A New Chronology for the Welsh Hillfort of Dinas Powys
Dinas Powys was excavated by Leslie Alcock in the 1950s. Its rich finds assemblage set a
standard for elite sites in post-Roman western Britain and offers rare insight into a region
within the former Roman Empire where emergent socio-political structures were unaffected
by ‘barbarian’ incursion. Alcock argued that the main defences belonged to a Norman period
castle, but whilst this has been rejected the original dating continues to be wrongly quoted.
This paper demonstrates via stratigraphic analysis and new radiocarbon dates that the
Norman phase is a misnomer and that the early medieval site was a strongly defended multiphase fort.
In northern and western Britain, fortified sites dominate our knowledge of the form that
central places of power and governance took in the early medieval period (Alcock 2003:
179; Seaman 2016: 37; Noble et al. 2019: 57). These sites can be seen within the context of
a wider movement towards the (re)occupation of hilltops that can be traced across much of
Europe between the third/fourth and seventh centuries AD (Pavlovič and Heinrich-Tamáska
2022). A great diversity of sites relating to a range of political, social, and economic
conditions were occupied, but our understanding this European ‘Late Antique hillfort
phenomenon’ is constrained by small numbers of large-scale excavations and a lack of
reliable dating evidence. Leslie Alcock’s 1953-8 excavations at Dinas Powys recovered what
was then, and still remains today, the largest assemblage of post-Roman (fifth to seventh
century) material culture from Wales and provides an internationally important case study.
Alcock’s subsequent publication (1963) established Dinas Powys as a ‘type site’ for postRoman western Britain. Indeed, for thirty years until the publication of the Cadbury
Congresbury hillfort (Rahtz et al. 1992), it was the only such site which had been excavated
to modern standards and published, and thus defined a view of early medieval ‘Celtic’
settlement in western Britain for a generation of students and academics. Further wider
significance derives from the fact that Dinas Powys provides a model for the emergence of
post-Roman society in a rare example of a lowland region of the western Roman Empire
that was unaffected by ‘barbarian’ incursion in the fifth and sixth centuries AD (Wickham
2010). It was also one of the first hillforts to have a substantial proportion of its interior
2
excavated, an aspect of investigation that still remains rare for early medieval hillfort
studies. Alcock’s report was influential in his attempt to use Welsh and Irish legal and other
texts to reconstruct the site’s social and political context in the early medieval period. He
saw Dinas Powys as ‘the court (llys) and hall (neuadd) of a chieftain’ of the emergent postRoman kingdom of Glywysing (Alcock 1963: vii). However, Alcock’s use of late medieval
sources was problematic and several aspects of his interpretation have been challenged
(Campbell 1991; Seaman 2013).
Nevertheless, the scale of the excavations and richness of the finds remain of international
significance and Dinas Powys continues to feature prominently in historical and
archaeological literature in and beyond Wales (e.g. Carver 2019: 189; Charles-Edwards 2013:
223; Davies 1982: 20, 23, 35; Naismith 2021: 169; Wickham 2005: 815). Our understanding
of the substantial artefact assemblage has been enhanced by important re-analysis by
James Graham-Campbell (1991) and Ewan Campbell (1991), but the significance of the site
has been distorted by uncertainties and misunderstandings surrounding its dating and
chronology. The 1950s-1960s picture was hindered by the complex and disturbed
stratigraphy, a lack of scientific dating, and the excavation techniques of the time. These
have been compounded by misreading of Alcock’s sequence and wider misconceptions
about the form of early medieval fortifications (Alcock 1980). Significant problems with the
proposed dating of Dinas Powys were highlighted as early as 1988 (Campbell in Edwards and
Lane 1988: 59-61).
In 1991 Ewan Campbell presented a detailed and convincing alternative phasing (re-asserted
in 1993 and 2007) and this was subsequently supported by preliminary radiocarbon dating
of material from the site archive (Seaman 2013: 5-6). Nevertheless, Alcock’s original
chronology still appears in specialist and popular literature and even on the National
Monuments Record of Wales (RCAHMW 1991: 99-103; Carver 2019: 198-191; Snyder 1998:
190-2; Konstam 2008: 60; Wiles 2008). This article draws together over 30 years of
questioning and refining the site chronology, now backed up by a more robust series of
absolute dates from a new programme of radiocarbon dating. We set out a new phasing for
the most prominent early medieval site known from Wales, with the results having a
significant impact on the interpretation of Dinas Powys and wider implications for our
3
understanding of post-Roman western Britain and the (re)occupation of Late Antique hilltop
sites more generally.
