Scarcewater, Pennance, Cornwall: Archaeological excavation of a Bronze Age and Roman landscape 9781407306452, 9781407321868

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Copyright
Contents
List of Figures
Acknowledgements
Summary
Chapter 1: Project background
Chapter 2: The results
Chapter 3: Interpretation
Chapter 4: The artefacts
Chapter 5: The ecofacts
Chapter 6: Radiocarbon dating
Appendices
Bibliography

Citation preview

Historic Environment, Cornwall Council

Scarcewater, Pennance, Cornwall Archaeological excavation of a Bronze Age and Roman landscape

Andy M. Jones Sean R. Taylor with contributions from

Samia Butcher, Ralph Fyfe, Rowena Gale, Anna Lawson-Jones, Julie Jones, Henrietta Quinnell, Clare Randall, Laura Ratcliffe, Roger Taylor and Carl Thorpe

BAR British Series 516 2010

Published in 2019 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 516 Scarcewater, Pennance, Cornwall © Historic Environment, Cornwall Council and the Publisher 2010 The authors’ moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9781407306452 paperback ISBN 9781407321868 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407306452 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2010. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2019.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents Acknowledgements Summary .................................................................................................... ........................................................ . 1 Project background Introduction ........................................................ ....................................................... ....................... ................... 1 Aims ................................................... .................................................................................................. ............... 1 Location and setting ........................................................ .................................................................................... 2 The investigations .............................. ................................................................... .............................................. 3 2 The results Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 The Bronze Age (c 2500-800 cal BC) ................................................................................................................. 5 Early Bronze Age (c 2500-1500 cal BC) ............................................................................................................ 5 Middle Bronze Age (c 1500-1100 cal BC) .......................................................................................................... 6 The Late Bronze Age (c 1100-800 cal BC) ............................... ....................................................................... 35 The Iron Age (c 800-350 cal BC) ........................................................ ............... ..................................... .......... 39 Unphased features of probable prehistoric date ............................................................................................. .45 The Romano-British period (AD 43-410) .......................................................................................................... 49 The medieval periods and post-medieval (AD 410-1800) ................ .......................................... ................. .....59 3 Interpretation Bronze Age ............................................................................ .................................. ........................................ .64 Middle Bronze Age ........................................................................................................................................... 67 Late Bronze Age ............................................................................................................................................... 81 Iron Age ............................................. ................................................................... ........................................... 84 Roman Period ................................................................................................................................................... 85 4 The artefacts Prehistoric and Roman pottery .................................................................................................................. .......93 Trevisker ceramics ................................................................................................................................ ............ 95 Bronze Age ceramics .......................... .............................................................................................................. 96 Prehistoric and Roman stonework ................. ...................... ........................................................................... 113 Iron objects ........... ......................................... ..................... ................................................ ....................... ..... 130 Roman period brooch ...................................................................................................... ............................... 133 Glass bead .................................................................... ............................................. ..................................... 133 Flint and chert ................................................................................................................................................. 133 Medieval and later artefacts ........................................................................................................................... 139 5 The ecofacts Calcined bone ....................................................................... ................................... ....................................... 142 Plant remains ................................................................................................................................................. 142 Charcoal ......................................................................................................................................................... 149 Pollen .................................................................................................. .............................. ..................... ......... 153 6 Radiocarbon dating Introduction .................... ................................................................................... .......................... .................... 155 Strategy ................................................................. ......................................................... ................................ 155 Results ......................... .................................................................... ............................... ................................ 158 Appendices Appendix 1: Tables of structural details .......................................................................................................... 161 Appendix 2: Identified plant macrofossils ....................................................................................................... 185 Appendix 3: Identified charcoal ...................................................................................................................... 197 Bibliography ............. ...................... ................................ .............................................................................. . 199

List of Figures Figure 1 Location map ............................................................................................................................................................................................... l Figure 2 Map showing location of geophysical survey and major sites ........................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3 Early Bronze Age pits .................................................................... .............................................. ................................... ............................6 Figure 4 Pit Group 1700 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5 The Middle Bronze Age landscape .................................................................................................................................. .......................7 Figure 6 Roundhouse 1100 primary features ................................................................................. ...................................................................... 8 Figure 7 Roundhous e 1100 later features (inset showing central pit [ 1115]) .............................. ............................. .................................10 Figure 8 Roundhous e 1250 early features ................................................................. ......................................................... .................................12 Figure 9 Roundhous e 1250 later features ............................................................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 10 Photograph of Roundhouse 1250 from the south ......................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 11 Roundhouse 1500 primary features ................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 12 Roundhouse 1500 early features ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 13 Roundhouse 1500, plan and section across pit [1901] .................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 14 Roundhouse 1500 phase 3 features, including post-ring 1970 .................................................................................................... 20 Figure 15 Roundhouse 1500 ditch [1514] ..................................................................................... .............................. ................................... ...21 Figure 16 Roundhouse 1500 final phase .............................. .................................. ............................................................................. ................22 Figure 17 Roundhouse 1500, sections acros the roundhouse (top, east facing) (bottom, south facing) ............................................ 24 Figure 18 Roundhouse 1500, exter nal features .......................................................................... ........................................................................ 25 Figure 19 Photograph of Roundhouse 1500 from the south, showing post-rings cut into the natural... ............................................. 26 Figure 20 Pit Group 1350 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 21 Pit Group 1402 .................................................................................................. ..................................................................................... 29 Figure 22 Pit Group 1600 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 23 Pit Group 1650 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 24 Barrow lplan and section ..................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 25 Enclosure 3002 and Roundhouse 3084 ........................ ......................................................................... ...........................................36 Figure 26 Photograph of Enclosure 3002 from the north ............................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 27 Pit [3400], [3402], [3404], [3406] and [3408] .................................. .................................. ................................................... .......38 Figure 28 Cairn 2002 and Enclosure 2048 ......................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 29 Photograph of Cairn 2002 from the west ........................................................................................................................................ 42 Figure 30 Ring-ditch 2806 .............................. ............................................... .......................................... ...............................................................44 Figure 31 Undated pits of probable prehistoric date ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 32 Field system of probable lacer prehistoric date ........................ .......................................................................................... ..............48 Figure 33 Ron1ano-British Structure 2330 ......................................................................................................................................................... S0 Figure 34 Romano-British secden1ent area ..................................... ........................ ............................................................................................51 Figure 35 Ron1ano-British field system, phase 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 36 Romano-British field systems, phases 3 and 4 ................................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 37 Romano-British field system, phase S................................................................................................................................................ 54 Figure 38 Ron1ano-British burials ......................... ..................................................................................... ...........................................................56 Figure 39 Rom ano-British burials, sections across cist [2150] (top, west facing) and inhumation [2315] (bottom, east facing) ...................................................................... .......................... ............................................................................................. ............................. 57 Figure 40 Photograph of cist [2150] ..................... ....................................................................... ............................. ............................ ...............58 Figure 41 Photograph ofinhumation [2315] (showing body stain in base of grave cut) ......................................................................... 58 Figure 42 Medieval fields and features ................................................................................................................................................................ 60 Figure 43 Medieval landholding ............................................................................................................................................................................ 61 Figure 44 Post-n1edieval fields and features ....................................................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 45 Photograph showing view from Roundhouse 1500 towards Roundhouse 1250 (middle ground), with the site of Roundhouse 1100 in the distance (figures towards right corner) ................................................................................................................. 71 Figure 46 Photograph of Roundhouse 1500 showing post-occupation walling ........................................................................................ 77 Figure 47 Pl -3, Beaker-related pottery from pit [1705]. Scale 1:3 ............................................................................................................... 94 Figure 48 Trevisker ware. P4 Roundhouse 1100, Phase 7 layer (1108). PS-7 Roundhouse 1250, PS (1280) Phase 2 infill, P6 (1285) on Phase 2 infill, P7 Phase 4 infill (1042). Scale 1:3 ..........................................................................................................................97 Figure 49 Trevisker ware from pit [1901] in Roundhouse 1500.Scale 1:3 ..............................................................................................100 Figure 50 Trevisker ware. Pl6 from pit [ 1384] in Pit Group 1350, Pl9 pit [1431] Pit Group 1402, P20 -22 Pit Group 1650, P20 pit [1670], P21 pit [1655], P22 pit [1018]. Scale 1:3 .................................... ....................................................................................... 102

