

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Excavation of Two Slate Cairns at Trevone, Padstow, 1972, Cornish Archaeology, 11, 14-15 Longworth, I H, forthcoming. The pottery, in J A Nowakowski, Trevorva Cott, Probus. A Late Neolithic site in lowland Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology Longworth, I H and Cleal, R, 1999. Grooved Ware Gazetteer, in R Cleal and A, MacSween, eds, Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 177-206 MacRea, R J, 1986. Tool manufacture in quartzitic and similar rocks in the British Palaeolithic, Lithics, 7, 7-12 Malinowski, B, 1922. Argonauts of the western Pacific, London: Routledge, Keegan and Paul Manning, P and Stead, P, 2002-3. Excavation of an Early Christian cemetery at Althea Library, Padstow, Cornish Archaeology, 41-42, 80-106 Maraszek, R, 2006. Spätbronzezeitliche Hortfundlandschaften in atlantischer und nordischer Metalltradition, Halle (Saale): Veröffentlichungen des Landesamtes fur Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt – Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte 6 Mattingly, J, Marley, J and Jones, A M, 2009. Five gold rings? Early Bronze Age gold lunulae from Cornwall, Journal of the Royal institution of Cornwall, 95-114 McGrail, S, 1996. Celtic seafaring and transport, in M J Green, ed, The Celtic world, London: Routledge, 254281 McCarthy, A, Finley, N and McClean, O, 1999. Faunal remains, in P C Woodman, E Anderson and N Finlay, eds, Excavations at Ferriter’s Cove, 1983-95: last foragers, first farmers in the Dingle Peninsula, Bray: Wordwell, 93-102 McKinley, J, 2000. The analysis of cremated bone, in M Cox, and S Mays, eds, Human osteology in archaeology and forensic science, London: Greenwich Medical Media Mellars, P, 1987. Excavations on Oronsay; prehistoric human ecology on a small Island, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Mercer, R J, 1970. The excavation of a Bronze Age hutcircle settlement, Stannon Down, Cornish Archaeology, 9, 17-46 Mercer, R J, 1981. Excavations at Carn Brea, Illogan, Cornwall 1970-73 – a Neolithic fortified complex of the third millennium bc, Cornish Archaeology, 20, 1-204 Mercer, R J, and Healy, F, 2008. Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England. Excavation and survey of a Neolithic monument complex and its surrounding landscape, London: English Heritage Miles, H, 1975. Barrows on the St Austell Granite, Cornish Archaeology, 14, 5-82 Milcent, P-Y, 2012. Le temps des élites en Gaule Atlantique, Rennes: Presse Universitaire De Rennes Munn, N, 1986. The fame of Gawa, a symbolic study of the value transformation in a Massim (Papua New Guinea) society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Murray, E, 2002. Marine molluscan remains from Rathgurreen ringfort, in M Comber, E Murray and S Hamilton-Dyer, Excavations at the ringfort of Rathgurreen, Co. Galway; Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 102C, 137-197 Nallier, R and Le Goffic, M, 2008. Rosnoen 60 ans apres. Complements et revision concernant le depot de l’Age du bronze final de Penavern (Finistere), Bulleten de la Societe prehistorique francaise, 105, 1-27 Nankivell, F M, 1956-7. A bronze razor or ‘tranchet’ from Riviere Towans, Hayle, Proceedings of the West Cornwall Field Club, 2, 1, 29-31 Neal, D, 1983. Excavations on a settlement at Little Bay, Isles of Scilly, 1980, Cornish Archaeology, 23, 47-80 Needham, S, 2000. Power pulses across a cultural divide: cosmologically driven acquisition between Armorica and Wessex, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 66, 151-208 Needham, S, 2005. Transforming Beaker culture in North-West Europe: Processes of fusion and fission, Proceedings Prehistoric Society, 71, 171-218 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, Bronk Ramsey, C, Coombs, D, Cartwright, C and Pettitt, P, 1997. An independent chronology for British Bronze Age metalwork: the results of the Oxford radiocarbon accelerator programme, Archaeological Journal, 154, 55-107 Needham, S, Parham, D and 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 Newberry, J, 2002. Inland flint in prehistoric Devon: Sources, tool-making quality and use, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society, 60, 1-36 Nicolardot, J-P and Gaucher, G, 1975. Typologie des objets de l’Age du Bronze en France. Fascicule V: outils, Paris: Société Prehistorique Francaise, Comission du Bronze Nilsson, P, 2010. Reused rock-art: Iron Age activities at Bronze Age rock art sites, in J Goldhahn, I Fuglestvedt, and A Jones, eds, Changing pictures, rock art traditions and visions in northern Europe, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 106-125 Norman, C, 1977. A flint assemblage from Constantine Island, North Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology, 16, 3-9 Nowakowski, J A, 1989. Gwithian; an assessment of the Bronze Age excavations 1954-1961, Truro: Cornwall Archaeological Unit 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