Power centres of the ‘Celtic West’
Dinas Powys (ST148723), Glamorgan, is a small inland promontory fort of c. 0.35ha that is
enclosed by four sets of banks and ditches on its southern side. It occupies the tip of a
prominent whaleback ridge, with the ground dropping-off steeply around. The site is now
densely wooded, but a recent programme of terrestrial laser scanning provides an excellent
visualization of the monumentality of the defences in stark contrast to the small area
enclosed (See Figures 1 and 2). Three of the four banks (1, 3, and 4) are at least 6m wide and
4m high from bank top to ditch base and cover an area of 0.25 ha in contrast to the interior
of 0.1 ha. The layout of the earthworks suggests that Bank 2 was the earliest and was
succeeded by Banks 1 and 3, the latter of which was succeeded by Bank 4. Around 140m to
the south lie a second set of earthworks referred to by Alcock as the ‘Southern Banks’ but
officially as the Ty’n-y-Coed earthworks. These consist of two sections of bank and ditch
forming the north-west and north-east sides of a partial enclosure with dimensions of at
least 60m north-east by 50m south-west.
Dinas Powys was initially considered to be Iron Age, but early on in the excavation Alcock
identified sherds of imported post-Roman pottery that were directly comparable to those
which Raleigh Radford had recently published from Tintagel, Cornwall (Radford 1956). He
also recovered sherds of glass from Merovingian and Anglo-Saxon vessels (Alcock 1956:
247). Post-Roman material was barely known from Wales at the time, but the richness of
the assemblage indicated activity of significant status. The exotic and high status material
included the pottery and glass, but also ferrous and non-ferrous metalwork, a large quantity
of animal bone, and evidence for the production of ornamental metalwork, probably
including penannular brooches (see Figures 3 & 4) (Campbell 1991, 434–8). Evidence for
internal features was slight, but included several hearths, along with drainage gullies and
post-holes that were tentatively interpreted as evidence for two buildings (see Figure 5).
Whilst around 30 contemporary hillforts and enclosed settlements can now be recognised in
Wales and south-west England (Seaman 2016; forthcoming), Dinas Powys remains one of
the richest in terms of the quality and quantity of the assemblage. In contrast to the
4
promontory fort, the Ty’n-y-Coed earthworks produced little material, but Alcock saw the
two sites as at least partly connected.
Alcock’s Chronology
Alcock’s chronology followed a six phase scheme. Phases 1 and 2 were identified as a preRoman settlement including an enclosed phase defined by Ty’n-y-Coed Bank A. Phase 3 was
represented by a small number of Romano-British artefacts brought to the site from other
occupations in the landscape. In Phase 4 the early medieval occupation took shape within a
single bank and ditch (Bank 2). This was split into two sub-phases with a fifth century
occupation associated with hearths, a post-built structure, a single infant burial and a
possible enclosing palisade. A fifth to seventh century phase (Phase 4b) was associated with
the accumulation of rich midden material and two buildings interpreted on the basis of the
drainage gullies. The site was then abandoned until the late eleventh or twelfth century. The
final two phases were dated to the Norman period and were said to include a native Welsh
ringwork castle of the eleventh to twelfth century defined by Bank 1 surmounted by a
timber palisade (Phase 5). This was replaced by a multivallate ringwork castle of the late
eleventh to twelfth century (Phase 6), built in response to the threat of Norman invasion.
This was defined by Banks 3 and 4 and an incomplete outer bailey (Bank 5), and said to have
been built whilst the site was under siege from Ty’n-y-Coed Bank B, which Alcock
interpreted as a Norman siegework.
