Hillforts: Britain, Ireland and the Nearer Continent

Papers from the Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland Conference, June 2017

Gary Lock, Ian Ralston

• Publisher: Archaeopress Archaeology
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781789692273
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Archaeology
• Index: Social Sciences

Funded by the AHRC, the Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland project (2012-2016) involved a team drawn from the Universities of Oxford, Edinburgh and Cork which was responsible for compiling a massive database, now freely available online at https://hillforts.arch.ox.ac, on hillforts in Britain and Ireland. This was underpinned by a major desk-based re-assessment of accessible records. These twelve studies, presented at the end of that exercise to a conference in Edinburgh, and contributed by team members and colleagues, outline the background to and development of the project (Gary Lock) and offer a preliminary assessment of the online digital Atlas (John Pouncett) as well as presenting initial research studies using Atlas data. The volume is profusely illustrated with over 140 figures, including many new maps. Ian Ralston provides a historical assessment of key stages in the enumeration and mapping of these important monuments on both sides of the Irish Sea. The hill- and promontory forts of England, Wales and the Isle of Man are assessed by Ian Brown and those of Ireland by James O'Driscoll, Alan Hawkes and William O'Brien. Stratford Halliday's study of the Scottish evidence focuses on the impact of the application of the Atlas criteria to the records of forts in that country. Simon Maddison deploys Percolation Analysis as an example of the potential re-use of the Atlas data in analysing new distributions; Jessica Murray presents a GIS-based approach to hillfort settings and configurations. Syntheses on insular Early Historic fortified settlements in northern Britain and Ireland, by James O'Driscoll and Gordon Noble, and on hillforts in areas of the nearer Continent are included. The latter comprise an overview by Sophie Krausz on Iron Age fortifications in France and a consideration of the south German records of hillforts and oppida by Axel Posluschny, while Fernando Rodriguez del Cueto tackles the north-western Spanish evidence.

