Brochs, duns and forts in early Celtic Scotland

by Angus Konstam

The background
When the Romans came to Scotland in AD 80, they knew little or nothing about the Celtic tribes who lived in the region. Faced with invasion, the tribesmen of the lowlands either submitted to Roman occupation or withdrew to what they thought was the safety of their hilltop forts. This proved a costly mistake, as the two largest forts in the area fell to the might of the Roman army and its siege artillery. The tribes who resisted (known by the Romans as the Selgovae and the Novantae) were brought to their knees by the end of the year, and the Roman Governor Agricola consolidated his northern frontier along the line of the Forth and Clyde rivers. The area was completely pacified by the start of AD 82. So much for the defensive protection of the lowland hillforts. Further north a fresh challenge awaited Agricola, as he planned to lead his armies into eastern and north-eastern Scotland, beyond the Firth of Forth. These Celtic tribesmen had used their fortified bases in what is now Stirlingshire to harry the Romans, and Agricola had had enough. In AD 83 he launched his legions in an expedition of conquest, cornering the local ‘Caledonian’ tribesmen in battle at Mons Graupius (84) and inflicting a decisive defeat on his opponents. During the advance his flanks were secured by a series of Roman auxiliary forts designed to prevent Caledonian movement out of the Highlands. His fleet sailed north as far as Orkney, forcing the submission of the coastal communities they encountered.


Although the Roman tide receded due to commitments elsewhere, the threat of punitive attacks against the Caledonian tribes continued, forcing the local Celts to maintain strong defensive positions and to ensure their near-constant readiness for war.


The Roman defensive line along the Forth–Clyde line was abandoned around AD 100, and the frontier was re-established between the River Tyne and the Solway Firth, a position which was defended during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian (AD 117–138). The Romans returned north for a time during the reign of the Emperor Antonius Pius (AD 138–161), and the Antonine Wall was built along the old Forth–Clyde line, before it too was abandoned after the death of the Emperor. From that point on Hadrian’s Wall marked the northernmost frontier of the Roman empire. Although the tribes immediately to the north of the wall were relatively peaceful, those further north were more hostile. At the start of the 3rd century AD the Emperor Septimus Severus (AD 193–211) led punitive expeditions against the Caledonians, as did the Emperor Constantius I Chlorus (AD 305–306) a century later. It was during this last expedition that we first hear of the Caledonians being referred to as the ‘Picts’, or painted people. Historians generally take this date as the mark that divides the era of the Picts from that of their Caledonian forebears, and provides a convenient finishing point for our study.


In early Celtic Scotland, there were three main types of fortifications in use during this period: the brochs, the duns and the hillforts.


Towers in the north: the brochs
The Broch of Gurness stands on the shore of a stunningly beautiful bay and sound in Orkney. It was built at some point between 500 and 200 BC, and the broch itself formed part of a defensive site that included a village and a series of encircling ramparts and ditches. The brochs of Iron Age Scotland were a virtually unique solution to the defensive requirements of their builders. Spectacular even in ruin, these structures often combined the functions of a defensive retreat with that of a communal focal point. They protected the local people from petty bandits, raiding war parties and on occasion, from full-scale invasions. As such they often formed the nucleus of small communities, or were located close to existing settlements. This means that any true study of them as fortifications needs to be combined with a look at the communities they served, and the people who built them. From there we can look at the fortifications which succeeded them, and which provided defensive strongpoints for the Picts, who inherited the land from the Iron Age broch-builders.


A broch was an imposing circular fortification built using drystone walling. This meant that no mortar was used, but the irregularly shaped stones were chosen so that they fitted roughly together. They were tall, grim, windowless structures, containing a passage within the walls which eventually led to an upper rampart. The only entrance was a small, easily-defensible doorway at ground level. Two walls were separated by passageways, stairs and galleries, which eventually led up through the walls to the circular upper parapet, where the defenders could rain missiles down on the heads of their attackers. While the Broch of Gurness is considered an early example of the genre, the Broch of Mousa in Shetland is probably the most intact example of a later (and more classical) broch structure. Precursors of the earliest brochs were probably the strong circular houses whose ruins are located in the same geographical area as the brochs.


Almost all brochs are located in the north and west of Scotland in Caithness, Orkney, Shetland and Skye, while a few others were built further south. The majority of them are concentrated in Orkney, Shetland and Caithness. Dating evidence suggests that most were built between the start of the 1st century BC, and the late 1st century AD, although this has been questioned due to the equivocal dating material so far discovered. Further evidence suggests that ‘proto-brochs’ or precursors to the classical broch structure could have been built as early as the 6th century BC, while we know that some remained in use until at least the early 3rd century AD, if not later. Although we know a lot about the structures themselves, and we can analyse their defensive qualities, we know very little about who exactly built them, and why. Obviously numerous theories have been proposed, and it was only recently that archaeologists reached a general consensus on what may have happened.


Clearly, they were designed for defence. The Broch of Mousa alone stands to a height of some 13 metres (40 feet), and would have been a proof against all but the most determined assault, unless the attacker had Roman-style siege artillery. The low narrow entranceway made it difficult to batter down the door, and the walls of Mousa were too high for ladders. The hollow interior was probably roofed over, and was large enough to house livestock, provisions and people until the threat had passed. We know little about who the threatening attackers might be, but Celtic, Roman or German raiding parties might have come to these areas in search of slaves. Although not impregnable, smaller brochs would have guaranteed that an attack against them would have been costly, and thus they acted as a form of deterrent against any potential aggressor.


Until comparatively recently, brochs were sometimes referred to as ‘Pictish towers’, or even associated with the Norsemen (vikings). While these links have been disproved, the terms indicate a general lack of understanding of the brochs and the broch builders. We know a certain amount about the late prehistoric people who lived in what is now Scotland from their archaeological legacy. They were not Scots, as that political entity post-dated the broch builders by a millennium, but we have no alternative name to identify them by, as no written records survive from this culture and period. The term ‘Celtic’ has been widely used to describe all the iron age people of this period who inhabited most of Europe, including Scotland, but some archaeologists baulk at using such a widely applied appellation. As for the term ‘Pictish’, their time came later, and the Picts have usually been identified with the inhabitants of north-east and east central Scotland from the early 4th century, when the name first appeared in Roman written records. The broch builders had been long gone by then, and while the Picts may well have been the descendants of these broch builders, archaeological information is unable to prove a clear descent from one group to the other. Various theories have been proposed, including ones where the Picts reached Scotland from overseas, and similarly that the broch people were somehow different from the pre-Celtic people who inhabited the rest of Scotland.


It is probably true that the pre-Celtic people of Scotland intermingled with later waves of Celtic migrants, but there is no direct Celtic broch building tradition. It has been suggested that while the rest of Scotland was overrun by the Celts, the broch builders retained their independence, and fortified their settlements. Whoever built them, their appearance coincided with the arrival of the Celts, and their disuse began following the arrival of the Romans in Scotland. Some archaeologists have given the broch builders the clumsy appellation of proto-Picts, but this does the earlier people a disservice. The broch builders displayed certain qualities which were absent elsewhere in the Pictish homeland (which included Orkney and Shetland), so although there are many theories, there are few answers to the mystery of who these enigmatic people were. It is possible that by the time the Pictish era, the local population had effectively become as Celtic as the rest of Scotland. Certainly we know that most brochs were abandoned at some point during the 3rd century AD, which is close enough to the appearance of the Picts as a distinctive people to suggest some link between the two dates.