ii

Figure 51 Pl7 Base of pot from pit [1036] in Pit Group 1350. The vessel has been conserved in the squashed, distorted condition of its finding ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 103 Figure 52 P23 lower half of vessel from layer (403 )* in Barrow 1 .............................................................................................................. 104 Figure 53 Lace Bronze Age Plain Ware. P25 pit [3041] in Structure 3084, P26-7 pit [3402] in Area 3 Pit Group Scale 1:3 ..... 106 Figure 54 Iron Age and Roman pottery. P28 South Western Decorated Ware Cairn 2002, P29 Type 21 gabbroic bowl Cist 2150, P30 Type 4 gabbroic jar ditch [302], P31 black-burnished ware conical flanged bowl hearth [2730]. Scale 1:3 ................108 Figure 55 Stonework from Roundhouse 1100. SF120 pestle, SF13 stone 'scraper', SF122 humped profile muller. Scale 1:3 .... 114 Figure 56 Stonework from Roundhouse 1250. SF72 saddle quern fragment, SF56 humped profile muller, SF38 slate disc. Scale 1:3 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 115 Figure 57 Photograph showing the joining muller fragments SF56 and SF184 from Roundhouses 1250 and 1500 ....................115 Figure 58 Stonework from Roundhouse 1500. SF248, SF227 and SF245 saddle querns, SF280 and SF217 rectangular profiled n1ullers.Scale 1:3 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 120 Figure 59 Stonework from Roundhouse 1500. All mullers, SF205 humped profile, SF 191 wedge profile, SF249 rectangular profile. Scale 1:3 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 121 Figure 60 Stonework from Roundhouse 1500. SF216 rectangular muller, SF230 and SF236 pestles, SF226 hammerstone, SF219 disc. Scale 1:3 ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 122 Figure 61 SF92 rubbing stone from Pit Group 1350. Remainder from Pit Group 1600. SF341 and 342 wedge profile mullers, SF333 humped profile muller. Scale 1:3 ........................................................................................................................................... 124 Figure 62 Photograph of a group of stonework from [1611] in Pit Group 1600. From bottom clockwise, SF344, SF342, SF341, SF339, SF340 and SF338 (centre) ....................................................................................................................................................... 125 Figure 63 Photograph of saddle quern SF331 from pit [1601] in Pit Group 1600 ............................................................................... 125 Figure 64 Stonework from Pit Group 1650. SF253 wedge profile muller, SF270 rectangular profile muller, SF271 humped profile muller, SF250 scraper or knife, SF275 rubbing scone ...................................................................................................................... 127 Figure 65 S8 SF260 Saddle quern with pecked areas from pit [1655] Pit Group 1650. Scale 1:3 ...................................................... 128 Figure 66 Stonework from Lace Bronze Age contexts. SF509 saddle quern, SF505 and 703 whetstones, SF622 pestle. SF800 saddle quern u/s fron1 Area 2. Scale 1:3............................................................................................................................................................ 129 Figure 67 Saddle quern SF441 redeposited in pit [2361) ............................................................................................................................. 130 Figure 68 438a Conjoined hobnails from the side, showing triple leather sole. Inner shoe surface at cop with tips of shanks bent over. Scale in cn1............................................................................................................................................................................................ 131 Figure 69 438c Outer/head side of hobnails in 438a .................................................................................................................................... 131 Figure 70 4386 Inner side of hobnails in 438a ................................................................................................................................................ 131 Figure 71 4236 Hobnail and fragment of mineralized leather with hole left by decayed shank from right shoe 423 ....................132 Figure 72 Worked flint artefacts (LI co Ll 1) ................................................................................................................................................. 135 Figure 73 Date ranges from Scarcewacer excavations .................................................................................................................................... 157 Figure 74 Dace ranges from Bronze Age sunken-floored roundhouses in Cornwall ............................................................................. 160

iii

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following: Imerys Minerals Ltd for funding the excavation, archiving and final publication. Within HE projects; the authors would like to thank Carl Thorpe for his artefact illustrations, Graeme Kirkham, Henrietta Quinnell and Peter Rose for their comments on the text. We would also like to thank the many people who worked on the excavations in 2004. Matt Mossop (Site Supervisor), Abigail Brown, Neil Craze, Carmello Grasso, Graham Kirkham, Anna Lawson Jones, Konstanze Rahn, Stuart Randall, Teresa Rowell, Emma Ruddle, Francis Shepherd, Chris Southwell, Helen Thomas, Anna Tyacke, Dave Williams, Imogen Wood (Site Assistants). The site archive was created by Konstanze Rahn, Emma Ruddle, Dave Williams, and Imogen Wood . Many thanks to Jenny Beale, Colin Greenwood, Pam Lee, Karl Roberts, Jacqui Trevivian, Mick Triplett, Pam Worthington (CAS volunteers), Helena Bushman, Abi Dunk, Graham Hill, Luke Potter, David Roberts (Volunteers), Sylvia Avery, Richard Lee, and Chris Mcloughlin (Metal Detectorists) and Jane Marley (RIC Curator of Archaeology and World Cultures) for their assistance. Thanks also to Andrew Jagger (University of Bradford placement) and John Bellis, Emily Black, Michael Blake, Angela Crook, Marc Frobisher, Darren Haywood, Darren Murton, Caradoc Peters, Jenni Randall, Claire Shaw, Robert Simm, Doug Smith, and Fiona Thompson (Truro College) for their assistance. Henrietta Quinnell would like to thank Professor Valerie Maxfield, and is grateful to Paul Hands of the School of Earth Sciences, University of Birmingham for the preparation of thin-sections. The Ordnance Survey mapping included within this publication is provided by Cornwall 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 where they wish to licence Ordnance Survey mapping for their own use. Cornwall Council Licence No. 100049047 2009. The project archive will be deposited in the Royal Cornwall Museum Truro. The Accession number is: TRURI: 2007 .32.