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright page
• Contents Page
• Contents
• Part 1. The Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland
• Part 1. The Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland
• 1. The Atlas: an introduction
• Figure 1.1 The Atlas project team, from left to right: William O’Brien, Strat Halliday, Johnny Horn, Gary Lock, Jessica Murray, Paula Levick, Ian Ralston, James O’Driscoll, Ian Brown and John Pouncett.
• 2. The hillforts of Britain and Ireland – the background
• Figure 2.1 The total distribution of all hillforts in Britain and Ireland within the Atlas including unconfirmed and irreconciled sites.
• Figure 2.2 All confirmed cropmark hillfort sites in Britain and Ireland. Contains OS data
• Figure 2.3 An extract from the Ordnance Survey Map of Southern Britain in the Iron Age (1962) showing the Welsh Marches.
• Figure 2.4 Distribution by James Forde-Johnston of hillforts of his Types VIII-XI
• Figure 2.5 Distribution by James Forde-Johnston of Wessex hillforts by size and vallation
• Figure 2.6 A.H.A. Hogg’s 1975 distribution map of hillforts in the south-east of Britain, showing his use of size categories
• Figure 2.7 Hillfort totals derived from A. H. A. Hogg’s 1979 survey; the Isle of Man is excluded.
• Figure 2.8 Dennis Harding’s (2012 figures 1-3) maps of hillforts in Britain using the O.S. 1962 size categories
• Figure 3.3 Hillforts 300m and above,
• Figure 3.4 The distribution of small, medium and large hillforts based on total enclosed area using the Ordnance Survey size categories
• Figure 3.5 The 1.9 ha contour hillfort of Moel Arthur, Clwydian Range, Denbighshire
• Figure 3.6 Hillforts classified as ‘contour’ and ‘partial contour’ types
• Figure 3.7 Inland and coastal promontory forts
• Figure 3.8 Hillslope forts
• Figure 3.9 The stone-walled hillslope hillfort of Caer Drewyn, Denbighshire
• Figure 3.10 Multiple Enclosure forts.
• Figure 3.11 Univallate hillforts based on current and detailed morphology
• Figure 3.12 Multivallate hillforts according to current morphology only
• Figure 3.13 Stone-walled hillforts based on surface and excavated evidence
• Figure 3.15 Hillforts with an inturned entrance
• Figure 3.16 Hillforts with evidence of guard chambers or chevaux de frise
• Figure 3.17 Hillforts with different types of evidence for roundhouses other than that from excavation (Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right (2019)).
• Figure 3.18 Hillforts with excavated evidence for roundhouses
• Figure 3.19 Hillforts with different types of evidence for square or rectangular structures
• Figure 3.20 Hillforts with evidence for pits from excavation or geophysical survey
• Figure 3.21 Hillforts with surface evidence for quarry hollows
• Figure 3.22 Hillforts that have had excavation or geophysical survey
• 4. Forts and fortification in Scotland;
• Figure 4.1 Scottish data in the Atlas of Hillforts in Britain and Ireland,
• Figure 4.2 Distribution of sites annotated Fort and Camp on the 1st edition of the OS 6-inch map.
• Figure 4.3 Distribution of sites annotated Fort in Gothic script on the 2nd edition of the OS 6-inch map
• Figure 4.4 Extract covering the Border Counties from David Christison’s map titled Distribution of Forts on the Scottish Mainland
• Figure 4.5 Distribution of sites annotated Dun in Gothic script, either as a classification or as part of a name, on the 1st edition of the OS 6-inch map. It includes a few in Galloway with the Anglicised spelling of Doon,
• Figure 4.6 Extract covering the southern half of Scotland from Gordon Childe’s map of Iron Age Forts and Refuges
• Figure 4.7 Gordon Childe’s map of Forts between the Roman Walls (after Childe 1933). The original map is crudely drawn and in places appears impressionistic rather than strictly accurate, subtly differing from his later rendering of the distribution
• Figure 4.8 Extract covering the southern half of Scotland from Leo Rivet’s map of Iron Age Monuments in Northern Britain
• Figure 4.9 Map of Confirmed hillforts in Scotland enclosing less than 0.2 ha,
• Figure 4.10 Map of forts in the Atlas revealed wholly or partly by cropmarks set against the overall record of cropmarks
• Figure 5.1 Distribution map of Irish hillforts of Classes 1, 2 and 3
• Figure 5.2 Clomantagh, Co. Kilkenny, an example of a Class 1 hillfort
• Figure 5.3 Toor More, Co. Kilkenny, an example of a Class 2a hillfort
• Figure 5.4 Caherconree, Co. Kerry, an example of a Class 3 hillfort
• Figure 5.5 Cairn at the highest point of the interior of Carn Tighernagh, Co. Cork
• Figure 5.6 The coastal promontory fort of Dunbrattin, Co. Waterford
• Figure 5.7 Cumulative viewshed analysis of Toor More hillfort, Co. Kilkenny
• Figure 5.8 Geophysical survey (with interpretation) of Glanbane hillfort, Co. Kerry,
• Figure 5.9 Tinoran hillfort, Co. Wicklow, showing the extensive forestry that has heavily damaged the site
• Figure 6.1 Examples of fortified settlements in early medieval Scotland
• Figure 6.2 Aerial view of the nuclear hillfort at Dundurn, Perthshire, Scotland
• Figure 6.3 The nuclear fort at Norman’s Law, Fife, Scotland
• Figure 6.4 Burghead, Moray, Scotland, the largest known Pictish fort
• Figure 6.5 Aerial view of the promontory fort at Isle Head, Whithorn, Scotland
• Figure 6.6 Examples of early medieval fortified settlements in Ireland
• Figure 6.7 The probable royal fort at Ballycatteen, Co. Cork, Ireland
• Figure 6.8 The internally ditched enclosure at Navan Fort, Co. Armagh, Ireland
• Figure 6.9 Aerial view of the univallate promontory fort at Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin, Ireland,
• Figure 6.10 Aerial view of the large internally ditched enclosure at Kedrah hillfort, Co. Tipperary, Ireland, which is similar in morphology to Navan, Co. Armagh (source the authors).
• Figure 6.11 Aerial view of the stone-walled ringfort abutting the cliff-edge at Cahercommaun, Co. Clare, Ireland
• Figure 6.12 Examples of large later prehistoric fortifications in Ireland and Scotland
• Figure 7.1 Location map of test areas in relation to the distribution of known hillforts
• Figure 7.2 The results of the slope-based cost surface analysis at Tre-Coll, Wales, shown on LiDAR. The highest number of pathways approach the site from the north-east where the most impressive ramparts are.
