Dunmallard Hill – Pooley Bridge, Cumbria

Dunmallard Hill, shrouded in trees, hides a true hill-fort. It uses the steed slopes of the hill to good effect, adding to the defence with a deep ditch and rampart within.

The ramparts are up to 10m in height from the base of the ditch, which is still 2-3m deep in places. The rampart is apparently of dump construction.

The rampart is very variable in size, in someplaces it almost non existent.

Air view from multimap. Dunmallard Hill is in the upper centre.

Roulston Scar – Thirsk

Handout photo of Roulston Scar Fort, North Yorkshire, one of the biggest prehistoric hillforts ever found in Britain, which was unearthed by archaeologists at a popular beauty spot. The defences surround the entire promontory (some 24 hectares or 60 acres) making it the largest and strongest prehistoric enclosure in Yorkshire. The monument at Sutton Bank, near Thirsk, North Yorkshire, is thought to have been surrounded by 1.3 mile long rampart, topped with a walkway and to date back to about 400BC. The fort, which is built against a steep escarpment giving it views for miles across the Vale of York, was discovered by English Heritage archaeologists who spent this summer surveying the site. See PA story HERITAGE Fort. Photo: Crown Copyright

“”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 400BC.

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.

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.” – English Heritage press statement 2000.

Roulston Scar hill fort was ‘lost’ temporarily by an error on an OS map, here is the 1850’s map entry.

Roulston Scar is of a size almost comparable to Stanwick. Its apparent short period of use also adds to the notion that it was built by Venutius as part of his anti Roman defences. If this were to be assumed then the possibility that it served a part of an overall defensive system in conjuction with Cleave Dyke and possibly Boltby Scar would immediately spring to mind.

However, the cleave dyke system is complex and definately multi-period. There is immediately another explanation for this fort if it is taken in relationship with Casten Dykes and Double Dykes, which oppose each other and tend to suggest a localised tribal conflict, especially with the fort of Studford Ring – immediately to the south east of the Double Dykes.

Giant Prehistoric Hillfort Discovered at Sutton Bank

A chance discovery by the National Park has led to a major archaeological investigation in partnership with English Heritage: the new research and fieldwork have revealed that the whole plateau at Roulston Scar was once occupied by a massive hillfort believed to date back to around 400BC. Covering an area of 60 acres and defended by a perimeter 1.3 miles long, this is the largest Iron Age fort of its kind in the north of England and one of the top 20 in size in the whole country.

Located on the western boundary of the North York Moors National Park, near Thirsk, the site occupies a naturally strong position, defended to the west, south-west and south-east by cliffs or steep valley sides and commands breathtaking views over the Vale of York and further afield to the Yorkshire Dales. The fort encloses much of the promontory currently occupied by the Yorkshire Gliding Club. Part of its southern defences were unknowingly cut through in 1857 by construction of the famous Kilburn White Horse.

Suspicions that a hill fort existed on the site date back to the mid-19thcentury, when the Ordnance Survey mapped a short stretch of earthworks. These came to be understood as a defence which cut off the promontory of land to the south but interpretation was confused by their supposed association with a nearby boundary (Casten Dyke South), now thought likely to be of much later origin.

Detailed examination by English Heritage field investigators of the humps and bumps visible to the naked eye on the surface identified a series of ancient ditches and banks, together with an artificial steepening of the natural scarp, extending much further than anyone had previously thought, around the full circuit of the promontory. Some stretches of the defences survive to a height of nearly three metres. The team from English Heritage have used Global Positioning equipment to map the traces they have found.

Hill forts are uncommon in Yorkshire, so it was a particular surprise to discover such a huge complex. Over the years there had been tantalising clues that such a monument existed but until recently no-one had carried out a comprehensive survey to settle the question. It is thought possible that the fort was constructed by the Brigantes or Parisi tribes, perhaps as much as a statement of power than as a defensive bastion or temporary refuge in times of trouble. Such a large fort would have taken a vast amount of labour to build, together with vast quantities of timber, which poses further intriguing questions about social organisation as well as purpose.