Summary Following an archaeological assessment, geophysical survey, and evaluation trenching, a large-scale excavation covering some 30 hectares was undertaken by the Historic Environment Service projects team of Cornwall County Council at the site of lmerys Minera ls Ltd's Scarcewater tip, St Stephen-in-Brannel in 2004. The archaeological excavations were focused upon the investigation of three sunken-floored roundhouses of Middle Bronze Age date, together with a range of Bronze Age pits and timber structures, a Late Bronze Age roundhouse and palisade enclosure and pits, a Middle Iron Age 'cairn', and Romano-British settlement and funerary activity. Twenty-four radiocarbon determinations ranging between 2340 cal BC and cal AD 220 were obtained. The dates clustered into four groups: the Middle Bronze Age; the Late Bronze Age; the earlier Iron Age, and the Later Iron Age to Romano-British period. The analyses of the information from the excavated sites has provided the opportunity to investigate shifting settlement foci and changes to Bronze Age roundhouse architecture over a period between 1500 and 1000 cal BC, and to examine the relationships between settlement-related and ceremonial activity in the middle of the second millennium cal BC. Importantly, the project has also allowed a study to be made of sites rarely identified in Cornwall . These include structures of the first millennium cal BC and Romano-British activity that was associated with both unenclosed settlement and funerary practice. Overall, the project has enabled relationships, changing patterns of settlement, architectural traditions, and spatial attitude between the living and the dead to be considered in several key periods.

iv

SCARCEWATER, PENNANCE, CORNWALL

Chapter 1: Project background Introduction

Aims

Between 2000 and 2004 the projects team of che Historic Environment Service, Cornwa ll County Counci l was funded by Imerys Minerals Led co undertake a programme of archaeo logical recording at Scarcewater Tip, Pennance, Sc Scephen-in-Brannel (SW928540 centred), in advance of the construction of a new tip (Fig. 1). During the course of the project, the development area was assessed, appro ximately 16 hectares were selected for geophysical survey, and potential sites were tested with evaluation trenches. Some of the evaluated areas were subsequently removed from the tip's footprint, but all 30 hectares of the tip that were finally included within the development area were subjected co a controlled soil strip .

Initial objectives for the excavations were based on an understanding of the site which derived from previous assessment, evaluation trenching, and geophysical survey. The objectives were to: Investigate the character of the sub-surface archaeology within a substantial block of Cornwa ll, which lay on the interface between areas chat had been characterized as 'upland' and 'lowland zones'. Increase understanding of prehistoric and RomanoBritish settlement activity and the relationships between these periods, which had been indicated by the evaluation trenching and the geophysical survey.

The project was important because it provided an opportunity to undertake a staged programme of assessment and evaluation before investigating a large area in a contro lled manner. This enabled the study of long-term changes in the organisation and development of a substantia l block ofland.

C larify the archaeological potential of the anomalies identified by the geophysica l survey to become better informed abou t the impact of proposed development on the archaeological resource.

St Stephen's Beacon

'

Watch

HII Carland Cross

+ St Stephen-in-Brannel

Elevation 0 0-50m 0 50-100m D 100-2oom 200-300m 300m +

2 ■■-::::::::i--■ Km

Figure 1 Location map (Crown copyright)

1

ANDY M JONES AND SEAN RT AYLOR

maps 3 and 4). Indications of the archaeological character of the wider china clay area are, however, provided by evidence from rescue excavations of Bronze Age barrows at Watch Hill, Caerloggas, Cocksbarrow, and Trenance (Miles and Miles 1971; Miles 1975; Jones 2005; Jones and Quinnell 2006a), the later prehistoric settlement at Trenowah Qohns forthcoming) and the Romano-British enclosed settlement or 'round' at Trechurgy (Quinnell 2004). Prominent surviving remains in the general area include the prehistoric enclosure on St Stephen's Beacon 3.5 km to the east and Bronze Age barrows at Brighton 1.8 km to the west.

Obtain a better understanding of long-term changes to a substantial block of land, in an area which had seen little previous archaeological recording. Almost inevitably, the soil stripping of such a large area revealed a larger number of previously unsuspected features than had been suggested by the assessment stage. In addition to the expected field systems and Romano-British settlement activity, prehistoric pits were uncovered, as well as three sunken-floored circular roundhouses, pit groups and a barrow dating to the Middle Bronze Age, a pose-built roundhouse and palisade enclosure of the Lace Bronze Age, and RomanoBritish settlement and burials.

The underlying geology is comprised of the Meadfooc Beds, consisting of slates and sandstones of Lower Devonian age. These have been hornfelsed (baked) through contact with the igneous granite intrusion of Permian/Carboniferous age that forms the Sc Austell china clay district to the north, creating a metamorphic aureole whose southern boundary approximately follows the A3058 (Historic Environment Record Geographical Information Systems (HER GIS) layers 'Physical Geography'). These rocks have weathered at the surface to produce subsoil clays chat can be metres deep. Further comp licating the geology are various ocher igneous intrusions within the Meadfoot Beds, some of which are known locally as elvan dykes (Bristow 1999). A large example of such a dyke, of Devonian age, lies 500-600m to the south of the project area. The granite that lies to the north of the project area falls into three categories: coarse-grained co the north-west, fine-grained to the north, and medium-grained to the north-east (Geological Survey of Great Britain, 1974; HER GIS layers 'Physical Geography').

In response to these discoveries, the research objectives were adjusted and became directed cowards issues relating to understanding the complexity of the phasing of the site, identifying long-term change across the project area especially in relation co changing Bronze Age settlement form and related activity in the period between 1500 and 1000 cal BC. In particular, the site's location at the junction of the Sc Austell granite and the more sheltered ground above th River Fal provided the chance to investigate the apparent dichotomy between the contrasting types of archaeology which are found in the 'upland' and 'lowland' pares of Cornwall Qones 2008). Similarly, the identification of potential ploughed down barrows, at a distance of approximately 300m to the south-west of the Middle Bronze Age settlement also provided the opportunity co consider the spatial and temporal relationships between ceremonial and settlement activity.

Location and setting

A combination of geology, climate, topography, and past land use has resulted in the formation of soils that fall into two groups within the project area. The eastern two thirds of the area were covered by the loamy and silty soils of the 'Manod' type. This type corresponds closely with the Historic Landscape Characterisation zone Anciently Enclosed Land ( Cornwall County Council 1996). This is farmland that has been enclosed since at least the medieval period and which is often found to have been farmed since the lacer prehistoric period (Gossip and Jones 2007; Jones and Taylor 2004).