Blockhouses in the west: the duns
The term ‘dun’ is used to identify a particular type of small fort which was built extensively all across south-western and western Scotland, with the greatest concentration found in Argyll. These circular or oval dry-stone structures were similar to brochs, but were much smaller. While some were built on flat ground, most were constructed on rocky outcrops or natural defensive positions to enhance their defensive properties. Their walls were usually built using two thick dry-stone walls, with a solid core of rubble used as infill between them. Some used timber to lace the structures together (as was the case with the first hillforts), but most had a smooth outer face, devoid of timber reinforcements. In some examples the wall was reinforced at the base to allow the construction of higher or heavier structures. Like the brochs, the entrance was small and protected by chambers to discourage battering attempts. A particularly impressive example (the Dun of Leccamore, on Luig) even boasts an internal stairway, and other design features suggest some form of correlation between the broch builders and the defensive properties of these smaller dun structures.


While some earlier timber-laced duns have been dated to the 6th or 5th century BC, the majority appear to have been built during the period after the Romans came to Scotland, during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Some show evidence of occupation, abandonment and re-occupation, suggesting they were used when the situation warranted it, and in more peaceful times they may have been abandoned for more spacious and convenient settlements nearby. They also show signs of a far longer occupation than the brochs to the north or the hillforts to the south and east. Dun Cuier on Barra was occupied until around AD 500, while Kildalloig in Argyll appears to have remained in use as late as the 8th century. Unlike the brochs or hillforts, most duns appear to have been little more than fortified homesteads or farms, but they remained a feature of the Scottish landscape for over a thousand years, and outlived both other forms of early Celtic fortification.


Strongholds in the south: the hillforts
Nobody knows how or exactly when the Celts reached Scotland. Towards the end of the Bronze Age (around 700 BC), these newcomers began to arrive, bringing the new technology of the Iron Age with them. These Celts also introduced a new feature to the Scottish landscape. Over the next eight centuries, hillforts would appear in various sizes, from small fortified farms to full-scale fortified hilltop townships. They provided refuge for the local Celtic communities who faced attacks and raids from their neighbours. While well-designed to protect the Celtic tribespeople from their own kind, they proved less effective against the Romans.


Although the early Bronze Age defensive ring at Meldon Bridge in Lothian is probably the earliest fortified site in Scotland, the first hilltop fortifications appeared around 600 BC or slightly earlier. These took the form of timber-laced fortified circles. In some cases the ramparts were fire damaged during their period of use, which allowed the sites to be carbon dated. While the dating range is wide most appear to have been actively built or expanded during the 6th century BC or later. These timber-laced structures continued to be built in Scotland until the coming of the Romans in the late 1st century AD, although the style of the fortifications became more elaborate with time. Timber-lacing was a technique used to stabilise both earthen ramparts, stone walls or rubble infill by laying horizontal wooden beams across the structure, binding it together. In other words, the timber provided a massive framework which was filled with stones and rubble, then faced with solid stone. A wooden walkway and palisade were then built on top of this defensive perimeter. Thick wooden gates protected the entrances to these hilltop enclosures.


Surviving examples such as the stone and earthen wall of the fortification at Abernethy in Perthshire (occupied during the 1st century BC) show the surviving slots in the walls where these beams were placed, and had rotted away. In cases where the forts were destroyed by fire (probably during an assault), fire damage caused by the burning timber has left its mark on the surviving stonework, which has sometimes been fused together. In rare instances, the remains of timber-lacing survives, such as at Kaimes Hill in Midlothian. Timber-laced forts were built throughout central and eastern Scotland and around the Moray Firth to the north, and this distribution matches that of early Celtic finds such as axe heads dating from the 7th century BC and later. This proves that the early Celtic people who occupied central and eastern Scotland relied on these types of fortifications for their protection.


The nature of these hillforts changed over time. In some cases, the original timber-laced structures were replaced or rebuilt in later periods. At Kaimes Hill a series of stone-faced ramparts replaced these earlier defences, and a series of ditches were dug around the perimeter to strengthen the position. One additional refinement was the setting of a ring of pointed stones around the outside of the wall, creating a disruptive obstacle which would hinder any attackers. The trouble with timber-lacing was that the timbers were difficult to replace once they rotted, or they could be destroyed by fire with relative ease. Archaeological evidence suggests that while timber-lacing continued to be used in Scotland during the early Celtic period, the weakness of the design was apparent to the builders. Consequently when the local Celtic tribes of lowland Scotland were faced with the prospect of Roman invasion in the late 1st century AD, many forts were strengthened and improved by the addition of all-stone walls and the digging of ditches outside the walls. In addition to their walls or earthen ramparts, most of these defensive positions were topped by wooden palisades.


These forts were almost exclusively built on hilltops to impove their defensive capabilities, and in many cases the walls enclosed some form of interior settlement. Of some 1,500 fortified sites in Scotland, the majority of these forts were located in lowland Scotland, below the Forth–Clyde line. This surprisingly high figure includes small fortified farmsteads and isolated stone structures from the same early Celtic period. As some of these were built over 700 years before the Romans appeared, it comes as no surprise that many had been abandoned for centuries by the 1st century AD, although a handful remained in continuous use throughout their history. Unlike the sprawling hillforts such as Maiden Castle in England, these Scottish fortifications were small, and probably only served small local communities. The two exceptions were Traprain Law and Eildon Hill, both of which were substantial defensive positions, and the latter containing over 300 roundhouses. This meant that in times of danger, an entire tribe could seek refuge within its walls. One of the problems with Scottish hillforts is the lack of available information about their history. We rarely know how long they were occupied or when, and what function they served apart from a defensive one. It does seem that at least at certain periods, the hillforts which enclosed settlements tended to be under continuous occupation when the Romans appeared.


Another variant of the hillfort was the promontory fort, which was found at various points along the east coast of Scotland, such as St. Abb’s Head, Dunnotar and Urquhart (the last was actually on the shores of Loch Ness, not the North Sea). All but the last were most probably established as fortified sites well before 300 AD, but all three were developed into major fortifications during the Pictish period, and the last two were actual Pictish fortifications. Similarly, the promontory at Burghead on the Moray Firth was developed as a Pictish stronghold. In all three sites, elements of the old hilltop fort designs were used, as the headland was cut off from the mainland by a series of defensive walls and ditches. Again, the Burghead fortification may have predated the start of the historic Pictish period, but the lack of hard dating evidence makes it impossible to say so with any certainty. Certainly the system of three lines of earth and rubble defences and intervening ditches is similar to that found in hilltop forts from 300 BC on, and we know the Picts added an inner citadel to the fortified point at Burghead. The spot was also a good anchorage, and it has been suggested that Burghead was used as a Pictish base from which maritime raids were launched down the coast into Roman Britain. Certainly there seems to be a legacy of construction methods which linked the known Pictish fortifications (Inverness, Dunadd, Dundurn, Dunottar, Dunkeld, Clunie, Scone, Inveralmond and Forteviot) to the earlier hilltop forts in the same area (Tayside, Moray and Grampian).