162

Bibliography Nowakowski, J A, 2011. Appraising the bigger picture - Cornish Iron Age and Romano-British lives and settlements 25 years on, Cornish Archaeology, 50, 241-263 Nowakowski, J A, forthcoming a. Trevorva Cott, Probus. A Late Neolithic site in lowland Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology Nowakowski, J A, forthcoming b. Unlocking the Coastal Heritage – rediscovering Godrevy barrow, Gwithian, Cornwall 2012, Cornish Archaeology Nowakowski, J A and Quinnell, H, 2011. Trevelgue Head, Cornwall: the importance of CKC Andrew’s 1939 excavations for prehistoric and Roman Cornwall, Truro: Cornwall Council Nowakowski, J A, Quinnell, H, Sturgess, H, Thomas, C and Thorpe, C, 2007. Return to Gwithian: shifting the sands of time, Cornish Archaeology, 46, 13-76 Nowakowski, J A and Thomas, A C, 1990. Excavations at Tintagel parish churchyard Cornwall, spring 1990: interim report, Truro: Cornwall Archaeological Unit Nowakowski, J A and Thomas, A C, 1992. Grave news from Tintagel: an account of a second season of archaeological excavation at Tintagel churchyard, Cornwall, 1991, Truro: Cornwall Archaeological Unit O’Connor, B, 2009. Re-collected objects: carved, worked and unworked stones in Bronze Age funerary traditions, in B O’Connor, G Cooney and J Chapman, eds, Materialitas: working stone, carving identity, Oxford: Prehistoric Society, 147-159 Olson, L, 1981. Crantock, Cornwall, as an early monastic site, in S Pearce, ed, The early church in western Britain and Ireland: studies presented to C A Ralegh Radford, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 102, 177-185 Ovid, (Raeburn, D, translation), 2004. Metamorphoses, London: Harmondsworth Owoc, M, 2002. Munselling the mound: The use of soil colour as metaphor in British Bronze Age funerary ritual’ in A Jones and G MacGregor, eds, Colouring the past: The significance of colour in archaeological research, Oxford: Berg, 127-140 Padel, O J, 1985. Cornish place-name elements, Nottingham: English Place-Name Society 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 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, 1995. Southwestern Bronze Age pottery, in I Kinnes and G Varndell, eds, ‘Unbaked urns of rudely shape’ essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 89-100

