Evidence that the Celts travelled by boat, Foot and Chariot. - page 1
Keywords: History Celts Iron Age Travel
By Jenny on 02/07/2009
Level: GCSE Key Stage 4 (Years 10-11)
Page Number: 1 of 2 pages: 1 2History Coursework
Evidence that the Celts travelled by boat, Foot and Chariot.
I am going to find out if there is evidence that the Celts on Trevelgue Head travelled by boat, foot & chariot/cart and how reliable the evidence is.
As the Celts did not originate in Cornwall there is evidence that they must have travelled to get there. They would have travelled by boat to get to Britain and presumably travelled by foot or chariot/cart over land to get to their settlements, some of which were in the centre of Cornwall e.g. the inland Fort of Chun in Pendeen and Carn Brea above Redruth.
There is also evidence that they travelled once settled. C.K. Croft Andrews’ interim account of the 1939 excavation says that a coin of Vespasian (c. A.D. 71) and a coin of Trojan (c. A.D. 107) were found on the site. The coins are from the Roman Empire and would only have been made in Italy.
This indicates that they travelled by boat, as that would have been the only way to get to Italy. C.A. also found a tarret ring, a triangular bronze link with moulded lip ornaments at the corners, a wire finger ring and a dolphin type bronze broach. These would probably all have been made on site and possibly in Gaul indicating trade and therefore travel. It is known that the Celts traded with other nations/tribes as they were situated on the trade route from Ireland and Wales through Cornwall to the continent.
C A’s interim account report also tells us that there was travel by cart or chariot as a lynchpin of Yorkshire type was found which is now in Truro museum. This is backed up by the video ‘The Celts’ on which it is also mentioned.
C.K. Croft Andrews interim account of the 1939 excavation is probably a fairly reliable and accurate source.
Its purpose was to give a basic but accurate account of the investigation so C.A. would have made it as accurate as he could. As C.A. was an archaeologist and in charge of the investigation that is fairly accurate and it is a primary source. The account was published in the ‘The Archaeological Newsletter’ so its audience would have been well informed on the subject and so it would have to have been right, as mistakes would probably have been spotted. The content is facts on what was found at the excavation
Last 5 comments…
There have been no comments posted for this article, but you need to register if you want to be the first!