Alcock interpreted the phase 4 site as a ‘princely household’, importing wine and pottery
from the Mediterranean and patronising craftsmen to make fine objects of bronze and gold
(Alcock 1963: 61). Nevertheless, whilst Alcock thought this settlement was high status, he
did not consider it to be a hillfort – rather a weakly enclosed settlement. He explored the
possibility that the monumental Banks 1, 3, and 4 belonged to his phase 4, but ultimately
ascribed them to the ringwork castle of his phases 5–6 (Alcock 1963: 73-93). In a short, but
influential article he generalised that early medieval forts were less than two and a half
acres [around one hectare] in area and had ‘only puny defences’ (Alcock 1962: 52).
A new vision?
Alcock’s dating of the multivallation was based on weak evidence, largely five sherds from a
single vessel of ‘Norman pottery’ found in the upper, and much disturbed, layers of Bank 1,
which he argued provided a terminus post quem for the bank’s construction. His reasoning
5
was influenced by contemporary work on siegeworks and his direct involvement in
investigating ringwork castles (King and Alcock 1969; Renn 1959). This included excavations
at Penmaen where the defences and position in the landscape display superficial similarities
to Dinas Powys (Alcock 1963: 74-81, 1966; J Knight pers. comm.). Alcock was aware that
multivallate ringworks and the form of the Ty’n-y-Coed Bank B ‘siegework’ were unusual
(Alcock 1963: 91-93) and he did revisit his interpretations in a later publication aware of a
growing critique, but ultimately reasserted his original sequence (Alcock 1987: 20-66; 83-
96). RCAHMW also persisted in its allocation of Dinas Powys to the late eleventh or twelfth
century in spite of noting its exceptional siting and form (1991: 98).
In the late 1980s a detailed critical analysis of the dating of Alcock’s phases 5 and 6 was
undertaken (Campbell 1991, 1993, 2007, 97–9). Campbell noted that there were no other
native Welsh defensive works in Glamorgan in the immediate pre-Norman period and after
the invasion these were confined to upland lordships that remained under Welsh control
(Spurgeon 1991). Campbell also noted the lack of secure stratification for the sherds of
pottery from upper layers of Bank 1 and moreover, that this type of pottery post-dated the
Norman invasion of south Wales (Vince 1983: 712; Papazian 1990: 24). The unusual nature
of the ‘ringworks’ in a Norman context were also noted including the multivallation, the use
of stone-revetments, the presence of a palisade and the narrow steep path to the entrance.
The defences were noted to be much more characteristic of the local Iron Age/early
medieval tradition of hillfort building (RCAHMW 1976). The lack of parallels for the
‘siegework’ to the south was also highlighted (e.g. Renn 1959: fig 3). The extreme paucity of
Norman period finds at Dinas Powys is also in stark contrast to other sites dating to the
initial phase of Norman colonisation of Glamorgan (e.g. Alcock 1966; Charlton et al. 1977;
Papazian 1990: site 29). The evidence for a Norman period phase at Dinas Powys was found
to be extremely limited. In contrast, spatial distribution analyses (Campbell 2007: 88-99)
showed that, in the south-east area of the fort at least, the early medieval pottery and glass
formed coherent groups of sherds from individual vessels and that in relation to Bank 1 the
position of imports adhered to the relative dating of these imports (Figure 6), which
precluded Alcock’s hypothesis that early medieval material had been ‘scraped-up’ and
redeposited to form the later Norman defences.
6
New dating evidence
At the time of Campbell’s initial critique he noted that radiocarbon dating could be used to
test Alcock’s dating of phases 5 and 6. However, while stratified carbonised samples were
identified in Alcock’s archive these were at the time too small to date. More recently the
authors, with the assistance of Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales, identified
eight charcoal samples that were suitable for dating with modern AMS techniques (Table 1).
These were single entity, short-life samples, from securely stratified contexts. Four samples
were dated from the fills of post-holes associated with the ‘palisade’ that Alcock deemed to
be contemporary with or slightly later than Bank 1 and two samples from the midden
deposits on the back of Bank 1.Two further samples come from deposits that were
apparently sealed by Bank 1, including a post-hole and a metalworking deposit associated
with a fragment of a lead die for a penannular brooch mould.