Excavations in 1969 and 1970 had previously indicated that the main northern earthwork comprised a two metre deep trench and a “box rampart” – fronted by a timber palisade, thought to be up to four metres high, and topped by a defended walkway. The survey has now traced the full extent of the remainder of the defensive circuit which consists of scarps, created by steepening the natural slope around the edge of the promontory, fronted by a ditch with a low outer bank. Originally it is thought that this perimeter would have been surmounted by a timber palisade. Entrances are thought to have existed in the centre of the main northern rampart and also in the south-eastern corner of the fort, where the defences turn in on themselves – a place marked by a series of later trackways and close to the line of the present road.

Roulston Scar Ramparts

“The largest and strongest of NE Yorks. promontory forts, Roulston Scar enclosed about 53 acres. In places its rampart, which cuts of the spur to the SW, still stands 11ft. high. There is a ditch on the NE side. Air photo’s show that the E end of the rampart continues SE, along the side of the valley in the quarter. This appears, on the ground, as a terrace. Not dated.” Guide to Prehistoric England, Nicholas Thomas, 1960.

Maiden Castle – Reeth

For over five hundred years, the miners and smelters of Reeth produced mountains of precious lead. The lead ores from Reeth had high concentrations of Silver, Lead itself became and important ingredient in bronze. Maiden Castle, deep in the Swaledale lead mining territory a unique piece of Iron Age architecture. It is the only known fort with what seems to be a processional entrance.

Maiden Castle, Swaledale. The long entrance wall can be seen to the left of the picture.

Maiden Castle

Air photo of Maiden Castle, from Multimap.

The Entrance Corridor

The only entrance to Maiden Castle, shown on the left, is via a 110m stone corridor.

Introduction

This is one of the most unusual forts in the British Isles, it combines a slightly odd but otherwise ordinary hill fort of the Iron Age period with a unique stone entrance corridor. The corridor was originally some 6-8m wide, lined with an unusual wall, it was completely parallel, very long, and tapered to a very low height.

The wall of the corridor has largely collapsed but in places the original dry stone walling still persists. The wall can be seen to ‘taper’ as fewer and fewer stones were used in its building the further away it gets from the fort. Originally the wall must have started at a height of .5m or so and rose to perhaps 4m by the time it reached and joined the fort. The southern wall was not as big but followed the shaped of the north wall.

Research Notes

“…Maiden Castle at Grinton in Swaledale, is a curious place with a roughly circular bank and ditch approached from the east by a stone avenue. There are round barrows in the vicinity, and although the ditch lies outside the bank, it seems very probable that Maiden Castle is not a fort but some kind of sacred enclosure or meeting place”
Jacquetta Hawkes, A Guide To The Prehistoric And Roman Monuments In England And Wales. Pub. 1978 Abacus

“Among the Pennines and the North Yorkshire Moors, too are linear earthworks comparable to those in the Parisian territory. Certainly not all are Iron Age, but a strong case can be made for some. The usual suggestion is that these are ranch boundaries. At Maiden Castle, on the southern slope of Swaledale west of Grinton, a ditched enclosure of rather less than an acre with a stone wall has a stone- walled drove road leading to it from the east. This is comparable in its general nature to the ‘banjo’ enclosures of the south, and we are inclined to accept it’s Iron Age date.”
The Brigantes Brian Hartley and Leon Fitts. Pub. Alan Sutton 1988

“Mention should also be made of a type of small enclosure (normally less than 1.5 acres) with long entranceway which in the majority of cases is funnel-shaped: the banjo enclosure (Perry, 1966). The distribution seems to be confined mainly to Hampshire, Dorset, and Wiltshire, where the date on available evidence seems to cover the middle to the later Iron Age. Two examples are known in the north of England. One at Risehow, Near Maryport, Cumberland (Blake, 1959, 11-2, fig.2), was dated by finds from an interior building to the later fourth century A.D. The corridor extending from the enclosure led to a drinking place still used by cattle. The other, at Maiden Castle in Swaledale (centered SE 022981), is situated on a hillside terrace. An area 320 by 240 feet is defined by massive earthworks, including a ditch up to 9 feet deep and an internal rampart of rubble with coursed dry stone facing. The shape is angularly oval, with two rounded corners at the broader western end, and an entrance at the eastern, narrower, end defined by well constructed wall termination’s 15 feet apart. Extending from the entrance is a walled corridor 390 feet long and 17 feet wide. There is no dating evidence for Maiden Castle; it may be post Roman and related to the nearby Reeth and Fremington Dykes. However, its hillslope situation precludes a military function. Both these northern banjo enclosures probably served as cattle enclosures and defended homesteads” Later Prehistory from the Trent to the Tyne, Challis and Harding, 1975.

