More information : [SW 3476 2577] Maen Castle (Cliff Castle) [O.E.]
Ditch [O.E.] (1)
"At Mean Cliffe Castle there is evidence of the Early Iron Age 'A' both in the pottery and in the construction of the defences. The pottery sherds came almost entirely from the one living-site inside the fortress against the rampart. About 300 sherds were found, mostly in poor conditon .... storage jars and eating bowls ... represented." (2)
Maen Castle - Scheduled Ancient Monument. (3)
Maen Castle is situated on a ridge - like promontory, with the ground falling away on all sides. This promontory terminates on the west and north in an almost sheer cliff, on the south in a steep boulder strewn natural slope joined to the mainland by a narrow saddle shaped ridge. It is across the east facing slope of this saddle that the defences have been constructed. They consist of an outer scarp and to the west is a deep steep sided ditch the outer face of which is revetted with large granite blocks and is almost vertical. West of the ditch is a wide stone wall, strongest in the centre and narrowing towards its extremeties. It now has an average height of 1.2m, and consists of two walls of very large granite slabs with an infilling of smaller rocks. The wall is built in what appears to be a foundation trench approximately 0.6m deep which is wider than the wall forming a narrow ditch 0.8m wide on either side of it as a result. Inside the wall immiedately north of the entrance is a slight inner scarp, probably formed by spoil from the trench. It is possible, however, that this trench is the result of excavation to expose the footings of the wall. There is a well defined causeway across the ditch and an entrance through the widest part of the wall marked by tumbled stones. All that remains of the court, to the east of the entrance in the wall, is a short portion of wall which probably formed the north side of the entrance to the court. The only trace of occupation within the line of defences is the hut, mentioned by Crofts, just north the entrance on the west side of the wall. It is in a very poor condition appearing as a shallow depression and hardly recognisable as a hut. A 25 inch survey has been made. (4)
Excavation took place at Maen Castle in 1939 and continued in 1948-9, see plan and section (5), showing it to be of one cultural period. It was probably built about 250 BC, the defences of outer bank, ditch, berm and rampart giving protection against thrown stones rather than slingstones, none of which were found during the excavation. The ditch was 9ft. deep with its east face cut straight and the upper 3ft. revetted with heavy rock, behind which the detritus had been thrown forming a 3ft. high bank. The west face was hacked down the rab at a very steep angle. The revetting walling was slighter on the south side of the causeway.
Blight's sketch plan (6) shows two curtain walls, north and south of the causeway, joining the main rampart. Only five stones running for about 5ft. could be found on the north and none to the south. The main rampart showed varying styles of construction but at the entrance and to the north was of good Early Iron Age work. There was an abrupt end at the end of the south escarpment where it was constructed of large upright stones standing 4ft. high, the gaps being filled with well laid horizontal walling. This section was originally 11ft. thick but was robbed of most of its packing. The outer face of the rampart was of large stones set in the rab, but the inner face had largely disappeared. The most complete portion of walling on the inner face was in the northern section at the turn of the rampart from NE to NW. Here was a regular piece of walling with a short buttress against the original face to take the thrust of the wall coming down the slope.
The entrance, see plan (5), was well built of horizontally laid stones with two 5ft. high orthostats at its eastern end. The southern of the two had been rolled onto its side with a long stone laid over, possibly to form a shepherd's shelter. Evidence of occupation within the defences was found at the turning in the northern section of the rampart, being represented by a layer of charcoal and burnt material containing sherds of large storage and some cordoned ware, but no definite flooring or hearth could be identified. Evidence of similar occupation was found on the hillside east of the fort. The absence of living floors and water supply within the fort shows that it was only used for short periods and may have served as a cattle enclosure. Its position, open to the Atlantic gales, and the absence of querns and spindle whorls suggest a seasonal agricultural occupation with the permanent settlement lying further inland. (5-7)
The promontory fort Maen Castle is generally as described by the previous authorities. Much of the rampart and ditch are under bramble, gorse and bracken cover. The strength of the defences, with a deep, in places rock-cut, ditch and the substantial rampart with its large facing boulders, suggests that the site was intended to serve as more than a cattle enclosure (5). It is interesting to note however, that whilst the strong defences and near-vertical cliffs form three sides of the site, the fourth (south) side, is delimited by a reasonably steep valley slope which although covered by natural outcrops and boulder spreads seems to have very limited defensive strength. The excavation plan (5) does however depict a "line of natural boulders" along this side. A small stream flows down the truncated valley on the south side and a well-defined field boundary built of in-line slabs (part of the field system SW 32 NW 10) runs beside it.
Published 1:2500 survey revised. (8)
Maen Castle is one of only 2 fortified sites in Cornwall producing Earlier Iron Age pottery (the other being Trevelgue). In the present state of knowledge concerning Cornish pottery, the site may date anywhere between 800 and 400 BC (ie a Late Bronze Age origin cannot be ruled out). Listed as a univallate hillfort. (9)
A 1986 survey of Maen Castle by the National Trust demonstrated that the substantial kink in the line of the wall was due to the integration into the defences of an earlier lynchet which formed part of an extensive field system, much of which still survives. It is probable that this part of the field system had become redundant before the castle was built, which suggests that the field system was Early Iron Age or, more likely, Bronze Age in date. (10)
In 1993 large scale plans and elevations of the ramparts at Maen Castle were produced by Cornwall Archaeological Unit in advance of and following National Trust repair work.
The ditch appears to have been built after the main wall and it mimics, in a less pronounced way, the kink in the latter; material from the ditch was not used in the wall's construction, but was probably used to form the simple counterscarp bank. Two phases are proposed for Maen Castle, both of essentially Early Iron Age date: 1. a freestanding wall with slight curtain walls protecting its entrance; 2. a ditch and counterscarp bank were added.
Parallels have been drawn between Maen Castle and Trencrom Hill (SW 53 NW 18). The latter has been interpreted as an early prehistoric tor enclosure and these two, along with Bosigran (SW 43 NW 6), may form the earliest group of defended sites in later prehistoric West Penwith. (11)
In June 1996, RCHME carried out a Level 1 field investigation of the site as part of the national project to record Industry and Enclosure in the Neolithic Period (12). In view of the large-scale survey recently undertaken (11), no detailed field recording was carried out by RCHME. The 'cliff castle' is exceptional in character, and has much in common with the class of 'tor enclosures' thought to be of Neolithic origin. Firstly, the interior of the enclosure is a tiny area, and there are indications that most of it was at one time occupied by a granite outcrop which has largely been quarried away. Secondly, the site does not share the conspicuous promontory location which is common to most of the other cliff castles (which are generally thought to be Late Iron Age). In fact, the headland lies at the rear of a slight bay, and is not particularly conspicuous. Thirdly, the 'large granite slabs with an infilling of smaller stones' mentioned by Source 4 is a construction technique comparable to Neolithic post-and-panel walling. In view of the evidence for later prehistoric activity, these characteristics cannot be considered diagnostic. (12)
|