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 Press, 117-132 Parkes, C, 2008. Boscastle, Bossiney, Tintagel, Sewage Treatment Scheme, Cornwall. Trevalga Sewage treatment Works; PS, STW and pipeline; archaeological assessment, Truro: Historic Environment Service archive report Patchett, F, 1953. A Middle Bronze Age urn from Lelissick, Padstow, Proceedings of the West Cornwall Field Club, 1: 2, 43 Peacock, D P S and Williams, D F, 1986. Amphorae and the Roman economy: an introductory guide, London: Longman Pearce, P, Steinmetzer, M and Quinnell, H, 2011. An Early Neolithic pit alignment, Grooved Ware and Bronze Age field boundaries at the former Royal Navy stores depot, Old Rydon Lane, Exeter, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society, 69, 23-52 Pearce, S, 1983. The Bronze Age metalwork of south western Britain, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 120 Pollard, J, 2001. The aesthetics of depositional practice, World Archaeology, 33, 315-333 Pollard, J, 2006. A community of beings: animals and people in the Neolithic of southern Britain, in D Serjeantson, and D Field, eds, Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 135149 Pollard, T, 1996. Time and tide: coastal environments, cosmology and ritual, in T Pollard, and A Morrison, eds, The early prehistory of Scotland, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 198-210 Polsue, J, 1872. Lakes parochial history of Cornwall, volume IV, Truro: William Lake Preston-Jones, A and Rose, P, 1987. Mrs Hurn’s urn, Cornish Archaeology, 26, 85-95 Price, N, 2001. An archaeology of altered states: Shamanism and material cultural studies, in N Price, ed, The archaeology of Shamanism, London: Routledge, 3-16 Powell, A and Serjeantson, D, 1995. Animal bone, in J Ratcliffe, Duckpool, Morwenstow: A Romano-British and early medieval industrial site and harbour, Cornish Archaeology, 34, 136-142 Quinnell, H, 1993. A sense of identity: distinctive Cornish stone artefacts in the Roman and post-Roman periods, Cornish Archaeology, 32, 29-46 Quinnell H, 1999 (ed). A gazetteer of flint arrowheads from south-west Britain, Exeter: Devon Archaeological Society 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, 41-2, 113-121 Quinnell, H, 2004. Trethurgy. Excavations at Trethurgy Round, St Austell: Community and status in Roman

163

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast and post-Roman Cornwall, Truro: Cornwall County Council Quinnell, H, 2007. Prehistoric, Roman and early medieval pottery, in J Gossip and A M Jones, Archaeological investigations of a later prehistoric and a RomanoBritish landscape at Tremough, Penryn, Cornwall, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 443, 51-78 Quinnell, H, 2010. Prehistoric and Roman pottery: 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, 93-130 Quinnell, H, 2011a. The pottery, in J A 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, 2011b. A summary of Cornish ceramics in the first millennium BC, Cornish Archaeology, 50, 213240 Quinnell, H, 2011c. Stonework, in J A Nowakowski and H Quinnell, Trevelgue Head, Cornwall: the importance of C K C Andrew’s 1939 excavations for prehistoric and Roman Cornwall, Truro: Cornwall Council, 257279 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, forthcoming a. The pottery in Gossip, J, forthcoming b. Life outside the round - Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement at Higher Besore and Truro College, Threemilestone, Truro, Cornish Archaeology Quinnell, H, forthcoming b. The Beaker sherds, in C Smart forthcoming, Excavations at the Roman fort at Calstock in 2011, Cornish Archaeology Quinnell, H, in preparation. The pottery, in J Gossip, Archaeological Excavations at Penryn College, Cornish Archaeology Quinnell, H and Taylor, R, 1998-9. Stone artefacts, in A M Jones, The excavation a later Bronze Age structure at Callestick, Cornish Archaeology, 37-8, 26-36 Randall, C E, in preparation. The regal stag? Early medieval faunal remains from Cadbury Castle, Somerset Ray, K and Thomas, J S, 2003. In the kinship of cows: the social centrality of cattle in the earlier Neolithic of southern Britain, in M Parker Pearson, ed, Food, culture and identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 1117, 37-44 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 Reynolds, A, forthcoming. Atlantic Road, Newquay: A Late Iron Age and Romano-British Site, Cornish Archaeology