The most important observation is that all of the dates, including the six from Alcock’s
‘Norman period’ phase 5, calibrate to the fifth to seventh centuries AD. There are some
cases of probable residuality and intrusion e.g. material from below Bank 1 has slightly later
dates than the secondary fills of the postholes (not the posts themselves) that cut it, but
there is also no evidence of Norman period activity from any of the dated features. Indeed
Bayesian modelling of the dates suggests that the dated activity began in cal AD 510-600;
95% probability) and did not stretch beyond the seventh century (end date cal AD 590-680;
95% probability), phasing which correlates well with the artefactual evidence (Campbell
1991: 97). While there are only a small number of dates available thus far, the modelling
tentatively also suggests a relatively short span of 0-145 years (95% probability) (Figure 7).
Alcock’s single cutting through the Ty’n-y-Coed earthworks produced very little evidence
and his dating was, by his own admission, speculative, suggesting both a possible Iron Age
phase (Bank A) and a Norman period ‘siegework’ (Bank B). In 2011-14, excavations provided
evidence that these Ty’n-y-coed earthworks did not have a Norman phase either (Seaman
and Lane 2019). Bank B is Late Iron Age, demonstrated by the presence of a South West
Decorated Ware (SWDW) sherd of pottery below the bank and an almost complete vessel
within a lower fill of the associated ditch. SWDW was in circulation in south Wales between
the late-second century BC and the mid-first century AD. A sherd of mid-second century
Samian ware was also recovered from the upper fill of the same ditch. The ditch of Bank A
7
included charred material dating to the sixth to eighth centuries AD, broadly contemporary,
if slightly later than Bank 1 in the interior of Dinas Powys. No conclusive dating material
from Bank A itself was recovered, but the finds from an agricultural soil sealed by the bank
included two small sherds of SWDW. The radiocarbon dates from the ditch associated with
Bank A provide a strong indication that the ditch was not cut before the mid-seventh
century AD.
A New Chronology
A new chronology can be proposed for Dinas Powys:
Phase 1 relates to Neolithic/Early Bronze Age activity, perhaps consisting of unenclosed
settlement on both the promontory and Ty’n-y-Coed earthworks area.
Understanding of the nature and chronology of the prehistoric material encountered by
Alcock has improved significantly since the 1950s, and re-analysis of the material suggests
revision is needed to the early part of Alcock’s dating scheme. Whilst the quantity of the
prehistoric pottery and flint is not large, the character and quantity (169 pieces of flint from
the 1953-8 excavation and 11 pieces from 2011-4), is generally consistent with some form of
in situ Neolithic and early Bronze Age settlement (Butler 2005), and includes primary and
secondary flakes, cores and flake debitage, all indicative of a series of individual knapping
episodes. Although Neolithic or early Bronze Age occupation features have not been
identified, it is possible that the intensive later occupation has truncated or masked features
from these earlier periods.
Phase 2 included middle-late Bronze Age/early Iron Age activity on the promontory,
potentially associated with some post-holes identified by Alcock and possibly enclosed by
Bank 2.
Sherds of prehistoric pottery from the promontory (See Figure 8), that Alcock assigned to his
Phase 1 (Iron Age A), can now be broadly assigned to the late Middle to Late Bronze Age
(Jody Deacon in litt.). Sherds from the make-up of Banks 1 and 3, have a slightly later
character, being much thinner walled and displaying the finger-tip decoration characteristic
of the Early Iron Age. Much of this material was recovered from early medieval contexts, so
it is difficult to determine the nature of activity. Nevertheless, a small amount of animal
8
bone was recovered from pre-rampart deposits, and it possible that postholes in the southeast part of the promontory and below Bank 3 were associated with this phase. Both Alcock
(1963: 27) and Campbell (1991: 55, 2007) discussed the possibility that Bank 2, which is of a
very different character to Banks 1, 3, and 4, was prehistoric in date, but ultimately favoured
construction in the fifth or sixth century AD. The dating evidence for Bank 2 should not be
overstated however, and whilst it is true that the distribution of prehistoric sherds extended
either side of the bank, suggesting that occupation was not constrained by it, only two small
sherds were recovered from below it. Indeed, when discussing a single sherd of early
medieval import ware which was also found below the bank, Alcock (1963: 27) noted that
the area was much disturbed by animal burrows. Overall the date of Bank 2 is at present
unresolved, and whilst Alcock argued that the focus of prehistoric settlement probably lay
outside of the excavated area (Alcock 1963: 18–9) it remains a possibility that Bank 2 was
associated with occupation on the north end of the promontory between the Middle Bronze
Age and Early Iron Age.