The tip at Scarcewacer is situated 2 kilometres to the northwest of the village of St Stephen-in-Brannel at approximately 80m to 110m OD, above the settlement of Pennance on the southern end of a prominent north-south ridge between the valleys of the Tresillian River to the west and the Fal to the east (Fig. 1). The project area had a south facing aspect, which gave extensive views over much of central and western Cornwall. The farming settlement at Pennance, now a single farmstead, is known to hav medieval origins (first mentioned in AD 1380, Gover 1948, 371). The name derives from the Cornish elements pen and nans, literally 'head of the valley' (Padel,

Characteristically Anciently Enclosed Land consists of land belonging to farming settlements documented before the seventeenth century AD. Typically the layout of these settlements and their enclosures are irregular and the settlements are connected by winding lanes and roads. Land cleared and improved in later prehistory or in the early medieval period was often reorganised in the later medieval period into extensive strip field systems associated with hamlets of co-operating families. More irregular medieval fields were laid out by more solitary farmers. These open strips were mostly enclosed in the fourteenth to seventeenth c nturies, transforming the zone into a landscap of substantial stock-proof hedges and walls. The rectilinear fields within the project area are typical of the reorganisation and enclosure of strip fields in the fifteenth to sixteenth

1985, 182), an accurate topographical description of the location of the extant buildings. 'Pennans' is first mentioned in 1288 (Institute of Cornish Studies, 1987) and later in 1380 (Gover 1948, 371). There are few surviving prehistoric or Romano-British sites in the near vicinity of Scarcewater. This is because the site is located on the edge one of the most radically altered areas of Cornwall. Medieval and later agriculture, post-medieval mining and, especially, previous episodes of china clay working/dumping had transformed the area prior to the recording of archaeological sites (Herring and Smith 1991,

2

SCARCEWATER, PENNANCE, CORNWALL

century by yeomen farmers of the Tudor period (although see the results and discussion sections below for an alternative chronology). Scrip field boundaries, probably earthen bank s, were replaced by Cornish hedges. These are often scone-faced earth walls or earth banks, typically having a ditch cut either side, leaving characteristic double ditches 2m-4m apart in the archaeological record.

contain far fewer archaeological features than the Anciently Enclosed Land, where approximately 90% of the identified archaeological features were found.

The investigations As part of the Scarcewacer project HES carried out several stages of archaeologica l recording which helped to identify the archaeo logical potential of the site. These stages included a desktop assessment, geophysical survey, evaluation trenching and excavation . The methodologies for these stages of recording are briefly outlined below.

The Anciently Enclosed Land within the project area is associated with three medieval (or earlier) settlements, Pennance, Meledor, and Tre sweeta (Fig. 43). Meledor is first recorded as 'Meneloder' in AD 1201 whilst T resweeta is first mentioned in AD 1356 (Gover 1948). The property boundary between Meledor and the ochers ran along the northern edge of the project area and had been mostly removed by the construction of Melbur Tip. The boundary between Pennance and Tresweeta runs approximately north south 300m east of Pennance whilst chat between Pennance and the formerly unenclosed downland lies 200m co the west. These boundaries are easily recognised since they run continuously over many fields and tend to end at intersections with ocher important boundaries: in chis case the property boundaries of Pennance to east and west run from an ease-west boundary one field to the south of the A3058 co the boundary with Meledor co the north. Interestingly the fields co the south of the road have fossilised different medieval strip field boundaries along their northsouth axis than the fields to the north. This gives an indication chat the road is of some antiquity, pre-dating the Tudor enclosures which gave rise to the present field boundaries, but post-dating the establishment of the property and the original field system.

Assessment and geophysical survey

In 2000 a desk-top survey and walkover over was carried out across the foot -print of the proposed tip (Sturgess 2001). This included historical research, landscape characterisation, and two magnetometer surveys, which were carried out by Geophysical Surveys of Bradford (GSB 2001a; 20016) at selected locations across the area of the propo sed pit (Fig. 2). In total, approximately 16 hectares were surveyed. Numerous anomalies were identified , including a hilltop enclosure, ringdicches, and what appeared co be three ploughed down mounds, potentially Bronze Age barrow s. Many of the sites were located in the immediate vicinity of Penn ance farmhouse, an area eventually taken out of the development envelope. Evaluation trenching

Eighteen evaluation trenches were excavated in 2002 (Taylor and Jones 2002). They were targeted upon major anomalies revealed by the geophysical survey. A machine fitted with a grading bucket was provided by the contractor and trenches excavated under archaeologica l supervi sion down to the top of the subsoil. Sections of the trenche s were drawn and archaeological features plann ed and recorded. Context numbers allocated during chis phase have been appended with an asterisk, for example [420] *, due co duplication of numbers during the subsequent watching brief phase.

In the western third of the site the soils were of peat and loam of the 'Hafren ' rype, consisting of loamy permeable upland soils with a wet peaty horizon and a bleached sub-surface horizon, often with a chin iron pan (HER GIS Layer 'Soils'). This type corresponds closely with the Historic Landscape Character zone Recently Enclosed Land, which is land chat has been enclosed during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Characteristically the fields are rectangular with straight sides, sometimes associated with single farmsteads or smallholdings . The majority of chis land was taken in from commons exploited for summer grazing and fuel previously. Such land often contains upstanding features such as Bronze Age cairns or more occasionally upstanding roundhouse walling. This land type was found at the higher, western part of the project area (predominantly Area 3), and was used for furze and rough pasture in 1839, as shown by the Sc Scephenin-Brannel Tithe Apportionment, at which time it belonged to Scarcewater Farm, a settlement first recorded in AD 1732 but possibly of medieval origin s (Sturgess 2001).

Watching brief

Prior to the main excavations in 2004, a small team undertook a watching brief during the construction of the perimeter leat and adjacent access road delineating the eastern, southern, and western edges of the tip. During chis phase of works features were identified, excavated ( fully in the case of small discrete features, partially for linear features), and recorded. Plans were tied into the National Grid using data provided by Imerys. Excavations

The excavations at Scarcewater were carried out in 2004. The topsoil in the project area was stripped by swing-shovel, and revealed features were then cleaned and planned. The soil stripping was undertaken in three block s (Areas 1, 2, and 3) from east co west (Fig. 2), with the requirements for archaeological recording monitor ed at each stage by the Hi storic

Prior to the programme of archaeological recording , no upstanding archaeological sites survived within the project area and all the excavated archaeological remain survived as buried feature s. However, despite being soil stripped in an identic al mann er, the Recentl y Enclosed Land was found to

3

ANDY M JONES AND SEAN

R TAYLOR

u

0

c.;

Area 1

A

Barrow

0 +

Grave

[;

0

••

•

100

Enclosure

Pit Group Ring -ditch Roundhouse Roman Settlement Geophysics

"

Figure2 Map showing Locationofgeophysicalsurveyand major sites (Crown copyright) Environment Planning Advice T earn, Cornwall County Council. The investigated area was surveyed using an EDM (Electronic Distance Measurement) survey machine. Subsequent plans and sections were produced using the EDM or drawn to scale by hand. With the exception of the unstratified artefacts, the majority of the finds recovered were recorded three dimensionally so that their distribution was plotted. Soil sample were taken from chose features and layers considered to have the potential for palaeoenvironmental analysis and radiocarbon dating.

uncovered that did not appear to pre -dace the extant field system. In hindsight this was unfortunate given the conclusions reached below with regard to the possible perpetuation of lace prehistoric/Romano -British fields into the medieval period and beyond. Artefacts and stratigraphic relationships between those ditches that were excavated were studied to assign periods and phases. Functional relationships and relationships implied by hared alignments were also used to arrange and dace the various field systems uncovered. Many of these interpretations are far from conclusive and ocher conclusions may be drawn by the reader from the results.