Riley, H and Wilson-North, R, 2001. The field archaeology of Exmoor, London: English Heritage Roberts, A, 1987. The later Mesolithic occupation of the Cornish coast, at Gwithian: preliminary results, in P Rowley-Conwey, M Zvelebil and H P Blankholm, eds, Mesolithic Northwest Europe: Recent trends, Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 131-137 Roe, F, 1985. Report on the cupped pebble, in P Christie, Barrows on the north Cornish coast: wartime excavations by C K Croft Andrew 1939-44, Cornish Archaeology, 24, 56-9 Rogers, W, 1923. The shingles and sands of Cornwall, Royal Cornwall Polytechnic Society, 5, 45-50 Rohl, B and Needham, S, 1998. The circulation of metal in the British Bronze Age: the application of lead isotope analysis, London: British Museum Occasional Paper 102 Rowlands, M, 1976. The organization of Middle Bronze Age metalworking, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 31 Russell, V, 1971. West Penwith survey, St Austell: Cornwall Archaeological Society Russell, V and Pool, P A S, 1964. Excavation of a menhir at Try, Gulval, Cornish Archaeology, 3, 15-26 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, 101-52 Savory, H N, 1948. ‘The sword-bearers’ a reinterpretation, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 14, 155-76 Scarre, C, 2009. Stones with character; animism, agency and megalithic monuments, in B O’Connor, G Cooney and J Chapman, eds, Materialitas: working stone, carving identity, Oxford: Prehistoric Society, 9-18 Schmid, E, 1972. Atlas of animal bones for prehistorians, archaeologists and quaternary geologists, London: Elsevier Publishing Company 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) Sharpe, A, 1992. Treryn Dinas: cliff castles reconsidered, Cornish Archaeology, 31, 65-68 Silver, I A, 1969. The ageing of domestic animals, in D R, Brothwell and E Higgs, eds, Science in archaeology, London: Thames and Hudson, 283-302 Silvester, R, Berridge, P and Uglow, J, 1987. A fieldwalking exercise on Mesolithic and Neolithic sites at Netherton Exe, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society, 45, 1-21 Sillitoe, P, 1999. Beating the boundaries: land, tenure and identity in Papua New Guinea Highlands, Journal of Anthropological Research, 55, 331-360 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, 161-184

164

Bibliography Smith, G, 1988. Excavation of the Iron Age cliff promontory fort and of Mesolithic and Neolithic flintworking areas at Penhale Point, Holywell Bay, near Newquay, 1983, Cornish Archaeology, 27,171-199 Smith, G and Harris D, 1982. The excavation of Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements at Poldowrian, St Keverne, 1980, Cornish Archaeology, 21, 23-62 Smythe, J, 2012. Breaking new ground: an overview of pits and pit-digging in Neolithic Ireland, in H AndersonWhymark, and J Thomas, eds, Regional perspectives on Neolithic pit deposition, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 13-29 Somerscales, M I, 1956-57. A Dark Age site at Phillack Towans, near Hayle, Proceedings of the West Cornwall Field Club, 2, 9-14 Sorenson, M-L S, 1996. Sherds and pot groups as keys to site formation process, in S Needham and T Spence, eds, Refuse and disposal at area 16 East, Runnymede, London: British Museum Press, 1-74 Stapleton, C and Pethick, J, 1996. Coastal processes and management of Scottish estuaries. 1: The Dornoch, Cromarty and Beauly/Inverness Firths, Scottish Natural Heritage Review 50 Stace, C, 1997. New flora of the British Isles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd edition) Stevens, C J and Fuller, D Q, 2012. Did Neolithic farming fail? The case for a Bronze Age agricultural revolution in the British Isles, Antiquity, 333, 707-722 Stewart, R J, 2012. The role of chert in later prehistoric lithic industries with specific reference to South-West England, Geoscience in South-West England, 13, 123130 Sturluson, S, (Byock, J, translation), 2005. The prose edda, London: Harmondsworth Taçon, P, 1991. The power of stone: symbolic aspects of stone use and tool development in western Arnhem Land, Australia, Antiquity, 65, 192-207 Taylor, J, 1980. Bronze Age goldwork of the British Isles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Tebbutt, C F, 1934. A cist in the Isles of Scilly, Antiquaries Journal, 14, 302-303 Thomas, A C, 1988. The archaeology of Tintagel parish churchyard, Cornish Studies, 16, 79-91 Thomas, A C, 1993. Tintagel, Arthur and archaeology, London: Batsford Thomas, A C, 2005. The Neolithic in the Gwithian area, privately published Thomas, J S, 1991. Discourse, totalization and the Neolithic, in C Tilley, ed, Interpretative archaeology, Berg: Oxbow, 357-394 Thomas, J S, 1999. Understanding the Neolithic, London: Routledge Thomas, J S, 2012. Introduction: beyond the mundane?, in H Anderson-Whymark, and J Thomas, eds, Regional perspectives on Neolithic pit deposition, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1-12 Thomas, N and Hartgroves, S, 1990. A Beaker cist at Harrowbarrow, Cornish Archaeology, 29, 52-59

