by Matthew Law

Site name: Carn Brea County: Cornwall
NGR: SW 684408

Excavation date(s): 1970-73
Excavator: Roger J Mercer, MA, FSA

Excavation publication: Cornish Archaeology 20, 1981

Landscape location/environmental setting of site:
The hill of Carn Brea is a long granite outcrop 1.5km to the south west of modern Redruth, on an area of sands, alluvial silts and clay subsoils which provide rich arable ground. The ‘hillfort' enclosure surrounds the central and eastern of the three summits.

Site description:
An enclosure surrounding the hilltop with a number of ‘hut circles' within. Neolithic activity was found to be concentrated within a granite walled enclosure surrounding the eastern summit, an area of two acres, within which were found a number of partially man-made terraces and structural remains.
Radiocarbon dating suggests a date of between 3100 and 2700 bc for this enclosure.
The first terrace on this excavated contained a ‘working hollow' - a 20cm deep depression - with evidence of burning within its fill, set around which were a mass of stake-hole features and a number of pits, probably relating to multi-phase replacements of the same design, a lean to structure against the enclosure wall. A second excavation outside the enclosure wall (Site A2) revealed a limited number of further stake-holes. A third excavation, Site D, at the eastern end of the enclosure, revealed deposits which may indicate a stretch of occupation some 6m long behind the wall, with a number of post-holes, post gullies and stake-holes, clearly showing a structural outline, although difficult to interpret. There is clear evidence, however, that all stages of this structure, as on the first terrace, have been destroyed by burning. To the south of this structure, a shallow depression was uncovered containing Neolithic sherds
Site J, between Site D and the first terrace Site A1, again provided evidence of a lean to structure, while Site K to the north of Site J, showed further structural evidence for occupation, but also an apparent gateway in the enclosure wall, where slabs have been placed alongside the natural bedrock to provide as narrow a point of access as possible. It appears, however, that at some point during occupation, the gateway was abandoned. Site E yielded an entire shallow bowl vessel beneath a collapsed slab of the enclosure wall that appears to have fallen directly onto the Neolithic surface.

A number of difficulties arose from the damage inflicted on the archaeology of the site by the construction of a later castle, by mining activity, by blasting associated with the laying of a track up to the castle and by horticultural activity, as well as natural creep erosion. In these circumstances, it is only possible to reconstruct a partial view of the past. There was an almost total lack of environmental evidence, making it very hard to establish prevailing conditions and a picture of economic activity at the site. Instead, the evidence uncovered was primarily artefactual, both in the form of small products of human activity (pottery, flint, stone), and larger remnants of human occupation (timber or stone structure).

The site is enclosed by a massive granite wall, which was built and largely collapsed during the Neolithic period, so it is assumed that its construction was one single conception. Calibrated radiocarbon dates for before the wall was built and after part of the wall collapsed suggest a maximum life period for the enclosure of 600 years, and a minimum of 50, although Sites J and K show some evidence of occupation prior to the construction of the wall.

The function of the wall is difficult to ascertain. A contrast of the archaeological evidence between Sites A1 and A2 appears to show that it certainly did serve to enclose the structural elements of the occupation. It may be that the hearths outside the enclosure were used for more hazardous activities unsuitable for close proximity to the timber structures inside. The effort behind the construction of the wall suggests a very important purpose, most likely as an obstacle to other people. It may also have been a sign of the status of the community who built it The fact that 703 leaf-shaped arrowheads were found during the excavation, mostly concentrated on or around the wall suggests that the defensive need was very real. Perhaps the collapse of the wall and the recurrence of burning within are indicative of deliberate spoliation following a successful attack.

It appears that the group within the enclosure had trade connections throughout the South West, with some cherts having likely origins on Portland, some flints deriving from Sidmouth, while some of the pottery appears to originate on the Lizard peninsula. The presence of axe-polishers on the site may show that local resources were also being exploited.

In terms of local patterns, hilltop settlements of the Middle Neolithic have long been a recognised feature of the archaeology of South West England, such as at Hambury Fort or Crickley Hill, although the outlying defensive complex at Carn Brea is only to be witnessed at one other British site, Hambledon Hill. Elsewhere in Britain, a Neolithic enclosure in a lowland setting exists at Orsett in Essex. Blewburton Hill, in Berkshire, shows evidence for some Neolithic occupation. Evidence in Wales, Scotland and Ireland is very fragmentary, although they do combine to show that Neolithic hilltop fortification is a recurrent feature in British archaeology.

Return to Summaries of Major Archaeological Sites

Return to Contents