Summary
To sum up, although the Iron Age landscape of Scotland is littered with fortifications, these can be divided into three groups. The brochs of the northern and western isles are virtually unique, and their design displays a high level of architectural and military appreciation. To the south-west the duns were smaller counterparts, and less likely to be situated in coastal locations. These remained in use until well after the arrival of the Scots from Ireland, and outlasted all but a handful of coastal fortifications which were probably used by both the Celts and their Pictish descendants in eastern Scotland. As for the rash of hillforts in southern Scotland, the majority fell from use following the Roman invasion of the late 1st century AD. Despite this, their methods of construction were adapted for use by the Picts as well as the Scottish peoples who inhabited the southern lowlands when the Romans withdrew. Scotland is unique in that so many of its monuments are still extant, and have been saved from centuries of development. Although the region produced methods of early Celtic fortification that were unique, any study of these defensive sites helps us understand both the people who built them, and their Pictish or Scottish descendants.


Further Reading
Armit, Ian, Celtic Scotland, Historic Scotland Publication – Batsford Press, London, 1997
Breeze, David J., Roman Scotland, Historic Scotland Publication – Batsford Press, 1996
Ritchie, Anna, and Breeze, David, Invaders of Scotland, Historic Scotland Publication – HMSO, 1990
Ritchie, Graham and Anna, Scotland: Archaeology and Early History, Edinburgh University Press, 1991
Ritchie. J. N. G., Brochs of Scotland, Shire Publications, 1988
Sutherland, Elizabeth, In Search of the Picts, Constable and Co., 1994
Wagner, Paul, Warrior 50: PictishWarrior AD 297–849, Osprey, 2002

A Tale of Two Hillforts

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has Cerdic and Cynric doing nothing much in southern Hampshire until A.D. 534, and Cynric doing the same until A.D. 552. The Chronicle says that Cerdic assumed the kingship in A.D. 519, tough Dumville has calculated that Cerdic became king somewhat later, around A.D. 538. This period of apparent inactivity may be the Chronicle’s way of dealing with the long pause in Anglo-Saxon expansion westward after the battle of Mons Badonicus. Interestingly, Cerdic may have become ruler around the time of the comet, and the end of the pause may have come after the outbreak of plague that followed the comet.

It is difficult to reach any conclusions about Cerdic because the only activities attributed to him are ones which seem historically implausible. However, he must have enjoyed great prestige among the Gewisse/West Saxons who succeeded him, since they were all keen to claim him as their ancestor. The most likely explanation is that he was a British aristocrat from somewhere in the region of Dorchester-on-Thames who spoke both Celtic and Saxon. He may have been a descendant of the Ceretic who was Vortigern’s translator, or he may have had some connection with the court of Powys, which by this time is thought to have abandoned Viroconium/ Wroxeter and moved to Pengwern (possibly Shrewsbury).

More can be said about Cynric, however, because he is credited with some very specific deeds. In A.D. 552 he is said to have captured Old Sarum, though as Yorke points out, the area had already been settled by Saxons: the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Harnham Hill, Salisbury, has burials going back to around A.D. 500; the graves at Petersfinger, just to the south of Salisbury, date from the 5th century; the cemetery at Winterbourne Gunner, northeast of Salisbury, has graves from the 5th and 6th centuries; and the Anglo-Saxon graves at Collingbourne Ducis, on Salisbury Plain, date from a round A.D. 500.

Then in A.D. 556 he is said to have captured Beranbury (Barbury Castle) along with Ceawlin, of which more later. Barbury Castle is an Iron Age hillfort near Wroughton in northeast Wiltshire, just south of Swindon. It is on the Ridgeway, an ancient trackway from Buckinhamshire to the Kennet Valley, which passed near Dorchester-on-Thames—control of Barbury Castle would have secured the route from Oxfordshire to Wiltshire for the Gewisse.

This implies that Cynric and the Wiltshire Gewisse had a base somewhere in north Wiltshire, and one possibility for this base is Ramsbury, in northeast Wiltshire, near the border with Berkshire, 7 miles south of Barbury Castle. Ramsbury was made a bishopric in 909, and this suggests, says Haslam, that Ramsbury was at the time a villa regalis. Ramsbury is only 4 miles from the Roman fortified vicus of Cunetio, which was the successor to the Forest Hill Farm hillfort. Cunetio appears to have been refortified in A.D. 367. The “concentration of Roman villas around Cunetio marks its immediate environs as being a highly organized agricultural region, comparable to the environs of Bath and to Cirencester.”

Haslam argues, following the lead of Cunliffe, that during the late Roman period, some villa estates increased in size at the expense of others, and resources became concentrated at a few estate centers. What followed after the withdrawal of Roman forces is suggested by a model for the transition of Roman to Anglo-Saxon Winchester put forward by Biddle, who has suggested that

a ruling element which emerged from the mercenary presence in Winchester in the late 4th century assumed “power and territorial control from the last remnants of the Romano-British administration, supplanting the social order which it had been their first duty to defend.” The find of a military belt buckle of Hawkes’s type IIA at Cunetio might suggest that this town could also have survived through the support of “mercenaries” (whatever their precise origins) as some sort of political focus after the general collapse of the Roman industrial economy.

Haslam believes that the large estate centers survived into the 6th century, and would have been the natural focus for anybody wishing to establish a military presence in the area. He argues that

the proximity of Ramsbury to Cunetio, the presence there of probable Roman villa and presumably a late Roman estate centre, and its position in the probable avenue of Saxon penetration up the Kennet valley, all suggest that it could well have become the focus of the area in succession to Cunetio, and could have taken on some of the administrative functions of the former late Roman and sub–Roman town, subsequently becoming a villa regalis on the consolidation of the West Saxon kingdom.

The probability is strengthened, says Haslam, by the name Ramsbury, where the burh- element means “fortified dwelling” rather than hillfort (the nearest hillfort is Membury, 5 km to the northwest), and the whole name means “Fortified Dwelling of the Raven” (which has intriguing associations with the Wiltshire past and British mythology).

Irish Rural Settlements

The present consensus of academic opinion is still that Ireland was predominantly a rural society in pre-Norman times and that the patterns of settlement were dispersed, i.e. settlements were located out of earshot of each other. The commonest settlement type was the ringfort, which is also generally known by two Irish terms, rath (earthen fort) and cashel (stone fort or enclosure), which is most commonly found in the west where stone is more easily available as a building material. At its simplest it has been defined by Ó Ríordáin as ‘a space most frequently circular surrounded by a bank and fosse’. However, this simple definition does not encompass the large diversity of such sites, ranging from the largest tri-vallate examples with strong banks and fosses to small simple features with insignificant banks and ditches. Their ground plans also vary, sometimes quite markedly, from the ubiquitous circle and occasionally two or more examples are to be found located close to each other. They make up the most widespread type of relict earthwork to be found on the Irish landscape, with estimates of between 30,000 and 50,000 surviving in the first edition of the Ordnance Survey 6-inch maps of the 1840s. Thus it is interesting to speculate as to how many were still surviving in the landscape when the Anglo-Normans landed in Ireland at the end of the twelfth century.

Despite recent researches on this important settlement type by historical geographers such as G.F.Barrett, and by medieval archaeologists such as M.J.O’Kelly and C.J.Lynn there still remains much to be elicited about its chronology and function. With the general lack of information about ringforts in the surviving written sources of the period, which are mainly literary, or law tracts or annalistic writings, archaeological investigation assumes a primary importance. Although the totality of excavations number fewer than 120 sites, a small statistical sample, their random distribution would indicate that we do now possess a typical picture of their chronology and function. However, the archaeological evidence produced by many of these sites has often been either non-existent or undateable. Nevertheless, of the sites which have produced useful data, it would appear that ringforts can be broadly dated to the first millennium AD, and often functioned as defended farmsteads of one family grouping. Some others, such as Garryduff in Co. Cork, functioned as metalworking centres whilst other smaller examples served as pens to protect cattle, valuable assets in pre-Norman Irish society.