Threipland, L M, 1956. An excavation at St Mawgan-inPydar, north Cornwall, Archaeological Journal, 113, 33-81 Tilley, C, 1994. A phenomenology of landscape, places, paths and monuments, Oxford: Berg Tilley, C, 1995. Rocks as resources: landscapes and power, Cornish Archaeology, 34, 5-57 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 Tilley, C, 2010. Interpreting landscapes: geologies, topographies, identities, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press 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 Tracey, J, 2012. New evidence for Iron Age burial and propitiation practices in southern Britain, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 31, 367–80 Trudgian, P, 1976a. Observations and excavation at the Tichbarrow, Davidstow, Cornish Archaeology, 15, 3145 Trudgian, P, 1976b. Cup-marked stones from a barrow at Starapark near Camelford, Cornish Archaeology, 15, 48-49 Turk, F A, 1969. On some human remains from Crantock, Newquay, Cornish Archaeology, 8, 98-99 Turner, S, 2006. Making a Christian landscape: the countryside in early medieval, Cornwall, Devon and Wessex, Exeter: Exeter University Press Turner, V, 1967. The forest of symbols, aspects of Ndembu ritual, Ithaca: Cornell University Press Van der Noort, R, 2009. Exploring the ritual of travel in prehistoric Europe: the Bronze Age sewn-plank boats in context, in P Clark, ed, Bronze Age connections, cultural contact in prehistoric Europe, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 159-175 Wainwright, G J and Longworth, I H, 1971. Durrington Walls: Excavations 1966-1968, London: Society of Antiquaries Watts, S, 2013. The structured deposition of querns; the contexts of use and deposition of querns in the south-west of England from the Neolithic to the Iron Age, Unpublished PhD thesis: University of Exeter Wessex Archaeology, 2009. Boscastle, Bossiney, and Tintagel pipeline radiometer survey report, Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology (ref. 71610.01) Whimster, R, 1977. Harlyn Bay reconsidered; the excavations of 1900-1905 in the light of recent work, Cornish Archaeology, 16, 61-88 Whimster, R, 1981. Burial practices in Iron Age Britain; a discussion and gazetteer of the evidence c. 700 BC AD 43, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 90

165

Lines of Archaeological Investigation along the North Cornish Coast Whitehead, F, 1973. Neolithic and Upper Palaeolithic working sites, Booby’s Bay, Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology, 12, 5-18 Wilkinson, K and Straker, V, 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 Weiner, A B, 1987. The Trobrianders of Papua New Guinea, Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Whittle, A, Bayliss, A, Healy, F, Mercer, R, Jones, A M and 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 Whitton, C J M, 2004. Archaeological recording at land adjacent to the Harlyn Inn, Harlyn Cornwall, Exeter: Exeter Archaeology archive report Wymer, J J, 1977. Gazetteer of Mesolithic sites in England and Wales, Norwich: Council for British Archaeology Williams, G, 1988. The standing stones of Wales and south-west England, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 197 Wilson-North, R, and Carey, C, 2011: A burnt mound on Brendan Common, Exmoor, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society, 69, 9-22 Wood, I, forthcoming. Gunwalloe evaluation report, archive report. Woodward, A and 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 Yates, D, 2007. Land, power and prestige: Bronze Age field systems in southern England, Oxford: Oxbow Books Young, A, 2012. Prehistoric and Romano-British enclosures around the Camel estuary, Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology, 51, 69-124

166