Due to the large number of features revealed by the soil stripping and limitations of time and budget, a decision was made not to excavate the large number of field ditches

4

\

-~

SCARCEWATER, PENNANCE, CORNWALL

Chapter 2: The results

All of these features have suffered some truncation from later agricultural activity and wou ld originally have been deeper and better preserved, although the sunken-floors of three of the roundhouses has ensured chat the deposits within chem were well-preserved. Descriptions of the component features of each roundhouse, structure, and pit group can be found below in Appendix 1.

Introduction The results from the desk-cop assessment, the geophysical surveys, and the evaluation trenching meant chat further archaeological recording was required ahead of the development of the tip. In particular, geophysical survey had identified a large hilltop enclosure, which appeared to encircle a summit cairn. Evaluation trenching of features across the proposed development area confirmed that there were archaeological features of Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Romano -British dace (Taylor and Jones 2002).

Early Bronze Age (c 2500-1500 cal BC) Pit [1705] adjacent to Pit Group 1700 This pit was found on the east of a group of four pits or poscholes (Pit Group 1700) at the western edge of Area 1 (Fig. 4). Bue radiocarbon dating revealed that it was much earlier in date. It was a simple pit, approximately 1m in diameter by 0.1 m deep. Pit [ 1705] contained an assemblage of pottery, which included sherds from at lease three Beaker vessels (Pl-P3), as well as two pieces of waste flint and a quartz hammerstone, SF303. The only macrofossils recovered were two wheat grains and onion couch cubers (J Jones below). This pit is likely co be an extremely truncated feature given its position close to the top of the hill.

Although geophysical survey detected a large number of anomalies, which were confirmed by the evaluation trenching, much of the area was not covered by any geophysical survey, and more than half of the area chat was selected for survey was taken out of the eventual development envelope. The results of the archaeological investigations are described in this chapter by chronological period, together with overall period summaries, which are presented at the end of each section. Given the weight of the excavated evidence the Bronze Age is further subdivided into three phases (Early, Middle and Late), with the bulk of the ensuing discussion centring on the Middle Bronze Age.

A radiocarbon determination obtained from charcoal found within pit [1705] fell between 3784±33 BP, 2310-2130 cal BC (Wk -2 1846) (at 91.1 %), placing it within the Early Bronze Age. The radiocarbon date therefore suggests chat it is an isolated feature unrelated to nearby Pit Group 1700.

Detailed records of all archaeological features were made, with each context being allocated a unique number. All cues are presented within [ ] brackets, fills within ( ) brackets. Structures and groups of features are presented as unbracketed numbers.

Other evidence of Beaker activity Pottery identified as potentially Beaker was recovered from two other features recorded during the excavation. The fill of shallow scoop, [1026], interpreted as a natural feature (Fig. 31), contained two moderately abraded comb-stamped sherds, tentatively identified as Beaker (see Quinnell below). The feature lay 40m to the south-east of pit [1705]. An eroded Beaker base with fingernail impression s was recovered from the lower fill of a pit, [3419] (Fig. 31), the upper fill of which contained Roman pottery. The pit was located close to the highest part of the site 175m north -west of [ 1705].

The probability distributions for the radiocarbon determinations (Table 29 and Figs. 73 and 74 ) have been calculated using OxCal (v3.10). The 95% level of probability is used throughout this report unless otherwise stated.

The Bronze Age (c 2500- 800 cal BC) The largest number of features on the site was associated with Bronze Age settlement-related activity. This activity spanned almost the whole second millennium cal BC and before, starting in the Early Bronze Age with pit [ 1705]. However, the majority of archaeological features dated to the Middle Bronze Age, with sunken-floored Roundhouses 1100, 1250, and 1500, structure-related Pit Groups 1402, 1600, and 1650, and Pit Groups 1350 and 1700. Lace Bronze Age activity was associated with the enclosed Roundhouse 3084 and a smaller number of pits. Ocher activity dating to the Bronze Age included a number of scattered pits, and a ploughed down mound, Barrow 1, and ocher features, which could not be dated, such as the fragmentary field system, may also belong to chis period.

Pit Group [1241], [1243], [1245], [1247] and [1400] A group of five small poscholes or pits, two of which, [ 124 1] and [1243], were cut into a larger pit, [1400], were found in a linear arrangement in the eastern part of the excavated area (Fig. 3). The earliest feature, pit [1400] was the largest. It was oval in plan, 0.84m long, 0.77m wide and 0.24m deep. The main fill of the pit contained four sherds of Trevi sker Ware pottery (Quinnell below), and twelve flint s, including a tran verse arrowhead (LI), a tanged and hafted piece (L3), a borer (L2), two scraper s (L4), and a craper, plu s waste flakes,

5

ANDY M JONES AND SEAN

RT AYLOR wheat grains and onion couch cubers Q Jones below). The remains of fuel debris, included birch (Betula sp.), hazel ( Cory/us avellana), oak (Quercus sp.), blackthorn (Prunus

spinosa),

the

hawthorn/ Sorbus

group (Pomoideae) and gorse ( Ulex sp.) and broom ( Cytisus scoparius) (Table 63) (Gale below). Too few features could be assigned to the Early Bronze Age for any informed statement on the environmental conditions. Substantial charcoal fragments with four hulled wheat and two unidentified grains, a single sloe stone , and an onion couch cuber were recovered from pit [1400]. The fills of the two smaller pies or poscholes, [1241] and [1243], cut into [1400], also included hulled wheat grains, onion couch cubers, and hazelnut fragments QJones below).

p051hola[l243) p,1(1400)

p05thol!, f1245J

Discussion of the Early Bronze Age landscape

w ~Po8

There were very few archaeological features at Scarcewacer chat were securely dated to the Early Bronze Age. Only pit [1705] with Beaker pottery was radiocarbon dated co chis period. On artefactual grounds pit [1400] may belong co the full Early Bronze Pottery Age with T revisker sherds, and nearby pits unass,gnod 1>01 Flint [1241], [1243], [1245], and [1247], may * L1 • L2 also be of Early Bronze Age dace. The small " l3 LA number of cereal grains and the presence of • LO hazelnut shells are consistent with other securely dated pits of chis date which have been found in the county (Reynolds 2006; Gossip and Jones 2007). The relative paucity of features dating co the Early Bronze Age might imply chat Scarcewater was only occasionally inhabited, or used for purposes chat have left little mark in the archaeological record, such as for the grazing of animals. However, by the end of the period c l 500 cal BC it is apparent chat a sufficient area muse have been opened up for the construction of a roundhouse settlement.

thow f1247J

♦

V

0

1m

--==-- = =--

Figure 3 Early Bronze Age pits

which are identified as being of probable Early Bronze Age dace (Lawson -Jones below). The dating of the pits is therefore dependant on the flint assemblag . The linear arrangement of smaller pits or poscholes [ 1241], [1243], [1245] and [1247] was aligned north-east to southwest over 3.25m. All were small, up co 0.42 wide and 0.2m deep. The two features co the north-ease, [1241] and [1243], were cut into pit [ 1400]. The fills of both of these features produced waste flints, whilst the fill of [ 1243] produced a scraper (LG) and two body sherds of T revisker Ware. The ocher two pies or poscholes in the group, [1245] and [1247], produced no finds and the presence of finds in the fills of the two pies chat cue [1400] may represent biocurbacion of deposits from ch fill of chis pit. This may also be responsibl for the large amount of charcoal recovered from these two fills.