Brigantes Nation comment – George Chaplin

It is probable that both the Hartley and Fitz, and Challis and Harding comments come from interpretation of the same source, and both are swayed by the inclusion of it in the categorisation of it as a banjo enclosure. However, neither have benefited from a detailed survey of the fort, judging by the evidence available this site has not been excavated, so most comment must be accepted as conjecture. It’s categorisation as a banjo enclosure (even though it looks more like a banjo than any other) does it a disservice by allowing the possibility that it could have shared similar function. However this enclosure has it’s own unique environment – deep in an area plentiful with lead, copper and Silver, as well as other valuable mineral and ores. Note that all other banjo enclosures have a funnel shaped entrance, this very much does not, and its tapering structure for the entrance will have served as a very poor drove road.

A very large tumulus marks the entrance to and is seen in the distance, this picture shows the straight parallel nature of the entrance, and shows the width of the wall ‘spill’ at its point closest to the fort.

Challis and Harding take its physical location to indicate a non – hillfort function, since it is overlooked by the hillside, but again this is a sample taken out of context with the contemporary environment. Less than ten miles away a further two hill forts enjoy similarly poor strategic location, both are in mining areas, it seems that building hillforts on the level or a slope was a common practice in Brigantia, and was possibly typical of the region.

Original wall of the entrance.

If a relationship did exist between the Reeth and Fremington Dykes, then this would indicate a need to defend the area rather than simply a small stockade, making the choice of location for the main settlement to be more of convenience than military stratagem.

It is possible that Maiden Castle came into being around 600 B.C., Perhaps as new settlers moved in to exploit the metal and mineral resources of the area. Over time, as the population expanded and became more structured, people began to settle in the surrounding areas, away from the fort and closer to the mining areas.

Maiden Castle rampart, viewed north from the entrance.

Later, the fort may have ceased to exist as a defensive structure altogether, and perhaps took on a more ritual or ceremonial role for the local people, with the addition of the exaggerated entranceway.

Later still, when the local people were under threat, they may have chosen to raise mighty dykes against their enemies, since they were possibly too numerous and widely spread to retreat to the old fort.

Maiden Castle west rampart, viewed from the south.

The Reeth and Fremington dykes are worthy of mention, in all the show three possible lines of boundary, seemingly protecting from attack from the east. The size of these banks and ditches is so large that they clearly served a more military purpose than as a simple boundary. That there are three lines of them , pretty closely spaced indicates border movement and therefore conflict.

Maiden Castle will probably have ceased to be used by the early part of the Roman occupation of England.

The tumulus by the entrance to Maiden Castle

Site Visit Notes – Fitzcoraldo – TMA

I approached Maiden Castle from Harkerside Moor, the weather was filthy with fog and rain. I was also hassled by screeching peewits who are currently in the middle of their breeding season, the only other sound to be heard was an intermittent cuckoo.

The site is on the north facing slope of Swaledale and quite difficult to spot.

So what is it? I don’t know but it isn’t half impressive and must have took some building. Firstly you’ve got an tumbled down dry stone avenue 4m wide and 110m long. The avenue runs from the east and appears to narrow to about 3m at the entrance to the enclosure. At the beginning of the avenue is a large mound, which may be a spoil heap but I don’t think it is especially being so close to the entrance. There is a structure built into the avenue but I think this may be a recent grouse butt.
The enclosure it self is a massive wonky pear shape 140m (E-W) X 120m (N-S). It is surrounded by a rubble wall and deep ditch 4m deep with steep sides and 10m wide. The floor is fairly flat with 1 possibly two stone structures built into the southern side of the entrance.