It is also difficult to know, given the small sample of excavated sites, how many ringforts of the national total were occupied simultaneously. This together with our lack of knowledge of the size of the population at the time means that it is only possible to guess whether or not the entire population was living in these defended farmsteads or whether there was another complementary nucleated settlement form, the existence of which is hinted at in the surviving law tracts. But before the problem of undefended settlements in pre-Norman Ireland is examined it is necessary to review some of the major conclusions on the nature and chronology of the ringfort produced by archaeological methods of enquiry.

The areal size of ringforts has been measured in some parts of the country as a result of various surveys, such as those for Counties Donegal, Down, Louth, Meath and Monaghan, the barony survey of Ikerrin in Co. Tipperary and Corca Duibhne (Dingle peninsula) in Co. Kerry, and Barrett’s specialized surveys of ringforts in the Dingle peninsula of Co. Kerry and part of south Co. Donegal. They have all shown that ringforts broadly vary in size from around 15 m in diameter to a few which are as large as 80 m. However, the median diameter would be somewhere around 30 m. Inside these fosses and banks archaeologists have found evidence for mixed farming but often with the emphasis on cattle rearing. At other sites there has been evidence of industrial activity, especially ironworking, as well as spinning and weaving. And at some of the larger ringforts there has been evidence of specialization in metalworking as well as glass production.

A more detailed analysis of their chronology reveals that the majority of excavated sites were occupied in the last half of this first millennium AD, i.e. from around AD 500 to 1000. However, both the origins and the final phase of ringfort construction have been the subjects of much academic debate which is still not resolved satisfactorily. It has been put forward by O’Kelly that their origins can be found in the Bronze Age and that they were an important feature of the Early Iron Age. But, there is evidence of occupation and, less certainly, the logical possibility that some were constructed after 1169. Barrett and Graham first put forward the above hypothesis based mainly upon their study of the 1840s distribution of this settlement type, especially in the Pale areas of Counties Louth and Meath. They found that the known distribution of ringforts was much denser in those regions which were west and north of the probable line of the Pale boundary, and they sought to try and explain this either by the removal of ringforts as a concomitant to the more intensive agriculture introduced by the Anglo-Normans in the areas under their control or, more controversially, through the continued construction of such settlement forms in medieval times in areas on the periphery of dense Anglo-Norman settlement. Incidentally, the areas of lower densities of ringforts also correspond fairly closely with concentrations of the place-name element ‘town’ which, according to T. Jones-Hughes, indicates regions which experienced ‘the most durable impact of Anglo-Norman colonisation and settlement’.

Excavation of Maiden Castle (1934–1937)

An archaeologist cleans a skeleton with a brush. Dr. Wheeler supervised the excavations at Maiden Castle, near Dorchester which have brought to light a number of skeletons. The excavations reveal the scene of a battle of AD 40. Photographed August 31, 1937.

Sir Robert Eric Mortimer Wheeler (1890–1976) was educated in the classics at University College London and in fine arts at the Slade Art School. He was one of the few young archaeologists to survive World War I. In 1920, after becoming keeper of archaeology at the newly founded National Museum of Wales, Wheeler began to excavate the Roman forts of Segontium (1921–1922), Brecon Gaer (1924–1925), and Caerleon (1926).

At these sites Wheeler began to develop and test the excavation techniques for which he later became famous. The last great advances in this area were made by General Augustus Pitt-Rivers in the 1880s, and Wheeler built on these, clarifying site stratigraphy by keeping simple, graphic, and sectional records of surfaces and sections. In 1926 Wheeler declined the Abercrombie Chair of Archaeology in Edinburgh and moved to work at the London Museum, where he wrote a series of classic and popular catalogs based on his research on Roman, Viking, and Saxon London. He continued to be fascinated by the relationship between Iron Age and Roman society in Britain, excavating at the Sanctuary of Nodens at Lydney in Gloucestershire (1928–1929), and at the late Iron Age and Roman city of Verulamium, near the town of St. Albans in southern England (1930–1933). At all of them Wheeler continued to develop his expertise in stratigraphic excavation and dating.

Between 1934 and 1937 Wheeler excavated the massive Iron Age hill-fort of Maiden Castle in Dorset in southern England. Many Iron Age hill-forts had been identified and excavated prior to this, but work had been hampered by the fact that they had either been excavated on too small a scale or without knowledge of pottery typology. The Maiden Castle Report, published in 1943, was a triumph, a book written in a highly direct and engaging style but full of important information.

Since his first excavations in Wales in 1921 until the last year at Maiden Castle in 1937, Wheeler had been refining his approach to excavation focusing on those elements such as excavation strategy and techniques, recording, and personnel management, which were also Pitt-Rivers’s concerns. The fact that both men had distinguished military careers has not gone unnoticed. At Maiden Castle Wheeler excavated in a checkerboard of grid squares that achieved two significant goals. First it allowed him to open up large areas without losing stratigraphic control. Second, the squares could be effectively linked up to create a sense of near-continuous stratigraphy across a large site. The approach, called the “Wheeler method,” set the benchmark in field excavation for the next forty years, achieving a goal that Pitt-Rivers never attained—to radically influence the process of field archaeology and through it to focus on the link between method and the reliability of interpretation. He was to use it to great effect in India during the 1940s and 1950s during excavation of Indus civilization sites.

Further Reading Cunliffe, B. 1999. Sir Mortimer Wheeler, 1890–1976. In Encyclopedia of archaeology: History and discoveries, ed. T. Murray, 371–384. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Hawkes, J. 1982. Mortimer Wheeler: Adventurer in archaeology. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Sharples, N. M. 1991. English Heritage book of Maiden Castle. London: Batsford/English Heritage. Wheeler, R. E. M. 1943. Maiden Castle, Dorset. Oxford: printed at the University Press by J. Johnson for the Society of Antiquaries.

DEFENDED SETTLEMENTS

 Cadbury Castle and environs

The phenomenon of fortification-building was not new to the Middle Ages. For millennia, humans have felt the need to protect themselves and their territory and have erected fortifications to provide safety and security from the elements and also from covetous neighbors. Well before the first castle arrived in England, fortified settlements occupied craggy hilltops and jutting coastal headlands throughout the British Isles. Many still dominate those sites and are easy to spot on a day's outing. Many, like Maiden Castle in Dorset, date to the Iron Age and have acquired place-names that imply a dual usage as a properly fortified military residence. In some ways, the military terminology can be extended to cover many of these fortifications. Nonetheless, these premedieval structures lacked the essential ingredient that would otherwise characterize them as true castles: private ownership.

The univallate and multivallate sites of prehistory offered substantial protection from an attack or prehistoric livestock rustling, functioning as fortified communal settlements (comparable to medieval walled towns) rather than individual ranches. The group's leader or chief probably lived in a separate, private dwelling at the site, but his home was just one part of the whole complex, which often formed a densely occupied settlement. Some hillforts and promontory forts, which guarded headland settlements, served as supply and distribution centers, granaries, animal pounds, and possibly as military establishments or ritual sites. Many times, embedded rings of steep-sided earthen ramparts and deep ditches defended the entire settlement, sometimes cut into chalk-beds, buttressed with timber posts or compacted stone, and stockaded with timber palisades. Like medieval castles, many defended settlements were fronted with substantial gateways. However, these prehistoric earthwork forts were never intended exclusively for use as fortified private residences.