Middle Bronze Age (c 1500-1100 cal BC) Introduction: the roundhouse settlement The following section on the Middle Bronze Age commences with the description of the results from the three sunkenfloored roundhouses before moving co the pit groups and finally Barrow 1 (Fig. 5). The term sunken -floored denotes the face chat the superstructure sac within a circular cut. Given their hillslope location the hollows were more deeply cut on the northern uphill side and in the case of Roundhou se 1100, the site was more of platform in th e side of th e hill , rath er than a hollow. The sunken -floored

Environmental summary: the Early Bronze Age Within Pit [ 1705], th e only macro fossils recovered were two

6

SCARCEWATER, PENNANCE, CORNWALL

P,t [17051and P,t group 1700 •

Q'""' fill (1708) 1450-1290 cal BC 3110±32 BP (Wk -2 1455)

!111 (1706)2310-2130 cal BC 3784±33 8P (Wk-21846)

[17051 Pottery ◊

Pl

C P2

SF303

◄ P3 ♦

,m1Jssignodpone,

Flint

01170 11

2m

"'

uns .. ,g11t.1d flint

Ston ework ■

StOllOWO(k

Figure 4 Pit Group 1700

/~ ....-,

I

--...__

I

--------------'-"'"--------"'--- __/ _\

1

I

/

--.......... ,---._,

/

r-\

·----~== 0 Pit group 1600 O

/{"L-. ___ "-._"'-_

1 (\ /

'-.______

,\

'--. _____

Sunken floored Roundhouse

O

Pit group

■

Barrow

0

100

0 Pit group 1700

Pit group 1402 0

..,,

•

''-

■

O /

'

_________________ ._..,,,.,,,.,,. _,./

...

Barrow 1

Figure 5 The Middl e Bronze Age landscape

7

\

Pit group 1350

Roundhouse 1250 • Roundhouse 1500 •

\

200m

\

Roundhouse 1100 • ;

j

'·,,-----...._ ..... ___

\

ANDY M JONES AND SEAN R TAYLOR

+

~ \\ ,)

C> - ,,, ♦

/

/'

\

,,,!I✓ -

J,.

~

\

♦♦

_,,

• •

\

\

0

/

\

\I

(

,,,\

,/

\

\

17 .,,., _,,,,,.,'✓{)

[ ;;37]

nQ "' Q

c>\

/J

~

Cl

qQ () rl,

◊Q .-,"

a

\ \

,:;,

\ \

v

)>

z 0 -< ~

+

Pit group 1600 ■

(_

0

z

m (J)

)>

z

0

(/)

m )>

~

z

11620)

::0 Pottery ♦

unass igned pottery

;; -< r

0

;o

Stonewori< [1628]

e

[1606)

•

Q SF331

[1627)

{1614}

w 0

[ 16 12]

Q

[16 18]

•

SF339

0

SF339

SF338

0

SF342

[1631)0

CI)

D 6\ (1601)

0

■

stonework

•

stakeho le

0

posthole

hearth [16 03]

fill (1605) 3092±32 BP , 1440-1290 cal BC (Wk-2 1448 )

[1616]

[1610] [1629 )

D

0 [1608)

(1622]

- - -

0

2m

Figu re 22 Pit Group 1600

SCARCEWATER, PENNANCE, CORNWALL

Pit Group 1650 (Fig. 23)

( Corylus avellana), oak (Quercus sp.), the hawthorn/ Sorbus

This was composed of a group of seven pits and/ or poscholes lying at the north -eastern extent of the excavated area, 25m co 30m north of Pie Group 1600 (Figs. 5 and 23). Although some of the postholes could be distinguished clearly, it was difficult co visualise the features as a structure, perhaps because of truncation. None of the features was more than 0.25m deep and most were less than 1m long. All cue the natural, which was a comparatively homogenous, weathered clay, and chis enabled relatively easy identification. The site lay on an ease-facing slope above the valley of the Fal.

group (Pomoideae) and holly (fl ex aquifolium). Fragments of black cokey material were also present. Radiocarbon determinations of 3106±32 BP, 1450-1290 cal BC (Wk -21452) and 3092±32 BP, 1440-1290 cal BC (Wk21453) (at 94.2%) were obtained from, respectively, pit [1655] (ceramic residue) and posthole [1663] (Ulex charcoal). Summary Although far from complete and truncated, the features within chis group appear to represent a structure, probably a sub-rectangu lar building. The pottery assemblage was distinctive in the prevalence of basal sherds including the cordoned base of a vessel, other parts of which were found in two separate pits. Although the worked scone assemblage from 1650 differed from that from 1600, the size of the assemblage was similar, and given the proximity of these two structures, chis may indicate a broad contemporaneity.

A group of three or four double postholes, [1666]/[1668], [ 1672] and a possible posthole cut into the edge of pit [ 1688] (represented by fill (1690)), and [1674]/[1676], defined the feature co the west . Of these, three of the postholes, [ 1666], [1668], and [1674], displayed evidence of stone packing within chem. These seemed most likely to have formed part of a possibly sub-rectangular pose-setting that had at some stage been replaced. Other features identified as postholes did not relate co the structure represented in plan. These included [1659], [1678], [1682], [1684] and [1694]. Postholes [1682] and [1684] both cut an earlier pit, [1680]. Posthole [1676] contained an undecorated sherd of pottery, whilst [1674] contained a flint knife flake.

Pit Group 1700 (Fig. 4) A group of four pits or postholes were located cowards the centra l area of the excavation (location Fig. 5). All were less than 0.15m deep and under lm long. No certain structural form could be discerned and none of the features could be linked stratigraphically - although it is po ssible chat they represented the remnants of som kind of sub-rectangul ar structure (Fig. 4) . Only two of the feacur s yielded artefact . One, pit [ 1705], has been radiocarbon dated co the Early Bronze Age (see above) and its position within the group seems co be a result of chance rather than contemporaneity. However, another, pit [ 1707], displayed evidence of burning and is likely to have been a hearth and chi has been radiocarbon dated co the Middle Bronze Age. No final interpretation of these feature is really achievable, certain ly not as a group. le is possible chat they repre enc an extremely truncated structure. However , it is equally likely chat they represent a cluster of pits and a hearth, perhap s similar in nature to Pit Group 1350.