The site is overlooked by the hillside on the southern edge so could not be a defensive structure, the enemy could fire down into the enclosure.
The site does not dominate the hillside but fits neatly into it and cannot be seen from the road which is only 200m away.
The structure seems too elaborate and too large to be an animal enclosure, why bother building a huge ditch and wall when a gorse hedge would suffice. There are a lot of man hours in this structure.

To get a good idea of the site, check out the aerial photo on multimap at 1:10000.
It has the feel of Mayburgh Henge but hmmm.. the wall is inside the ditch……. I just don’t know
If you want to visit, the easiest way is to take the Grinton, Crackpot (really!) road and walk the 200m up the hillside, it’s well worth it.

Scoles Coppice

Little is known about the camp at Scholes Coppice, but it’s small size and proximity to Roman Rig mean it could well have been used as a patrol fort for the Roman Rig defense.

This is the 1850’s os map showing Scoles Coppice camp, the Roman Rig dyke runs a few hundred meters of the camp.

Pictures of Scoles Coppice rampart, taken from the ditch.

“Scholes Wood, hill-slope fort. This is an oval site of about 1 acre, It is protected by a bank and ditch and has an original entrance at the NE. The main bank rises 3ft. above the interior. The site is overlooked by higher ground NE, W and S. Date, c. 1st century BC – 1st century AD. : but some believe it is not prehistoric” Guide to Prehistoric England, Nicholas Thonas, 1960.

Mam Tor – Dark Peak, Derbyshire

Mam Tor, seen from the east.

Plan of Mam Tor

“despite is unusually high position, this fort contains traces of a number of huts, and on investigation these have yielded plentiful pottery, as well as charcoal giving a surprisingly early radio carbon date.

The defense is single dump rampart revetted by a stone wall in front (at least in places), and accompanied by a ditch an probably a counterscarp bank. It follows roughly the form of the hill enclosing 6.4 hectares, and there is an entrance at the north and south; the rampart is slightly in-turned.

The dwellings were of timber, probably round, on levelled platforms terraced into the hillside; the lower, built up half has been eroded away. The pottery is rough and almost all undecorated. Its character is consistent with the two radio carbon dates obtained, which indicate occupation in about the tenth to twelfth centuries BC, corresponding to the Late Bronze Age or even earlier.” D. Coombs, Current Archaeology No 27 (July 1971).

The western entrance to Mam Tor

The west rampart ditch

The Eastern Rampart

References

Excavation at the Hill Fort at Mam Tor, Derbyshire, 1965-69, Derbys. Archaeol. J. 99, 7-51. Coombc, D. G. and Thompson, F. H.

Live Moor – Whorlton – North Yorkshire Moors

“Whorlton, Live Moor, (NZ 496012) A previously unrecorded promontory fort was identified by D. Smith on air photographs and later surveyed by him and G. W. Goodall. A single rampart with external ditch extends across the west-facing spur of Live Moor to enclose an area of approximately 2 acres known as Knolls End. Where best preverved the rampart is 7.5 m wide and 2.3 m high externally and 0.5 m internally, while the ditch is up to 1.5 m wide and 0.6 m deep with a fragmentory counter scarp bank. The work has been mutilated by quarrying and associated trackways, but a gap in the rampart and ditch at NZ 49640126 probably represents an original entrance.” YAJ Vol 51, 1979. P.3.

Sutton Common – Doncaster

Sutton Common is an early Iron Age fort/enclosure site just north of Doncaster, A key feature of this “marsh fort” is that it seems to use the surrounding marsh land as part of its defence – a twist on the more common hill fort. A further point of interest is the two enclosures link with a causeway accross the dividing waterway.

Sutton Common has been excavated from 1997. The work is being carried out by the University of Exeter (Department of Archaeology) and Hull (Wetlands Archaeology and Environments Research Centre). Funded by English Heritage, excavations are due to be completed by 2003. Click here to access the University of Essex website for Sutton Common.

Excavation of this site is still ongoing, so this page is expected to develop in line with the excavation.

Air photos of Sutton Common, in both cases, the smaller enclosure is on the left. Also note the other earthworks shown in the left picture. Pictures from English Heritage.