Phase 3 consists of a late Iron Age/early Roman settlement ‘enclosure’ (Ty’n-y-Coed Bank
B), which was probably associated with the formation of an agricultural soil sealed by Ty’ny-Coed Bank A. This appears to have been abandoned by the early Roman period, after
which there is little evidence for activity here until the early medieval period.
Phase 4a saw intensive development from the fifth century AD onwards, beginning with
high-status settlement on the promontory within the area enclosed by Bank 2. This
settlement was associated with metalworking evidence and Mediterranean imports.
Phase 4b was a developed promontory fort of the sixth-seventh centuries AD. High status
occupation continued with Continental imports (E ware) and Bank 1 was constructed. Banks
3 and 4 are most likely of this phase too. Construction of Ty’n-y-Coed Bank A, potentially an
unfinished enclosure associated with unrealised re-occupation of the late Iron Age Bank B
enclosure, may also to belong to this or feasibly the following phase.
Phase 5 saw abandonment of the hill in the later seventh century or eighth century.
Phase 6 is represented by small quantities of late- and post-medieval pottery most likely
derived from casual visiting and low-level agricultural activity.
9
Discussion
Our proposed chronology for Dinas Powys departs significantly from that put forward by
Alcock and followed in multiple sources for decades since. With regards the early evidence
we suggest that the prehistoric activity was more persistent and prolonged that has hitherto
been appreciated. Phase 1 activity is comparable to other hilltop flint scatters in the region,
which appear to relate to temporary occupation exploiting areas of high ground. In terms of
the later and most important phase, the programme of radiocarbon dating suggests that
post-Roman activity on the promontory may not have commenced until around AD 500,
with the major part of Alcock’s Norman period ringwork castle, Bank 1, now confirmed to be
of early medieval date as Campbell suspected, and most likely constructed sometime in the
late sixth or seventh century AD. Moreover, the early medieval midden deposits identified
on the back of Bank 1 can be confirmed as in situ (See Campbell 2007: 88-99, and fig 69 for
detailed spatial distributions of artefacts and reconstruction of activity areas).The new
evidence strongly suggests that the defences of the early medieval fort were far from
‘puny’, and in contrast were greatly out of proportion to the area enclosed – an example of
conspicuous consumption undoubtedly for display as well as defence (Seaman 2013: 10-11).
The monumentality of the defences now aligns much more with the richness and
exceptional character of the artefact assemblage.
The identification from charter evidence of a small, short-lived kingdom in the Cardiff area
in the seventh/eighth centuries provides a possible socio-political context for this fortified
power centre (Campbell 1991: 225; Davies 1978, 94, 1982, fig 38). An important early
ecclesiastical centre at Llandough lies c. 2km to the east of Dinas Powys and the two sites
probably form parts of a polyfocal central zone for the territory (Seaman 2013: 12-15).
Alcock argued for a relationship between the apparent small size of forts like Dinas Powys
and the nature of warfare and social structure in post-Roman western Britain (Alcock 1971:
347). These ideas continue to be influential (i.e. Wickham 2005: 326-30), but must now be
questioned. Dinas Powys may be exceptional, but its wealth and monumentality contrasts
with interpretations that see society in post-Roman western Britain as small-scale and
economically under-developed.
10
Forts with close similarities to Dinas Powys in the south Wales region include Llanvithyn
(ST054718), Parkmill (SS548892), and North Hill Tor (SS453938). The RCAHMW dated North
Hill Tor to the Norman period on the basis of its similarities to Dinas Powys, and whilst they
noted that Llanvithyn and Parkmill are comparable to Dinas Powys in terms of size and
morphology their similarity was dismissed on the basis of Alcock’s phasing of Dinas Powys
(RCAHMW 1976: 14, 46, 117-9). All three of these sites are located close to significant
evidence for early medieval activity and the dating evidence presented here indicates that
an early medieval date is plausible for these sites, which are undoubtedly worthy of further
investigation (Campbell 1991: 228; Seaman and Sucharyna Thomas 2020: 13-4).