Within the group were a number of pies. Some of these displayed evidence of burning in the form of oxidized bases and burnt stone within the fills and may have functioned as hearths. Phasing was visible in two groups of features: pie [1670] and posthole [1694] were cut by pits [1663] and [ 1657] respectively. The majority of the finds from chis structure came from these pits, including rim sherds from the same vessel from pits [1655] (P21) and [1670] (P20). Pit [1018] contained a large number of sherds including a cordoned base, P22, which may be from the same vessel as P20 and P21. Pits [1652] and [1655] also contained basal sherds from two other vessels, whilst additional sherds were recovered from pies [1657] and [1670]. Worked stone in the form of mullers, including SF253, SF270, and SF271 from [1018], a muller fragment and a rubbing cone (SF275) from [1688], a saddle quern (SF260) from [1655], and a greenstone flake (SF250) used as a knife or scraper from [1652] were also recovered. Two of the pits, [1652] and [1674], contained white quartz beach pebbles. Pit [1018] contained a flint knife flake, pit [1652] a chert pebble with a flake removed (see Quinnell below).

Environment and radiocarbon dating Pit Group 1700 produced relatively little, ocher than the hazel charcoal found in hearth pit [ 1707], which contained small ch arred assemblages of grassland caxa CTJones below). The remains of fuel debris from pit [ 1707], included birch (Betula sp.), hazel ( Cory/us avellana), oak (Quercus sp.),

Environment and radiocarbon dating

blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), the hawthorn/Sorbus group (Pomoideae) and gorse ( Ulex sp.) and broom ( Cytisus

As well as substantial charcoal fragments, plane macrofossils from Pie Group 1650 included low concentrations of charred wheat and barley grain, onion couch, and a suite of grassland caxa as well as more typical arable weeds like black bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus), stinking chamomile (Anthemis cotula),

scoparius) (Table 63). Some of the narrow oak roundwood included fast-grown wood (Gale below). A radiocarbon determination of 3110±32 BP, 1450-1290 cal BC (Wk-21455) was obtained from charcoal within hearth pit [ 1707] feature, placing it within the Middle Bronze Age.

and narrow -fruited cornsalad (Valerianella dentata) Q Jones below). Charcoal from poschole [1663] included hazel

31

)>

z CJ -


z

CJ (/)

m )>

z

:;:a

;i

-< r 0

:::0

(1688 )fr F275

fill (1664) 3092±32 BP,

cal BC (Wk-21453)

(l'63]~440-1290

SF270 ~ SF271

{1672)

:.. .

"-(J686]

0

[1018] SF253

♦

{1670]

w 1')

Pottery 0

P20

◊

P21

◄

P22

{1684) [1652]

♦ unassigned pottery

~

(1666)

Flint • unassigne d flint

{1668}

~

DO

unassigned stonework

0

pebble

•

stakehole

Q

posthole

'- l

~'(

0

0

[1678}

[1680]

c9~ 1657]

Stonework ■

[1682]"7-)

[1659]

SF250

[1674]

0

0[16

761

2m

Figure 23 Pit Group 1650

[1694]

60

[1655]

fill (1656) 3106±32 BP, 1450-1290 cal BC (Wk-21452 )

---u ~:o~~ -- ------- _- _____ __ _____ _ _______________ _

+

i I

~-----·---- - ..---

(404 )'

---------l , 1--------------------------------------------in{ I •'

j

''

.!

.. .

!

,,

i

I

i ,i

(402 )'

r--·---"~

♦ P2 3 C;J C;J

◊

I




l

::0 ()

m ~

(404)"

~ m JJ

'

AL________ _,

""CJ

m

A

-----------

-;::-;::-- ------.__--------(400) .

r. • = (401 )· (402)' cc 'iP I .•.. -· :.,: _~~~:::·=_ (~ ~'.',.~-. _o...._-,,,.__~q_·._::~'!·~.1i..~~~:,0 :.--.__·...:. ~J 3 _,,.=;_-.:i1.~-=--=-;;::.-..:±::: 0

Barrow 1

•

0

(1

•

z

0

)>

z

;; -< r

0

::0

0(27771

' ·-..,,

m

I/

ii !

[2781]

----------------: ""--

z

(/)

m

f-,ld d""" [2TTOJ//

(2771]

~ ~

~ c.... 0

Ji

f J

(2773]

I

z 0 -
. l ' [2715

I

-..._

[27sa 1--

132001 (3239]

(

A

;- '

.1 (3306]

,'

J

I

I

Ringditch

(3236)

2806

~ I (2053] --[2057] :

l

(3205) /

:

I

I

~M~ Farm

,

I

,

/

/

[1235)

[1207)

I

I

: 1 I

I

I I

f I

: I

I I

~

Ring-d itc h 2 :J Ring-ditch 3

0

/

f

I I

I

I I

I

:

:

I I

I I

/

[1099]

J

/

I I

~

/

I

;

[1461, 1219)

I

/

">-

[1097) [1459], ~. -

'!

f

,

;

!

//

/

I

,' I

....... ,

I

I

I

// -..... Eastern and Western enclosures

--.

Enclosure 2048

I

J

I

, I

Brick-shaped fields ~~~

'

;

I

Tenement boundaries

I

I

I

I I

-

I

I I

I

200m I

I I

I

Figure 32 Field system ofprobable laterprehistoric date

presumed Iron Age Enclosure 2048 surrounding Cairn 2002 by terminating to either side of it, suggesting that a bank and/ or the ditch were still visible features in the landscape. The additional piece of evidence is that the angle formed by ditches [2758) and [2770) respects Ring-ditch 2806, which is either Romano-British or, more likely, earlier. That the fields continued in use after 2806 fell out of use is demonstrated by the extending of ditch [2758) as [2754). Ditch [2758) also appears to be respected by the ditch of the phase 4 Roman enclosure [3300)/[3308], the terminals of which lie either side of the ditch suggesting that there may have been a bank here causing the ditch diggers to rise at thi s point in a similar manner to that suggested for ditch [2057).

by an angle of approximately 20°, and it is the northern field pattern that has seemingly ordered the partial reorganisation of the field system in a later period. Brick-shaped fields are thought to ongmate in the first millennium BC (for instance at Tremough, Gossip and Jones 2007, 23; also Herring 2008) and it seems likely that these fields predate the Roman fields to the south and may be fairly contemporary with the Iron Age Enclosure 2048, Cairn 2002, or perhaps a littl e later.

