Roman Cornwall

[gilius]

Besides a milestones, a fort, and single Roman villa that the Roman Britain website presents in their layered maps, hardly anything substantially Roman is to be found in the southwest of England beyond Exeter. In fact, I visited 2 Romano-British settlements in Cornwall called Chycauster and Carn Euny as recommended by my books on Romano-British sites with visible remains, and to my horror, they were actually Iron-Age/Celtic style!

 

1) Has anyone seen an archaeological report of the Roman villa in Cornwall? I've searched the 'net for a plan or pic without success.

2) Has much Roman pottery and coins been found in southwest England?

3) Is there any proof that the Romans actually properly annexed Cornwall and not just the Exeter part of the former tribal area? Did it even have Client king status?

4) Besides Wales and Scotland, were the Romans constantly faced with revolts from the SW of England?

5) Could the fact that 3 unlocated settlements named in Ptolemy's geography as several in Scotland mean that they were actually native non-Roman settlements?

6) Has any Roman roads been discovered past Exeter?

Edited January 10, 2011 by gilius

[GhostOfClayton]

Sadly, I haven't got my OS Map of Roman Britain with me at the moment (we will be joyfully reunited later today, so I'll have a look then).

 

There were at least three forts found, including a 1st century near &searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf"]Calstock (north of Plymouth - only just into Cornwall) which has been associated with possible silver mining. The other two are at and Restormel Castle, &searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf"]Lostwithiel, and at &searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf"]Nanstallon, near Bodmin. Both sites are close to mineral deposits in areas associated with tin mining.

 

The only other thing that springs to mind are the remains of a Roman Signal Station on the north coast near to Hunter's Inn, but these are not in Cornwall, but Devon. However, signal stations didn't exist in isolation.

 

To say that the Romans 'constantly' faced revolt is probably quite a pessimistic view. Remember, they held a fixed northern border for 300 years. In all that time, there's evidence for less than half a dozen times when they encountered anything you could call a revolt. And they didn't even feel the urge to establish a fixed border in the southwest (as far as we know).

 

Chysauster sounds interesting, etymologically. At a stretch, the name could have 'Castrum' somewhere in its origin . . . maybe . . . if you squint at it?

 

Is your photo of one of the Romano-British settlements, by the way, Gilius? Romano-British is another term with quite a loose meaning. At its most flexible, it means nothing more than local inhabitants of Britannia during the Roman occupation. Especially away from the South-East, life went on pretty much unchanged for the majority of so-called Romano-British.

Edited January 11, 2011 by GhostOfClayton

[GhostOfClayton]

Also, the following can be found on Wikipedia (Am I sufficiently modest to not take credit for it? No way - it's mine!)

 

[gilius]

Thanks for your reply. To me, 3 forts means the Romans must have been fighting the natives, but I don't actually know what the historical sources say about this region.

 

Yep--the pic is from Chycauster.

 

That part of the Peutinger Table would appear to be a fake reconstruction from the end of the 19th century and not from the original (lost) sheet.

 

If SW England was properly conquered and assimilated then no way would a settlement in the style of Chycauster have remained standing during the later Roman period (that's my theory). I believe the tribes in this region must have remained independent of Roman rule.

Edited January 11, 2011 by gilius

[Melvadius]

Regarding item 1 of your query the issue is that according to Cornwall Council's archive the report 'The Roman Villa at Magor Farm, near Camborne, Cornwall' was printed By B H St J O'Neil, in Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, volume twenty-four, points one and two (1933-34), journal numbers 80 and 81. I doubt if it is available on the net although I am certain that a copy will reside in the British Library as well as some of the specialist University Libraries - the Sackler in Oxford for one.

 

Regarding GoC's posting of the 'Cornweall' Map I would only point out one item of caution that as I understand it the British element of the larger maproll was badly damaged and incomplete. What is shown now is a reproduction made several decades ago but I am uncertain precisely how close a relationship it bears to the effectively now lost original.

 

Edit - on a general point you may find the intertactive Roman Britain map instructive as you can see a lot of the known archaeological sites and finds for Cornwall on it

[Melvadius]

Sadly, I haven't got my OS Map of Roman Britain with me at the moment (we will be joyfully reunited later today, so I'll have a look then).

 

There were at least three forts found, including a 1st century near Calstock (north of Plymouth - only just into Cornwall) which has been associated with possible silver mining. The other two are at and Restormel Castle, Lostwithiel, and at Nanstallon, near Bodmin. Both sites are close to mineral deposits in areas associated with tin mining.

 

<SNIP>

Is your photo of one of the Romano-British settlements, by the way, Gilius? Romano-British is another term with quite a loose meaning. At its most flexible, it means nothing more than local inhabitants of Britannia during the Roman occupation. Especially away from the South-East, life went on pretty much unchanged for the majority of so-called Romano-British.