Arguably Britain's most legendary Iron Age fort, Cadbury Castle commands a hilltop overlooking the tiny village of thatched stone cottages in South Cadbury, Somerset. Long touted as the site of King Arthur's Camelot, archaeological excavations directed by Leslie Alcock from 1966 to 1970 targeted portions of the enormous multivallate fort, the summit of which covered 18 acres. The effort revealed that the fort was occupied as early as 3300 BC, during the Neolithic era, and that Bronze Age and Iron Age peoples added the defenses, lined the concentric ramparts with limestone slabs and deepened the ditches. By 100 BC, the entire set of four ramparts and ditches had been completed and small huts and storage pits filled the summit and accommodated the expanding settlement.

During the first century AD, the Romans devastated the hilltop settlement, the home of the Durotriges, members of the Celtic tribe based at Dorchester (then known by the Roman name, Durnovaria) who commanded at least twenty hillforts in southern England, including mammoth Maiden Castle. The bodies of thirty adults and children slaughtered by the Romans lay buried at the southwest entrance to Cadbury Castle until their discovery in the 1960s. In addition to collecting scores of pottery sherds imported from France and the Mediterranean, archaeologists discovered the remains of a large timber hall, dating to about AD 500. Whether or not the man who spawned the Arthurian legends actually called this place his palace, someone of considerable status —perhaps a chieftain —decided the hillfort should be reoccupied and ordered the construction of the timber framed structure. Perhaps, the leader administered justice and watched over the surrounding lands from this fine vantage point and guided his community into a period of sought-after calm after the Romans retreated from England. Some historians believe Cadbury Castle could very well have been the inspiration for Camelot.

Aerial photography

An aerial photograph of the Iron Age hill fort at Yarnbury, Wiltshire in England. The remains of an earlier structure show up inside the main ramparts.

The remains of human activity can sometimes be seen from the air, even when they are buried underground. In dry weather crops may grow poorly on thin soil lying over buried buildings and roads. Or crops may grow unusually well in the deep soil that is the result of long-forgotten pits and ditches being filled in over the years. Either of these effects can reveal signs of ancient settlements when they are photographed from the air.

TAP O' NOTH HILL FORT, ABERDEENSHIRE

The Iron Age hillfort on Tap O' Noth is one of the largest in Scotland, consisting of 21 ha enclosed by a stone rampart. More than 100 house platforms have been recorded between the rampart and a massive wall that further protects the hill's summit. This stone and timber wall, more than 6m in width and 3m high, is vitrified in places - the stones have fused together through intense, prolonged heat. The extremely high temperatures generated by the burning timbers causes the surrounding stone to melt, and this phenomenon has been observed at many forts. On the summit there is a rock cut well or cistern.

The Tap o' Noth is a conical eminence which rises from the W end of the Hill of Noth to attain a height of 1851 ft (564m) OD, and 1300 ft (396m) above the Water of Bogie at Rhynie; it is visible from the sea, 30 miles to the E.

The fort that crowns this site is the second highest in Scotland and consists of a single wall (now overgrown and heavily vitrified) which may have originally been more than 20ft (6.1m) thick and encloses an area about 335ft (102m) by 105ft (32m). A depression about 90ft (27m) from the S end represents the site of a well or cistern.

A second wall, mainly a row of huge boulders, lies low down the N and E flanks of the hill. Outside to the S of the fort platforms similar to those on which timber-framed houses were built have been noticed.

J MacDonald 1891; J E Kilbride-Jones 1935; M A Cotton 1954; R W Feachem 1963; R W Feachem 1966.

Tap o' Noth. Remains of 'an ancient fortress, formerly thought to have been the mouth of a volcano, but now known to be one of three forts constructed of stones vitrified by the force of fire, of which kind many have been lately discovered in Scotland'.

Francis Douglas, 'A general description of the East coast of Scotland', Paisley, 1782

At 563m the summit of Tap o' Noth offers as spectacular a view from a fort as you could hope to see. Northwards you look across the Moray Firth and obliquely up the Sutherland coast to Caithness, while eastwards the view embraces the breadth of Aberdeenshire to the North Sea. On a clear day the visitor could be forgiven for not even looking at the fort, with its huge scree of rubble dropping down around the summit and the massive lumps of vitrified stone, congealed masses of molten rock, lying in the rubble. Small wonder the first antiquaries to visit the site thought it was the crater of a volcano. This was a truly massive wall, faced with stone and laced together with timbers. But if its sheer scale impresses today, imagine it alight. With its timber frame on fire, reaching temperature in excess of 1000° C at its core, the fort would have glowed and sparked like a furnace. Imagine a display like that in the night sky for a week, an act of utter desolation visited upon every person living within its view. Could a fire on this scale really be an accident, or do the huge lumps of vitrified stone stand witness to a violent political act in a past that is very remote to us today.

MONCRIEFFE HILL FORT

The top is encircled by a grassy bank which is all that remains of an iron-age fort. The walls of the fort were made of vitrified stone – rocks heated to such a high temperature that they melted and fused together. How such a high temperature was reached and why it was done are still a mystery to archaeologists. The summit is marked by a small cairn and has terrific views, especially over Perth and the Tay to the north, backed by the first hills of the Highlands. Slightly further round the summit edge is a curious flat stone slab with a deep hole carved into it, overlooking the M90 stretching away south towards the central belt

The name Moncrieffe comes from Moncrieffe Hill south-east of Perth made from hard ancient lava. The River Tay lies to the north and the River Earn to the south; they join just east of the hill.

The Celtic name Monad Croibhe (which is in fact Gaelic but the Pictish would have been similar ie. Old Welsh Minit) meaning Hill of the Tree. The Battle of Monad Croibhe is said to have been fought in 28AD between two Pictish armies. Moncrieffe Hill overlooks the sacred Pictish sites of Scone and Abernethy and the royal Pictish palace of Forteviot.

This area was granted to Sir Robert de Meyneris, Chamberlain of Scotland, in 1248 after which time one branch of that family took their name from the lands. The Moncrieffe badge displays an oak, that revered tree of ancient Celtic times.

Murchadh Monaidh Chraoibhe. Name change from Murchadh Garrioch.

Submitted as Murchadh Monagh Craebi, the submitter requested authenticity for 13th C Gaelic Scotland and desired an appropriate Gaelic form of the byname Moncrieff. Watson, The History of the Celtic Place-Names of Scotland, p. 400f says that "Moncrieff near Perth is considered to have been the scene of 'bellum Monid Chroibh,' 'the battle of Monad Croib,' 728 (AU)." The standardized form of Monad Croib appropriate for the 13th century is Monadh Craoibhe.

In Gaelic, locative bynames which are based on names of cities or towns are formed by putting the place name in the genitive case. The genitive case of Monadh Craoibhe is Monaidh Chraoibhe, pronounced roughly \MOH-nee KHREE-vuh\, where \KH\ is the sound of ch in Scottish loch. We have changed the name to Murchadh Monaidh Chraoibhe to meet his request for a Gaelic form of Moncrieff. However, we cannot make the name authentic for the 13th century as the only examples of locative bynames that we have in Scottish Gaelic are used by the Lord of the Isles and his predecessors, and by a petty king and some of his ancestors. These are not reliable examples of what normal people used as bynames. We do have examples of simple locative bynames in Irish Gaelic in the 13th century, so the byname is registerable.

His previous name, Murchadh Garrioch, is released.