Discussion of the un-phased features Pits, with and without artefactual associations, are a common feature of the prehistoric period in Cornwall dating from the Early Neolithic through to at least the middle of the Bronze Age (Cole and Jones 2003-3; Gossip and Jone s 2007, 112-7; Reynolds 2006). This raises the possibility that at least some of the pits date to the third or second millennium cal BC and were possibly associated with early sporadic uses of the area or with Middle Bronze Age settlement activity. However,

The fields formed are smaller than th e Romano -British fields to the south (see below), at 0.35ha to 0.45ha and parts of the modern field system appear to be perpetuated from them. The axis of both this field system and the modern fields are tilted from the ouch rn Romano -Briti h and mod rn fields

48

SCARCEWATER, PENNANCE, CORNWALL

caution is needed as both simple charcoal-free and charcoalrich pits have been record d in Cornwall, which were found to dace to the Romano-British period and at Stencoose to the earlier medieval Gones and Taylor 2004; Jones 2000-1). At the latter site radiocarbon dating of charcoal-rich pits, located on the margins of the 'lowland' and 'downland' were associated with episodes of early medieval activity, which were probably linked with transhumance. Given the comparable topographical situation of Scarcewacer, it is possible chat some pits could be pose-prehistoric coo.

structure measuring approximately 7m by Sm. Two larger pits, [2300] and [2306], flanked a group of three smaller possible poscholes, [2302], [2304], and [2308]. None of the features produced finds but a subsoil horizon adjacent co [2308], (2310), possibly a buried land surface, contained a small abraded sherd of gabbroic Romano-British pottery.

Likewise, the fragmentary field systems pose similar problems. Several of the ditches appear co predate the layout of che Romano-British period field system (see below). Middle Bronze Age field systems are widely known in southern England (Yates 2007; Bradley 2007, 188) and certainly known from the uplands of Cornwall and Devon, most notably on Bodmin Moor and Dartmoor Qohnson and Rose 1994; Fleming 1988;Jones 2004-5) and possibly also on the Lizard and in west Penwith as well Qohns and Herring 1996; Smith 1996). However, all of these field systems are defined by stony banks and currently the earliest securely dated ditched field systems in Cornwall belong to the Iron Age (for example, Johns forthcoming). This means chat the fragmentary field systems at Scarcewater could actually dace to any time from the second millennium cal BC to the early years of the first millennium cal AD.

Settlement and field system (Figs. 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37)

Summary The minimal data suggests a rectangular measuring 7.8m by 5.6m.

a structure

A group of related ditches, pits, and poscholes were concentrated in the southern part of the excavation, at the edge of the stripped area, although elements of a field system covered much of the stripped area (Figs. 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37) . Ac the southern end of the excavation area, within the area enclosed by [2185] and [2168], was a series of pits and ditches, of a smaller scale than the main field ditches. Few stratigraphic relationships were established but finds from the features spanned the entire Roman period. The features probably represent activity on the edge of a settlement. The few stratigraphic relationships which were identified, along with limit ed evidence from finds, have allowed a ten cacivephasing of the features.

Romano-British period (AD 43-410)

Phase1{Fig.34)

The evidence for Rom ano-British activity at Scarcewacer comprised at lease one building, Structure 2330, a mulcipha ed field yscem and two or quite probably three burial , [2150), [2315] and [2153]. The evidence for settlement activity was largely found within the area around the medieval settlement of Pennance with evidence for an extensive field system and the burials to the north.

The earliest feature iden cified, pit [4 14], wa shallow, contained no finds, and its function remains unknown.

Phase2 (Figs.34 and 35) Pit [414] is cut by a ditch , [481 ]/[2664], up to 0.Sm deep and 1m wide, which runs north-ease co south-west for 9.7m. After a 2.8m-wide gap chis feature appears to continue up to the edge of the excavated area as ditch [416]. The terminals of both of these ditches were excavated with no finds forthcoming, but from the upper fill of the ditch further co the north -east six sherds of burnished gabbroic pottery were recovered dating from the first century BC co the second century AD. These ditches were of comparable size co field ditch [2185], part of the larger scale field enclosures. This coo had sherds of Roman dace, one of which was the rim of a Type 4 jar, not closely datable (Quinnell below). le seems likely that the field system of which [2185] forms a part belong s to chis phase.

Structure 2330 (Fig. 33) A probable pose-built construction, Structure 2330 was located around the 100m contour in the central part of the excavated area (Fig. 33). The site did not produce any closely dateable finds although it was adjacent co a land surface which produced Romano-British pottery. Its inclusion here is therefore tentative. A small group of five cut features was situated within an area of undulating pock-marked stony natural clay subsoil. The features were all shallow, presumably a result of truncation, and lay within an area in which many other features were initially identified but ruled out following investigation; these are not numbered on plan. However, it is possible, even likely to judge from the plan view, that these features were archaeological but extremely truncated. The group covered an area measuring approximately 12m by 9m. A group of possible stakeholes, (2329), so ephemeral chat they were not assigned individual context numbers, may form a rectangular

The largest scale features relating to this phase were a series of ditches delineating a rectilinear field system (Fig. 35). The field system consists of two rectilinear fields partly falling within the excavated area and a number of fields to the south of Pennance Farm identified by geophysical survey (GSB 2001a) and evaluation trenching (Taylor and Jon e 2002). Together these cover an area of just over 9ha. Thi field system is aligned alon g its main axis slightly more north -ease

49

ANDY M JONES AND SEAN R TAYLOR

+

•

0

G) I

(2306) stakeholes (2329)

_ ..--o·O·--~ .jJ

0~2304)

... slakeholes (2329)

·o ..

stakeh

(2302)

0

..C)

~

•••• ••••••••••••••

~3081

_....o· ••••O, ,()

0 0

stakeho les (2329)

2m

Figure33 Romano-BritishStructure2330 to south-west than the extant field system, but encloses fields of similar size (c 0.6 or 1.2 ha). The fields to the south of

assemblage from [2185) with the Type 4 jar rim referred to above. However , th e point at which [405) * was evaluated may also have been the site of an Iron Age monument similar to Cairn 2002 from which the material may have derived. To the ease the field ditches become shallower ([2162)) and the modern field system (thought co be of medieval origins) appears co share the same axis, suggesting a degree of continuity between che Romano -British and medieval period.

Pennance lay on the same axis as chose co the north but part of this axis curved co th e west and appeared to form a lane or corridor chat respected a circular anomaly investigated by the evaluation trenching. A number of linear features identified but unexcavaced during the watching brief appear to form part of chis field system. The main ditches were relatively deeply cut features, up co 0.4m deep with flat or concave bas s, and some displayed evidenc e of having been recur. The presenc e of Iron Age sherds in [405] * might suggest chat the system had its origins in chis period , and was subsequently recur in the early Rom an period as suggested by the pottery

Phase3 (Figs.34 and 36) The pair of ditches, [418) and [412), which cut ditch [481] / [2664], form a 90° angle and from th e extent visible might be assumed to form part of a D -shaped enclosur (Fig.

50

[219 21

·tr

L2692 J ♦

---- ·-·--··------~~

---- -·

{2196~

'-...._,

",, ',,,

---I/ ""

/

"

----

Du

....lo.

0

Phase 1

0P 0

nphased

hase2

,

~ ·

~

[420]

,/

[2667)

--~

~~-~ ....... ___

-12686)

C: {2688)

. humationt:;; [23151~------,n

---

[424)

"" ~~ '{ -~•"""... ',,,

c.n

-----------·-··· ··-··· Oi26 1lll -····--------

~

[2730) ♦

,,- (430)♦

'"