The radiocarbon dates from Dinas Powys also suggest that early medieval activity was
comparatively short-lived and the promontory fort appears to have been abandoned by the
later seventh century. Analysis of dates from all broadly comparable sites in Wales and
south-west England indicates that there was a widespread move away from hillforts in the
late-sixth/early-seventh century, pointing to a period of significant socio-political and
economic change. The effects of the Justinianic Plague could be significant for the decline of
hillforts alongside other factors including the consolidation of political units and the growth
of the Christian Church (Campbell 2007: 132; Comeau et al. in press). The evidence from the
south contrasts with that from northern Britain where later first millennium AD use of
defended sites is increasingly attested (Noble 2016: 30-1). Nevertheless, recent dating on
some sites in Scotland have shown, that certain sites, like Dinas Powys, were also of
relatively short duration, constructed and destroyed within a few generations at most
(Noble et al. In press). The use of fortified sites and their abandonment appears to have
been deeply implicated in the rise (and fall) of particular elite lineages in the early medieval
north and west of Britain.
While the new dating from Dinas Powys is important we have much yet to learn about this
and other early medieval power centres in western Britain. Aspects of our re-interpretation
of Dinas Powys remain tentative and new programmes of fieldwork and dating would
greatly benefit our knowledge of such a key site. Further dating evidence for all of the
ramparts, along with reassessment of the existing material assemblages, which were only
partially published by Alcock (Campbell 1991: app 8), would be welcome. For example,
whilst the Dinas Powys animal bone assemblage is the largest from western Britain, biases
11
introduced through Alcock’s sampling strategy and misunderstandings of the stratigraphy
have inhibited renewed analysis. The research potential of Dinas Powys should be seen in
the light of recent research-driven excavations of elite sites in other parts of Britain and
Ireland, which have brought about step changes in knowledge and understanding (eg.
O’Brien and Hogan 2021; Noble et al. 2019; Scull and Thomas 2020). Comparable projects
have not been undertaken in Wales and the hilltop location of elite sites of this period
means that few are likely to be encountered through development-led excavation. Given its
known research potential and the problems outlined above, a pressing case can be made for
further excavation and further analysis of the archive material at Dinas Powys. For now, this
reassessment, albeit limited in its scope and scale, provides the best understood and dated
sequence for an early medieval fort in Wales.
Acknowledgements
The laser scan of Dinas Powys was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology. We would also like
to thank Jeremy Knight, Anna Bloxam, Mark Lodwick, and Amgueddfa Cymru National
Museum Wales.
Funding statement
Dates for Bank 1 were partly funded by the Leverhulme Trust Comparative Kingship project
(RL-2016-069).
References
ALCOCK, L. 1956. The hill-fort in Cwrt-Yr-Ala Park, near Dinas Powis (Glam.): I. The defences.
Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 16:3, 242-50.
ALCOCK, L. 1962. Settlement patterns in Celtic Britain. Antiquity 36: 141, 51-55.
ALCOCK, L. 1963. Dinas Powys: An Iron Age, Dark Age and Early Medieval Settlement in
Glamorgan. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
ALCOCK, L. 1966. Castle Tower, Penmaen: a Norman ring-work in Glamorgan. Antiquaries
Journal 46: 178-210.
12
ALCOCK, L. 1980. Refortified or newly fortified? The chronology of Dinas Powys. Antiquity
54: 212, 131-2.
ALCOCK, L. 1987. Economy, Warfare and Society among the Britons and Saxons. Cardiff:
University of Wales Press.
ALCOCK, L. 2003. Kings and Warriors, Craftsmen and Priests in Northern Britain AD 550-850.
Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon, 51:1, 337–
360
BUTLER, C. 2005. Prehistoric Flintwork. Stroud: History Press.
CAMPBELL, E. 1991. Imported goods in the early medieval Celtic west: with special
reference to Dinas Powys. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cardiff University.
CAMPBELL, E. 1993. Dinas Powys, in N. Pounds (ed.) The Cardiff Area: 23-4. London: Royal
Archaeological Institute.
CAMPBELL, E. 2007. Continental and Mediterranean Imports to Atlantic Britain and Ireland,
AD 400–800. York: Council for British Archaeology.