Bigbury Wood Hillfort

Caesar left detailed instructions for his requirements for the second expedition to Britain in the spring. The 600 transports were to be of shallow draft, and thus easier to and beach, but to contain stores and animals they had to be broader. The vessels were thus rather ungainly and difficult to manage; but to compensate for this Caesar was probably advised to equip them with sails and oars. The fighting force he assembled was a large one consisting of five legions and 2000 cavalry; although it was a major expedition it is difficult to appreciate whether Caesar was intent on conquest or merely punishing the hostile tribes or opening Britain up to trade. It was by now evident that there were no suitable havens on the south-east coast of Kent, only the gently shelving beaches. But this time, in the face of such a formidable armada, the Britons did not oppose the landing, so that the Roman forces were able to disembark without difficulty. This time the ships were not beached, but left riding at anchor.

With typical audacity, Caesar marched his legions 12 miles inland, in the dark of the early morning, to a river, which may have been the River Stour near Canterbury. The Britons must have been taken aback at the sudden appearance of the Romans and they retired to a fortified position. Caesar then gives us a brief description of a British hill-fort. ‘A place well fortified by nature and strengthened by artifice, built doubtless for their own tribal wars, all the entrances were blocked by felled trees packed closely together’ (v 9). There is a hillfort which may have been the one he attacked three miles west of Canterbury in Bigbury Wood at Hambledown. It is a roughly rectangular enclosure constructed round the 200-foot contour. The site has been much disturbed by old gravel workings, during the course of which many iron objects, mainly tools and farm implements, have been found, as one might expect from a peasant community. While these modest defences were quite adequate to keep out raiding bands from nearby tribes, they presented no problem for the disciplined professional legionaries trained in such storming attacks. The Seventh Legion quickly built a ramp against the rampart and formed a testudo (tortoise) by holding their shields over their heads to protect themselves from missiles, and hacked their way into the fortress, driving the Britons out and through the woods. The whole action had taken the best part of a day, and Caesar needed time to build his own fortified camp, so he did not take up the pursuit until the following morning. But he was forced to abandon any thought of a speedy advance which would have found the Britons in a state of disarray, with the news of a storm which had wrecked his fleet. So, once more, he had underrated the fearful and sudden powers of the elements.

LINK

BOOK REVIEW: BRITISH FORTS IN THE AGE OF ARTHUR

The quest for historical proof of King Arthur, like the quest for the Holy Grail itself, seems as perennial as it is elusive. But it is also entertaining, and, in the case of Angus Konstam’s latest work, great military history, too.

King Arthur.  Few things capture the essence of romance, chivalry, mystery, and our imaginations the way that Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table do.  Most wargamers are aware that the origins of Arthur are shrouded in mystery.  Perhaps less well known (or at least less well discussed) is the question as to whether Arthur even existed at all.  Readers wishing for a quick introduction into both the debate and the archeological evidence that exists during the “Arthurian” period would do well to pick up a copy of Angus Konstam’s British Forts in the age of Arthur. 

I will be the first to confess that my knowledge of King Arthur and historical evidence of him was rather lacking.  While I had heard of him as a kid, my first immersion into the legend came as a young adult when I was taken to a 1981 film as part of a surprise birthday party.  Most readers may recall that movie, Excalibur.  Anyone who has seen the movie will undoubtedly recall Merlin transforming Uther Pendragon into a likeness of Cornwall and him sneaking into the bed of Conwall’s wife while wearing full plate mail.  Indelible as that memory may be, it is an anachronism. 

Historically, if Arthur existed at all, it would have likely been in the decades immediately following the withdrawal of Roman troops from the British Isles around the 5^th or 6^th Centuries.  Since known written references to Arthur are tenuous at best, the search for evidence supporting him has largely turned to archeology.  So it is that Angus Konstam has also turned to write a highly edifying and easily readable summary of the fortifications in Britain during this period through about 600 AD.

Medieval military history buffs are in for a treat because the archeological digs looking for support of Arthur during this period have focused largely on fortifications – Camelot and the like.  So far no tombs have been discovered with an inscription, “Here Lies King Arthur.”  The quest, much like that for the Holy Grail, continues, and Angus Konstam’s account is an enjoyable romp through the pages of history.  Along the way the reader is treated to a discussion of military strategy, the historical conflicts of the time (the Jutes, Saxons, and Angles were all encroaching from the east), and, of course, the fortifications used. 

Camelot apparently has indeed been found at the site of South Cadbury, but my imagination was caught more firmly by the breathtakingly placed forts at Tintagel, Dinas Emrys, and Bamburgh.  British Forts in the Age of Arthur examines every major fortification that is known to have been occupied during the Arthurian period.  Accompanying the military history are a number of excellent photographs and illustrations that help to further bring that period of time to life.  I found British Forts in the Age of Arthurto be one of the most enjoyable military history books I have read in some time.  Like most titles published by Osprey, it is brief (64 pages) and focused primarily on the topic of the technology, strategy, and military systems of its brief slice of time.  The evidence supporting whether King Arthur truly lived is not strong, but that doesn’t stop many of us from wanting to believe, including, I think, the book’s author.  Factual and clear about the question of Arthur’s existence he is, but that doesn’t stop him from referring to the Post-Roman period as the “Age of Arthur” from time to time, nor does he attempt to quash the hope of the reader that evidence may yet be found.  Like many legends, perhaps the lack of certainty fuels eternal speculation, but it is the hope that Arthur might have lived that makes it all the more intriguing.  After reading British Forts in the Age of Arthur I will no longer believe it even remotely possible that Arthur’s father sired him regaled in plate mail (indelible as that image may be).  However, the knowledge that Post-Roman Britains were likely armored similarly to the recently departed Romans doesn’t prevent me from conjuring up some daydreams about the Knights of the Round Table and their chivalrous exploits.  After all, even if they didn’t exist in name, the ideals embodied in the legend are, like the Holy Grail itself, eternal. 

ISBN: 978 1 84603 362 9

Link to Osprey Publishing 

Hillforts after Roman Times in England

Iron Age hill-fort of South Cadbury (Som)

Archaeology has been particularly useful in showing that many Roman communities throughout Britain experienced substantial changes during the fourth century before Anglo-Saxon settlement began. The changes appear to have included a shift from an urban to a rural-based economy. In Wroxeter (Salop) and Exeter stone town houses were replaced in the late fourth and early fifth centuries by simpler, flimsier buildings made entirely of timber, while some areas of the towns were abandoned altogether or were farmed. Comparable drastic changes seem to have occurred in towns like Canterbury and Winchester in the eastern half of the country. The eventual result was the virtual abandonment within Britain during the fifth century of towns as centres of population. Some rural villas initially gained advantage from the changing economic circumstances, but there are also signs of villas being adapted in the fourth and fifth centuries to become more self-sufficient. At Frocester (Gloucs) and Rivenhall (Essex) the villa buildings were allowed to decay or were turned into barns while new timber buildings, more typical of the early Middle Ages, were erected. Although attacks by Anglo-Saxons (and in the west of Britain by Irish) exacerbated a difficult situation, they did not cause it, as Gildas’ account seems to imply. The complex problems which caused the decline of the Roman empire affected the inhabitants of Britain well before Anglo-Saxon settlement began on any scale,4and, by the time the Anglo-Saxons arrived, the Romano-British inhabitants had already begun to adapt themselves to a way of life that can be described as ‘early medieval’.