 

This BBC report from June 2010 suggests that a much longer lived fort was in use near St Austell from AD60 up to about AD250 much more than the other two forts which are generally dated AD50 to AD80. Given the paucity of specific information in the report it is probable that it is the Restmorel Castle, Lostwithiel site already mentioned and this seems confirmed by this article in the Conrwall Arcaeological Society site.

 

I would also agree that Romano-British is a term which can lead to confusion but in this case simply means a site occupied during the period of Roman control in Britain. Iron Age 'style' farmhouses continued throughout most of the Romano-British period and in some cases are found almost side-by-side with forts used for similarly extensive periods.

[gilius]

Iron Age 'style' farmhouses continued throughout most of the Romano-British period and in some cases are found almost side-by-side with forts used for similarly extensive periods.

I only know about a couple that were at Vindolanda. Chysauster was an entire settlement (same with Carn Euny). These villages would look very out of place in a Roman Civitas (post 2nd Century) IMO.

[caldrail]

Roman Britain can be divided into three demographic regions. The all important southeast, with a proliferation of Roman culture, is the anchor point of their civilisation in the British Isles. Next to this is a strip of territory running from the mid south to the mid east of England, where local and roman cultures existed side by side comfortably. The third region really was a frontier. Small pockets of Roman presence surrounded by native tribes living as they always had. Cornwall falls within this last category and archaeology does not discount its inclusion.

 

In any case, the Roman presence in the far southwest was a formality. The locals, possibly due to a long history of trade with foreigners, seem to have accepted Roman rule and since they were so co-operative, the usual impingement of authority was unnecessary. For that reason alone, it's unlikely you'll find much in the way of Roman remains in that region.

[Melvadius]

Some good points by Caldrail but regarding point 6 of the original query; the Roman Britain site also notes the discovery of at least 5 milestones in Cornwall at widely separated locations under their entry for Ictis Insula. This separation would seem to argue for a fair degree of control throughout the area and possibly also support the view that the Roman's felt there was no need to construct formal (ie military) roads.

[GhostOfClayton]

Thanks for your reply. To me, 3 forts means the Romans must have been fighting the natives, but I don't actually know what the historical sources say about this region.

 

<SNIP>

 

If SW England was properly conquered and assimilated then no way would a settlement in the style of Chycauster have remained standing during the later Roman period (that's my theory). I believe the tribes in this region must have remained independent of Roman rule.

 

Quick update, the OS Map of Roman Britain shows the fort near Bodmin and several major hoardes.

 

I don't think the presence of 3 forts automatically means rebellious locals, there were plenty of forts in peaceful client kingdoms. A fort really signalled the seed of Roman presence in the area, whether they felt threatened or not by the populace. In fact, considering that there were only 3 forts (found so far) and no evidence of roads or other military infrastructure, possibly means the Romans weren't motivated to do anything other than provide a token protection for their mining operations in the area.

 

It's likely that this was an area with a much lesser Roman presence, and so influence, than elsewhere. In that grey area between 'occupied' and 'outside the empire'.

 

Chycauster would have remained standing, as it had done long before the Romans arrived, unaffected by their token presence. The Romans wouldn't have been motivated to knock it down, and the inhabitants wouldn't have been motivated to move out of it.

[Northern Neil]

...And they didn't even feel the urge to establish a fixed border in the southwest (as far as we know).

This small but telling part of Ghost of Clayton's post more or less says it all. Cornwall was not conquered in, say, a 'Caesaresque' way because it was unneccessary. I believe that once the Dumnonii accepted Roman rule and settled into their nice new Roman style capital at Exeter, they continued to administer Cornwall, just as they ruled it before Romanisation. As far as the Governor of Britannia was concerned, I suspect he didn't care about natives living in round houses as long as the tin and copper production was kept up.

[caldrail]

It is often forgotten that the Romans did not organise occupied Britsin as a replacement administration, but rather co-opted local leaders into their society to do that for them and smooth out the process of extracting tax and service from the natives. Notice that Roman towns were initially sited as tribal centers. Calleva Atrebatum for instance, which refers to the settlement as being the administrative headquarters for the Atrebates tribe.

 

Of course they encouraged foreigners to do as the Romans do, but note how Tacitus sneers at thwe Britons who aped their betters. Obviously they couldn't always do that and yes, sometimes they had rebellions or regional conquests to make, enforcing their rule if necessary. Roman Britain was in many ways analogous to the 'Wild West'. Some areas got along with the 'Ro-Man', other areas resisted. Some areas were well settled, others were little more than wilderness.