CARVER, M. 2019. Formative Britain: An Archaeology of Britain, Fifth to Eleventh Century
AD. London: Routledge.
CHARLES-EDWARDS, T. 2013. Wales and the Britons 350-1064. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
CHARLTON, P. 1977. Llantrithyd: a ring-work in Glamorgan. Cardiff: Cardiff Archaeological
Society.
COMEAU, R. SEAMAN, A. & BLOXAM, A. In press. Plague, climate and faith in early medieval
western Britain: investigating narratives of change. Medieval Archaeology.
DAVIES, W. 1982. Wales in the Early Middle Ages. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
EDWARDS, N. & LANE, A. 1988. Early medieval settlements in Wales AD400-1100. Bangor
and Cardiff: Bangor University/Cardiff University.
GRAHAM-CAMPBELL, J. 1991. Dinas Powys metalwork and the dating of enamelled
zoomorphic penannular brooches. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 38, 220–32.
KING, D.J.C. and ALCOCK L. 1969. Ringworks in England and Wales. Château Gaillard 3, 90-
127.
KONSTAM, A. 2008. British Forts in the Age of Arthur. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.
13
NAISMITH, R. 2021. Early medieval Britain c. 500-1000. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
NOBLE, G. 2016. Fortified settlement and the emergence of kingdoms in northern Scotland
in the first millennium AD, in N. Christie and H. Herold (ed.) Fortified Settlements in Early
Medieval Europe: Defended Communities of the 8th-10th Centuries: 26-36. Oxford: Oxbow.
NOBLE, G. EVANS, N. GOLDBERG, M. & HAMILTON, D. In press. Burning matters: the rise and
fall of an early medieval fortified centre. A new chronology for Clatchard Craig, Medieval
Archaeology.
NOBLE, N. GONDEK, M. CAMPBELL, E. EVANS, N. HAMILTON, D. & TAYLOR, S. 2019. A
powerful place of Pictland: interdisciplinary perspectives on a power centre of the 4th to 6th
centuries AD, Medieval Archaeology 63:1, 56-94.
O’BRIEN, W. & HOGAN, N. 2021. Garranes: An Early Medieval Royal Site in South-West
Ireland. Oxford: Archaeopress.
PAPAZIAN, C. 1990. The survey of medieval ceramics from south-east Wales, Medieval
Ceramics 14, 32-40.
PAVLOVIČ, D. and HEINRICH-TAMÁSKA, O. 2022. Intentions and Meaning: A comparative
view of Late Antique Hilltop sites in Europe. Ljubljana: National Museum of Slovenia.
RADFORD, C.A.R. 1956. Imported pottery found at Tintagel, Cornwall, in B. Harden (ed.)
Dark Age Britain: Studies Presented to E. T. Leeds: 59-70. London: Methuen.
RAHTZ, P. WOODWARD, A. BURROW, I. EVERTON, A. WATTS, L. PEACH, P. HIRST, S. FOWLER,
P. & GARDNER, K. 1992. Cadbury Congresbury 1968-73 A late/post-Roman hilltop settlement
in Somerset. (British Archaeological Reports British series 223). Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm.
RCAHMW. 1976. An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan Vol. 1 Pre- Norman.
Part II The Iron Age and the Roman Occupation. London: HMSO.
RCAHMW. 1991. An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan Vol. 3 Medieval
Secular Monuments. Part 1a, The Early Castles, from the Norman Conquest to 1217. London:
HMSO.
REIMER, P.J. et al. 2020. The Intcal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration
curve (0–55 Cal Kbp). Radiocarbon 62:4, 725–757.
RENN, D. 1959. Mottes: a classification. Antiquity 33, 106-112.
SCULL, C. & THOMAS, G. 2020. Early medieval great hall complexes in England: temporality
and site biographies. Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 22: 50-67.
14
SEAMAN, A. & SUCHARYNA THOMAS, L. 2020. Hillforts and power in the British post-roman
west: a GIS analysis of Dinas Powys. European Journal of Archaeology 23:4, 547–566.
SEAMAN, A. 2013. Dinas Powys in context: settlement and society in post-Roman
Wales. Studia Celtica 47: 1–22.