By the end of the fifth century different settlement patterns are discernible between eastern Britain (which had been settled by Anglo-Saxons) and western Britain (which had not). One sign of changing circumstances in the west of Britain was the re-emergence of hill-top settlements which, it has been argued by Leslie Alcock in particular, may have functioned as chieftain centres and be linked with the emergent British kingdoms we can dimly discern in the written sources. The reoccupation of the impressive Iron Age hill-fort of South Cadbury (Som) is a good example of the type. The whole of the innermost rampart of nearly 1100 m in length was refortified in the sub-Roman period and a substantial timber hall built on the highest point in the interior. Yet there were very few finds of artefacts from the South Cadbury excavations, and this helps to explain why the British generally have proved very hard to detect in the sub-Roman period. After the Romano-British lost access to Roman industrial products, they become all but invisible in the archaeological record as they were no longer using on any scale artefacts which were diagnostically Romano-British or, at least, not of a type that survives in the soil. The Britons of the west country received the occasional consignment of pottery from Mediterranean kilns brought by foreign traders, the Britons in the east presumably made use of Anglo-Saxon craftsmen. We should not assume that every owner of an artefact of ‘Germanic’ type in eastern England was of Germanic descent.

LINK

LINK

RATHS, CRANNOGS, AND CASHELS

Mooghaun hillfort ringfort

Raths, crannogs, and cashels are the primary settlement types during the early medieval period in Ireland (c. A.D. 400–800) and also occur in Irish influenced areas of Scotland and Wales. Until the establishment of Viking cities in the ninth century A.D., Irish society was entirely rural in character with individual farmsteads as the predominant feature of the settlement pattern. The Irish economy was based on mixed farming with cattle as the basis of wealth. This set of circumstances encouraged a dispersed settlement pattern, with each farmstead separated by extensive fields and grazing lands. Although these settlements are considered the classic sites of the early medieval period, the construction of crannogs may have begun in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1200–700 B.C.), and these settlements certainly continued in use through the Viking and Hiberno-Norse periods (c. A.D. 800–1200) and in some areas as late as the sixteenth century.

Raths and cashels together are referred to as ringforts, and they are easily the most common type of early medieval archaeological site. Ringforts were most likely the homes of the majority of the population during the medieval period, and in excess of forty thousand ringforts have been identified in Ireland. Similar in form, both raths and cashels are circular areas surrounded by a bank of earth or stone. Raths are ringforts that have earthen banks and are often surrounded by a shallow ditch. Cashels are stone-built ringforts and usually occur in areas with poorer soil and a natural abundance of stone. Some ringforts have a combination of earthen and stone walls, although these are uncommon.

Ringforts vary widely in size and may also have more than one set of encircling walls. While the largest may have a diameter in excess of 75 meters, the majority are about 25 to 30 meters in diameter. Cashels, however, are on average somewhat smaller. About 20 percent of ringforts are enclosed by multiple banks; these are referred to as multivallate ringforts and were most likely the farmsteads of wealthy or high-status individuals. Regardless of the number of embankments, multivallate ringforts have internal diameters that are not appreciably larger than most single-banked examples and served much the same role.

Ringforts generally functioned as the farmsteads of single families. Excavations have revealed that most contain only a small number of structures, typically a stone or wattle house with a handful of outbuildings. These would have served as the economic center of the farm, and excavations often highlight the self-sufficiency of ringforts as economic units. Raths and cashels would have comprised the home of the inhabitants, enclosures for the farm’s animals, a storage place for grain, and workshops for common crafts, such as ironworking. Excavations of higher-status ringforts often reveal a greater range of crafts produced, including the manufacture of objects made of bronze and precious metals. However, the essential function of high- and low-status ringforts varied little.

The actual defensive capabilities of ringforts is debated, with some archaeologists viewing the walls simply as a way to keep animals in the farmyard and having no defensive use, while others have argued for palisaded or hedge-lined embankments with some sort of defensive character. The most defensive element of ringforts, however, was perhaps not in their physical layout but in their distribution across the countryside. Studies have shown that ringforts regularly occur in semiclustered groups. Although quite separated in distance, each ringfort would have been within sight of another, and these clusters often have a larger and presumably more defensive multivallate ringfort within close proximity. This would have created an interlocking community that used the view across the landscape as a type of defense and that would have given the inhabitants time to flee to more defensive positions in the larger ringforts or in the surrounding mountains and bog lands.

Crannogs are artificial islands built in lakes and rivers that are located primarily in the northern and western parts of Ireland. While not as numerous as ringforts (about two thousand Irish crannogs have been identified), these sites are the second most common type of early medieval settlement and have played a central role in understanding the period. They are considered a predominantly early medieval class of settlement, although research in the 2000s has extended the chronology of crannog construction back into the Late Bronze Age and perhaps earlier. The nature of crannog use may have been much different prior to c. A.D. 400, with crannogs perhaps serving a predominantly ritual use in earlier periods or as seasonal dwellings only. Evidence for their use in the Iron Age (c. 700 B.C.–A.D. 400) is very scarce, and it is during the early medieval period that crannogs developed as settlements. Most crannogs are built up on lake and river beds with stones and debris until they emerge from the water, and some have stone causeways built connecting the crannog to the shore. These artificial islands were then surrounded with wooden palisades, and houses and other outbuildings were located inside. Crannogs vary greatly in size and shape but are most commonly oval or round in plan and about 20 meters in diameter.

Unlike ringforts, crannogs were probably not directly related to the farming economy, as their location in the water would make access to fields and animals quite difficult. However, large amounts of animal bones are often found on excavated crannogs, and this is commonly interpreted as evidence of feasting by the occupants. This supports the belief that crannogs were the bases of powerful lords, and some crannogs have been identified by historical documents as royal centers. Excavations of these high-status and royal crannogs have revealed extensive evidence of metalworking, the large-scale manufacture of brooches and other high-status personal objects, and impressive collections of imported goods, such as Continental and Mediterranean pottery. Despite the large amounts of archaeological material commonly found on crannogs, most seem to have no more than one or two small houses and were probably inhabited by a family group. Excavations have traditionally focused on these higher status sites, but research since the late 1990s has revealed that there are also less-wealthy crannogs. Their role in the early medieval settlement pattern is, however, less well understood.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Edwards, Nancy. The Archaeology of Early Medieval Ireland. London: Routledge, 1990.

Fredengren, Christina. Crannogs: A Study of People’s Interaction with Lakes, with Particular Reference to Lough Gara in the North-west of Ireland. Bray, Ireland: Wordwell, 2002.

O’Sullivan, Aidan. The Archaeology of Lake Settlement in Ireland. Discovery Programme Monograph, no. 4. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1998.

Stout, Matthew. The Irish Ringfort. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1997.

DANEBURY

Danebury Hillfort

The Iron Age hillfort of Danebury dominates the chalk lowland of western Hampshire. Although the hill is not particularly high—only 465 feet above sea level—it can be seen from miles around, and from the hilltop a vast panorama of lowland opens up with distant views of several other contemporary hillforts.