Informed comment on the lack of finds

“There has been some not inconsiderable debate on the possible use of the Sutton Common enclosure for ritual purpose, the proponents for this identify the lack of artifacts as being significant and the main thrust of their argument can be summed up as follows; From the three excavations carried out at the site by Whiting in 1933-35, Sydes and Parker Pearson in 1987-93 and most recently by Van der Noort in 2002, only the excavations by Sydes and Parker Pearson turned up any metal work. A single Bronze Age palstave axe, section of a bronze age Dirk blade, Part of a bronze cauldron rim (?), a segment (terminal end) of a Roman peninsular brooch, a copper alloy ring of undeterminable date, and an unidentifiable Iron object, which was described in the site report as part of a brooch pin (?). All of these objects were surface finds and therefore uncertified.

In terms of datable artefacts several Iron Age type glass beads were found on the surface within the large enclosure, after stripping and several pieces of extremely friable low/unevenly fired pottery were discovered in trenches D and F. On analysis they were thought to be Late Iron age. Recent excavations at sites such as Pickburn Leys and Sykehouse (where a significant amount of I.A pottery has been recovered) have shown that local Iron Age sites were not aceramic and that the lack of pottery is more likely due to soil conditions and the poor quality of locally manufactured wares. Other than the preserved wood fragments there are no datable finds from stratified levels from either of the three series of excavations. The radio carbon dates on the preserved wood have suggested an Early Iron Age date for the construction and reconstruction of the timber and stone palisade/rampart. The Sutton Common ladder (a notched single stake of wood c 2m in length) does have parallels in the Iron Age and the discovery of a saddle quern on the site might back up the argument of Iron Age use of the site prior to c 200 B.C when they are superseded by the beehive quern.

The lack of datable metal stone, bone, glass or any other items from stratified levels on the site is very puzzling especially one views the site as having been occupied either in the Iron age or later. The lack of metal work present in stratified deposits cannot be explained by the activities treasure hunters or other outside infuence, given the overall lack of finds and the large extent of the excavtains to date. The Preservation of wood has been generally quite good producing over the years a number of artifacts, such as the wheel (?), the ladder etc, so if the site were inhabited during the Iron Age, why have there not been found pieces of wooden bowls, looms, baskets or found anything in the way of food waste such as seeds, pips, grains or more animal bones (if human skull fragments can survive, why not animal bones, though there were fragments of sheep bone excavated from the ditch of the large enclosure)?

In respect of the projected four poster features in the larger enclosure interpreted as structures, they could possibly be Roman or Romano-British, but this is unlikely for the following reason. A number of sherds of 2nd Century locally produced Roman pottery have been found as surface scatters in the small enclosure, suggesting perhaps a later Iron age habitational use of part of the site, where we can perhaps see native people adopting available Roman goods.

However there is a clear lack of evidence for Romano-British cultural material such as pottery from the large enclosure. If the structures are thought to be Roman, where is the evidence for prolonged or even short term habitation, particularly discarded pottery in the ditches or in post holes or evidence from environmental sampling of food processing or consumption. Square structures are known in Britain before the Roman conquest. There is good evidence from excavations at such sites as Danbury Hill Fort of square structures, which have been interpreted on different sites as granaries, look out or fighting platforms and even as shrines (depending on their situation within or without a site). The idea of the site having been a pagan religious enclosure, which was kept ceremonially clean is not too wild an idea, especially when compared with Stonehenge, which was used successively for thousands of years but has produced very little in the terms of finds. It has long been argued that this site was ritually cleaned which seems a plausible explanation when considering that other henge monuments are rich in cultural material either meaningfully placed or discarded as rubbish.” Peter Robinson, Keeper of Archaeology, Doncaster Museum and Art Gallery. 2002

Other Research

“Carbonised grain is known from four sites in the Trent-Tyne region…. ….The only example west of the wolds is the wheat recovered from a trench through a rampart of one of the enigmatic enclosures on Sutton Common (whiting 1938, Camp B).” Challis and Harding Later Prehistory from the Trent to the Tyne. 1975.