SEAMAN, A. 2016. Defended Settlement in Early Medieval Wales: Problems of Presence,
Absence and Interpretation, in N. Christie and H. Herold (ed.) Fortified Settlements in Early
Medieval Europe: Defended Communities of the 8th-10th Centuries: 37-50. Oxford: Oxbow.
SEAMAN, A. AND LANE, A. 2019. Excavation of the Ty’n-y-Coed earthworks 2011–14: the
Dinas Powys ‘Southern Banks’. Archaeologia Cambrensis 168: 109-135.
SEAMAN, A. Forthcoming. Hillforts and Social Change: Western Britain c. AD 300-700.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
SNYDER, C. 1998. An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons, A.D. 400-600. Stroud: Sutton.
SPURGEON, C. 1991. Glamorgan’s first castles. Fortress 8: 3-14.
VINCE , A. 1983. The medieval and post-medieval ceramic industries of the Severn Valley.
Unpublished dissertation, University of Southampton.
WICKHAM, C. 2005. Framing the Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean 400-800.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WICKHAM, C. 2010. Medieval Wales and European history. Welsh History Review 25:2, 201-
8.
WILES, J. 2008. Dinas Powys fort, previously Cwm George or Cwrt-yr-ala Camp. Available at:
https://coflein.gov.uk/en/site/301314/ (accessed 13 June 2022).
Tables
Code Years BP 95% Cal
AD
Material Context Alcock
Phase
Revised
Phase
OxA25738
1456 ± 25 573-648 Corylus cf.
avellana
XII(4), Pre-Bank
1 deposit
associated with
metal working
evidence
4a/b 4a
15
SUERC82884
1444 ± 24 584-651 Corylus cf.
avellana
(roundwood 5
growth rings)
XII24, small
post-hole sealed
by Bank 1
Pre-5 4a
SUERC84662
1539 ± 34 432-599 Salix sp
(roundwood <
20 growth
rings)
XII22, post-hole,
inner line
5 4b
SUERC82885
1531 ± 24 436-602 Maloideae
(roundwood <
20 growth
rings)
XII23, post-hole,
inner line
5 4b
SUERC82889
1478 ± 21 562-641 Corylus cf.
avellana
(roundwood <
20 growth
rings)
XV(6), midden
deposit on rear
of Bank 1
5 4b
OxA25739
1472 ± 25 560-645 Quercus sp.
(cf. sapwood)
XII25, post-hole,
outer line
5 4b
SUERC84660
1455 ± 34 564 - 652 Corylus cf.
avellana
(roundwood 7
growth rings)
IV12BC, midden
deposit on rear
of Bank 1
5 4b
SUERC84661
1405 ± 34 590 - 670 Salix sp.
(roundwood <
20 growth
rings)
XII21, postholem, inner line
5 4b
Table 1: Radiocarbon dates associated with Bank 1, calibrated in OxCal 4.4 using the IntCal
20 curve.
16
Figure Captions
Figure 1: Laser scan of the promontory fort earthworks.
17
Figure 2: Dinas Powys and Ty’n-y-coed earthworks. 2011-14 trenches shaded. Adapted from
RCAHMW image 118383 (© Crown copyright: RCAHMW).
18
Figure 3: Reconstruction of penannular brooch, based on a fragment of a mould die (©
Amgueddfa Cymru National Museum Wales).
19
Figure 4: Selection of artefacts, clockwise from right: Phocean red slipware; fragment of lead
mould die; copper-alloy mount; millefiori glass rod; crucible; Atlantic and Anglo-Saxon
tradition glass (© Amgueddfa Cymru National Museum Wales).
20
Figure 5: Excavated features (reproduced with the permission of the University of Wales
Press).
Figure 6: Schematic section of cut XVII with individual imported vessels, showing
stratigraphic differentiation between Mediterranean (open circles) and Continental (solid
circles) imports (Image by Ewan Campbell).
21
Figure 7: Single phase model for radiocarbon dates associated with Bank 1. Modelled in
OxCal 4.4 using the IntCal 20 curve (Bronk Ramsey 2009; Reimer et al. 2020).
22
Figure 8: Distribution of prehistoric pottery, excluding sherds which are certainly in
redeposited contexts (Image by Ewan Campbell).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.