The earthwork fortifications of Danebury occupy the end of an east–west ridge and are very well preserved. Three distinct circuits can be traced. The inner earthwork, which was the main defensive circuit throughout, encloses a roughly circular area of some 12 acres (almost 5 hectares). As originally built the fortification had two entrances on opposite sides of the enclosure, but during the life of the fort one entrance was blocked, whereas the other, on the east side of the fort, was strengthened with forward- projecting hornworks that still dominate the approach. The middle earthwork ran between the two gates and was constructed to create an annex, possibly for corralling animals, sometime during the life of the fort. The outer earthwork is comparatively slight. Unlike the other two earthworks, which comprise a rampart and a ditch, the outer earthwork is really only a ditch with the spoil thrown up in low mounds on both sides. The outer earthwork is the earliest of the enclosures on Danebury Hill and dates to the Late Bronze Age (c. 1000–700 B.C.); it is joined by a linear earthwork boundary that has been traced eastward for several miles toward the valley of the River Itchen.

Excavations at Danebury began in 1969 and continued annually until 1988. During the twenty seasons of work the entrances were examined, the earthwork circuits were sectioned, and 57 percent of the interior of the main fortified area was totally excavated. This work established that within the Late Bronze Age enclosure, defined by the outer earthwork, the first defense, probably a palisaded enclosure, was erected in the sixth century B.C. This first enclosure was replaced a century or so later by the inner earthwork, built originally as a massive timber-faced rampart fronted by a deep ditch. At this stage there were two gates. The earthworks and gates underwent various phases of modification, the most significant coming around 300 B.C., when the rampart was heightened and reconstructed to have a steeply sloping outer face fronted by a deep Vsectioned ditch. From the bottom of the ditch to the top of the rampart measured about 6 meters (20 feet). At this stage the southwest entrance was blocked, and the east entrance began to be massively extended. In this later stage of its life the hillfort was intensively occupied. The end came some time in the first half of the first century B.C., when the gate was destroyed by fire, and there is some evidence to suggest the slaughter of the inhabitants. After this the enclosure continued to be used for another fifty years or so, but activity was at a low level and may have been linked to the continued use of a temple complex in the center of the old settlement.

Throughout its life from c. 500 to c. 50 B.C. the hillfort was occupied. From an early stage a system of roads was established with a main axial street running between the two gates. Even after the southwest gate was blocked the street remained the main axis. Other streets branched out from just inside the main entrance and ran roughly concentrically around the crest of the hill. Amid the streets were arranged circular houses, rectangular post-built storage buildings, and a large number of storage pits. Toward the center of the site, occupying a prominent position directly visible from the entrance, was a cluster of rectangular buildings that were probably the main shrines of the settlement.

There is, throughout the occupation, a sense of order in the layout of the various buildings and activities. In the early stage, when both gates were in use, the main occupation zone lay to the south of the main street, whereas the area to the north was used mainly for storage. After the southwest gate was blocked the order was reversed, suggesting that a major conceptual change had taken place.

In the last two centuries or so of the settlement’s life a rigorous order seems to have been imposed. The rows of four- and six-post storage buildings arranged along the streets were rebuilt many times over on the same plots, whereas immediately behind the ramparts—where the stratigraphical evidence is particularly well preserved and the circular houses cluster—it is possible to distinguish six major phases of rebuilding. In this area individual building plots can be distinguished. Although each had a different structural history, their discrete spatial identities were maintained, suggesting continuity of ownership over a long period of time. Arrangements of this kind indicate a high level of centralized control.

The most frequently occurring structures within the fort were storage pits, of which more than one thousand have been examined. For the most part they were probably used for the storage of seed grain in the period between harvest and the next sowing. Experiments have shown that, so long as the pits were properly sealed and airtight, the seed remained fresh and fertile. Evidence from many of the pits indicates that propitiatory offerings were made once the grain was removed, presumably to thank the chthonic (earth) deities for protecting the seed and in anticipation of a fruitful harvest. The offerings vary but include sets of tools, pots, animals complete or in part, and human remains.

Activities carried out within the fort included ironsmithing, bronze casting, carpentry, wattle work and basketry, the weaving and spinning of wool, and the milling of grain. Additional evidence points to the existence of complex exchange systems involving the importation and redistribution of goods, including salt from the seacoast, iron ingots, and shale bracelets. The presence of a large number of carefully made stone weights is clear evidence that a system of careful measurement was in operation. In all probability the hillfort, in its developed state, was a place where the central functions of redistribution were carried out to serve people living in a much wider territory.

The excavation of a number of Iron Age settlements in the landscape around Danebury showed that, although a number of farms existed during the early phase of the fort’s existence, after the major reconstruction c. 300 B.C. farmsteads for some distance around were abandoned. This coincides with an increase in the density and intensity of occupation within the fort, the implication being that the rural population coalesced within the defenses. Although this may have been a response to a period of unrest, it could equally be explained as a feature of socioeconomic change resulting in a greater degree of centralization.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Cunliffe, Barry. Danebury Hillfort. Stroud, U.K.: Tempus, 2003.

———. Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 6, A Hillfort Community in Perspective. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 102. London: Council for British Archaeology Research, 1995.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

Massive Iron Age hillfort unearthed

The hill fort was more about power than defence.

English Heritage archaeologists announced that they had finally discovered a massive long-lost prehistoric fortress. Traces of the sophisticated complex on precipitous Roulston Scar, near Thirsk in North Yorkshire (England), have been recorded over the centuries, but it is only now to be given its proper place in the schedule of ancient monuments. Suspicions that a hill fort existed in the area date back to the mid-19th Century, when an Ordnance Survey team mapped a stretch 670ft long of "tell-tale" Iron Age earthworks, but they were later confused with medieval boundary ditches and deleted.

A combination of global positioning technology by mappers' satellites and "good old-fashioned legwork" revealed the true nature and the awesome scale of the fort. The survey revealed that the fort was enclosed by a two-metre-deep trench and a four-metre-high "box rampart", fronted by a timber palisade and topped by a defended walkway; only two entrances were detected, adding to the site's impregnability.

"We were shocked to discover such a huge complex," said Alastair Oswald, archaeological field investigator for English Heritage. Preliminary examinations of the remains suggest it was more than twice the size of most other prehistoric strongholds. Built of timber palisades and girdled by a 1.3 mile circuit of ramparts, 60 per cent of which are cut out of solid limestone, the fort has been provisionally dated at 400BCE.

As well as its defensive function, archaeologists think it may have been a "statement of power", possibly housing the Iron Age equivalent of a regional assembly. "Such a large fort would have taken a vast amount of timber and labour to build, which poses many more intriguing questions," said Mr Oswald. The fortress must have taken several years - and more than 10,000 cubic metres of earth and rock, and 3,000 trees - to build, but nobody seems to have lived there for any length of time. Most hillforts were more akin to fortified villages or walled towns, often with substantial permanent populations.

The evidence so far from Roulston Scar suggest it never was a permanent settlement. Significantly, the stronghold faces what was in Iron Age times the territory of the Brigantes tribe, on the border between the Brigantes and their neighbours, the Parisii. One possibility is that the fortress was built by the Parisian king or paramount chieftain to impress, deter or intimidate their Brigantian neighbours.

Roulston's colourful history has been one reason for the fort's elusiveness; the famous White Horse of Kilburn, carved in the chalk, obliterated a stretch of rampart with its head. Richard Darn, for English Heritage, said: "The Victorian schoolmaster who carved the horse created a fake prehistoric monument by destroying part of a real one, which he didn't know was there." The site was also damaged during the second world war, when defensive works were dug in the main area, which has been the base of the Yorkshire Glider Club for 80 years. So many German gliding enthusiasts had used the grassy hilltop in the 1920s and 1930s that it was seen as a possible Nazi invasion site.

Sources: BBC News (1 November 2001) The Guardian, The Independent, The Times (2 November 2001)

LINK

LINK