Archaeologists Find Roman Fort in Cornwall

[Primus Pilus]

A team of archaeologists from the University of Exeter has found a Roman fort dating from the 1st Century AD in fields in Cornwall. Several items of pottery have been excavated and a furnace which may have been used to smelt minerals.

 

Researchers said the find at Calstock, close to a silver mine, could show for the first time the Romans' interest in exploiting Cornish minerals. Very little is known so far about the Roman occupation in Cornwall...

 

BBC

[Melvadius]

A team of archaeologists from the University of Exeter has found a Roman fort dating from the 1st Century AD in fields in Cornwall. Several items of pottery have been excavated and a furnace which may have been used to smelt minerals.

 

Researchers said the find at Calstock, close to a silver mine, could show for the first time the Romans' interest in exploiting Cornish minerals. Very little is known so far about the Roman occupation in Cornwall...

 

BBC

 

 

The "24 Hour Museum" site has a couple of different images in their article, including one showing the distinctively shaped 1st century military ditch:

 

http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh_gfx_en/ART53684.html

[caldrail]

Interesting. I hadn't seen anything previously of roman activity down there.

[Northern Neil]

The OS map (6th edition)of Roman Britain shows fort at Nanstallon in East Cornwall. My (very) old edition also shows a fort at Launceston on the Corninsh/Devon border. The 'cest' part of that place name would seem to suggest a Roman site, however nothing is shown at Launceston on more recent editions. On my older map there is also a minor settlement quite far down in the peninsula with the Roman name 'NEMETOSTATIO' but again, this does not appear on modern editions.

[Melvadius]

The OS map (6th edition)of Roman Britain shows fort at Nanstallon in East Cornwall. My (very) old edition also shows a fort at Launceston on the Corninsh/Devon border. The 'cest' part of that place name would seem to suggest a Roman site, however nothing is shown at Launceston on more recent editions. On my older map there is also a minor settlement quite far down in the peninsula with the Roman name 'NEMETOSTATIO' but again, this does not appear on modern editions.

 

 

It is interesting to consider how our knowledge of and interpretation of the Roman occupation, particularily in this part has ebbed and flowed over the years. In several instances sites have been incorrectly 'positively' identified with only the most minimal of evidence and in others it has only been with advances in aerial photography and other archaeological techniques that what in hind sight have been blindingly obvious sites been located.

 

I actually have an old third edition of the OS Roman Britain map as well as a 5th edition and NEMETO STATIO (North Tawton) appears on both several miles to the WNW of Exeter; in the 3rd edition as a minor settlement and in the 5th with a small fort as well as a marching camp.

 

In fact the 3rd edition, to the West of Exeter (ISCA), despite a wide scatter of small Roman finds only has a sum total of 5 small settlements and 3 mines or quarries marked on it as well as 5 milestones (at least two of the latter) are miles from any known Roman road.

 

In comparison the 5th edition claims small forts at both Okehampton and Nanstallon but as you say nothing at Launceston, while there is no mention of any settlements in the area despite one villa and a major building being claimed near Redruth and the inclusion of about 6 'horde' sites.

 

I have seen and heard the complaint from several historians and archaeologists that several fort sites and Roman roads have previously been listed in OS maps purely on the basis of antiquarian reports, some of which have now been pretty much disproved. Without reference to recent site reports it is therefore difficult to tell which, if any, of the forts shown on either of these maps in this area should be taken as fact.

 

I do know that the general opinion of the SW has long been that the Roman military basically came in and conquered any resistance but before they left set up a few mining operations that continued for much of the Roman period.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Melvadius

[Melvadius]

I have doing a bit of addional thinking about the recent discoveries of Roman forts in Cornwall and there is one obvious point which has as far as I can tell been missed by the news reports of the discoveries.

 

Nanstallon, which previously was the only fort positively identified, lies approximately 2 miles west of Bodmin but of more significance is close to the River Camel which flows north into the Bristol Channel to the north of Cornwall.

 

Lostwithiel is also near Bodmin about 4 miles to the SSW and is also on a river but in this case the Fowey, which flows south into the English Channel.

 

Finally, the new discovery at Calstock (at the South eastern edge of cornawall and about 7 miles NNW of Plymouth) is also on river, in this case the Tamar which again flows into the English Channel.

 

In all three cases the rivers near to the forts would have been navigable, at least seasonally, and coupled with close proximity to mining activity it raises the question if we should also be looking for evidence of Roman wharfs nearby.

 

In my view it is hiughly likely that Romans took the obvious option and removed the bulk of the mined material by the easiest route via the nearest sea port rather than overland. Even with reasonable roads it would probably have taken weeks to get a significant load of processed let alon part processed minerals anywhere.

 

The close proximity of two forts to Bodmin, apparently active around the same time but on different watercourses, coupled with the discoveries of numerous bars of processed metals found around Britain only reinforces both the view of an Imperial monopoly and the consequent close involvement of the Roman Army in mineral extraction during the early Roman occupation.

[Northern Neil]

I wonder if the lack of Roman activity in Cornwall is more apparent rather than real. The Dumnonii do not seem to have been particularly anti Roman - except perhaps in the beginning. Thus, there would be less need for internal security than in places such as Wales and Northern England. Accordingly, less forts means less settlements built in the Roman manner developed from vici.

 

Maybe the Dumnonii were more than happy to be part of the Empire if it meant increased trading and employment in mining operations and the wharfes near the forts that Melvadius alludes to. And as such, the Romans were quite happy for town life to be on the lines of Chysauster rather than Londinium. Sites such as this, although built in the British fashion, show through finds that their inhabitants were quite happy to enjoy aspects of Roman culture such as mass produced goods and luxuries.

 

Being to far west to suffer raids from Saxon pirates, there would also be no need for increased fortifications guarding estuaries later on.