More information : The possibility of 5th/6th century activity at Cadbury Castle was only confirmed in the mid-1950s following the recognition of imported Mediterranean pottery of that date among material recovered by surface collection, particularly by Mary Harfield. This was taken as a form of confirmation of the Arthurian legends attached to Cadbury, and it was partially a desire to explore the remains of this period which led to the 1966-70 excavations under the auspices of the Camelot Research Committee.
The occupation is dated by the imported pottery, which elsewhere would be dated to 450/75 to before 600AD. No post-Roman native sherds have been recognised from the excavations. The main structural features consist of the erection of a new rubble-and-timber defence on top of the inner circuit of the Iron Age ramparts. The SW entrance (the only one to be excavated) also saw refurbishment. The new cobbled surface on the 'roadway' saw enough use to require resurfacing at some point late in this phase of occupation. The first cobling also contained an iron axe-hammer and a ring/brooch interpreted as deliberate deposits rather than accidental losses.
Interior structures proved elusive. Alcock speculates that one of the round houses may possibly belong with this phase. The most notable structure identified is a rectangular arrangement of post holes c19m x 10m, divided internally c 1/3 of the way along its length by a shallow trench containing further post holes. The structure coincides with the main spread of imported Mediterranean pot sherds. Towards one end of the structure is a circular feature interpreted as the location of a hearth. The structure is interpreted as a hall used for drinking, feasting etc, largely by analogy with descriptions of such buildings and activities in Early Medieval documentary sources.
Interpretation of this phase remains difficult, especially once the Arthurian trappings are removed. There are no 'domestic' structures recognised, and the quantity of imported pottery recovered is not large compared with other contemporary sites (eg Tintagel). There appears to be no continuity with the preceding Roman use of Cadbury. Likewise, there is a lengthy gap before the next phase of occupation. Alcock envisages it as a high status site, possibly built and used under the authority of a king. He notes that there is no evidence for destruction of the site, and suggests abandonment may be as much to do with shifts in trading patterns as with advancing Saxons. See ST 62 NW 1 for a general overview of Cadbury Castle and information on other periods. (1-9) |