• Figure 7.3 The results of slope-based cost surface analysis at Battlesbury, England, shown on LiDAR. The highest number of pa hways approach the site from the north-east where the most impressive ramparts are. Map A: Landscape Scale; Map B: Site Scale.
• Figure 7.4 The results of slope-based cost surface analysis at Castell Grogwynion, Wales, shown on LiDAR. The highest number of pathways approach the site from the north where the most impressive ramparts and an entrance are.
• Figure 7.5 The results of slope-based cost surface analysis at Pen-y-Bannau, Wales, shown on LiDAR. The highest number of pa hways approach the site from the north where the most impressive ramparts and an entrance are.
• Figure 7.6 The results of viewshed analysis from the three hillforts on Harding’s Down showing the visibility of The Bulwark, Wales, shown on LiDAR.
• Figure 7.10 The viewshed results showing the visibility of Harding’s Down West Camp, Wales, from the surrounding landscape.
• Figure 7.11 The results of slope-based cost surface analysis at Harding’s Down West Camp, Wales, shown on LiDAR.
• Figure 7.12 The viewshed results indicating the visibility of the East Camp from the other sites on Harding’s Down, Wales, shown on LiDAR.
• Figure 7.13 The results of slope-based cost surface analysis at Harding’s Down East Camp, Wales, shown on LiDAR.
• Figure 7.14 The viewshed results indicating the intervisibility between Battlesbury and Scratchbury, England, shown on LiDAR.
• Figure 7.15 The viewshed results indicating the intervisibility between Prestonbury and Cranbrook, England, shown on LiDAR.
• Figure 7.16 The results of slope-based cost surface analysis at Prestonbury, England, shown on LiDAR. The highest number of pathways approach the site from the east where the most impressive ramparts and entrances are.
• Figure 7.17 Viewpoint photography indicating the visibilty of Harding’s Down North and West Camps, England, from the north.
• Figure 7.18 The viewshed results indicating the visibility of Harding’s Down North Camp, Wales, from the surrounding landscape, shown on LiDAR.
• Figure 7.19 The distribution of blind least-cost pathways at Pen-y-Bannau, Wales, shown on LiDAR.
• Figure 7.20 The distribution of blind least-cost pathways at Tre-Coll, Wales, shown on LiDAR.
• Figure 7.21 The distribution of blind least-cost pathways at Castell Tregaron, Wales, shown on LiDAR.
• Figure 7.22 The distribution of blind least-cost pathways at Harding’s Down West Enclosure, Wales, shown on LiDAR.
• Figure 8.1 The total distribution of hillforts in Britain and Ireland taken form the Atlas database (see footnote 1).
• Figure 8.2 The City Clustering Algorithm (CCA).
• Figure 8.3 The percolation transition plot showing the normalised maximum cluster size against the percolation radius.
• Figure 8.4 The hillfort clusters in Britain at 34 km percolation radius.
• Figure 8.5 The hillfort clusters in Britain at 12 km percolation radius.
• Figure 8.6 The hillfort clusters in Britain at 9 km percolation radius.
• Figure 8.7 The hillfort clusters in England and Wales at 10 km percolation radius overlaid on Domesday counties.
• Figure 8.8 The hillfort clusters in England and Wales at 12 km percolation radius overlaid on Domesday counties.
• Figure 8.9 The hillforts of England (red) and Iron Age finds from the Portable Antiquity Scheme (grey).
• Figure 8.10 The hillforts of Britain and Ireland by size of enclosed area.
• Figure 8.11 The hillforts of Wales and south-western England by size of enclosed area.
• Figure 8.12 The hillforts of Ireland by size of enclosed area.
• Figure 8.13 The hillforts of the Central Wales cluster at 6 km percolation radius, with sites plotted by size of enclosed area.
• Figure 8.14 The hillforts of the Cotswold cluster at 10 km percolation radius with sites plotted by size of enclosed area.
• Figure 8.15 The hillforts of the Cornwall cluster at 14 km percolation radius with sites plotted by size of enclosed area.
• 9. The Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland online
• Figure 9.1 The user interface for the Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland web mapping application
• Figure 9.2 Maximised HTML pop-up for Maiden Castle, Wimborne St. Martin, Dorset (Atlas ref: EN3598).
• Figure 9.3 Filter expression to show all confirmed hillforts on the Isle of Man.
• Figure 9.4 Geographic footprint of the Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland web mapping application, showing the number of visitors per country since launch (from 22nd June 2017 to 21st March 2019). The symbology is binned at intervals of 500 visito
• Figure 9.5 Gary Lock, John Pouncett and Ian Ralston (left to right) and the Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting, Austin, Texas, 2018.
• Continental perspectives
• Continental perspectives
• Part 2.
• Part 2.
• Figure 10.1 Changing numbers of Late la Tene fortifications in France: (a) the total number known in 1984 by size categories (source O. Buchsenschutz 1984); (b) dump ramparts and (c) timbered ramparts in 2018
• Figure 10.2 Map of Iron Age fortified sites in France
• Figure 10.3 The changing pattern of the distribution of ramparts in France in (A) the late Bronze Age, (B) Hallstatt and (C) La Tène
• Figure 10.4 Distribution pattern of dry-stone ramparts in France
• Figure 10.5 Plan of the fortification of Pech Maho beside the R. Berre (Sigean, Aude). Phase III (325/200 BC),
• Figure 10.6 Puech de Mus (Aveyron). (A) Plans of the ramparts from phases II to VI. (B) Reconstructions of the successive amparts. ©Philippe Gruat.
• Figure 10.7 Models of timbered ramparts of the Iron Age in Europe: Kastenbau type; 2: Ehrang type; 2a: Murus gallicus; 3: box rampart with earthfast vertical timbers front and rear; 4: Altkönig-Preist type or Pfostenschlitzmauer; Hod Hill variant; 6: Ke
• Figure 10.8 The distribution of timbered ramparts in France.
• Figure 10.9 Excavation of the murus gallicus of Alesia: the external wall-face showing beam-holes
• Figure 10.10 General plan of the oppidum of Bibracte with the main lines of the fortifications, A (external) and B (internal),
• Figure 10.11 The Rebout gate at Bibracte. Upper: reconstruction of the Rebout Zangentor. Lower: excavation of the northern bastion of the Rebout gate
• Figure 10.12 The rampart of the oppidum at Pons (Charente-Maritime): A and B, showing location of former horizontal timbers set in the internal wall-face; C, reconstruction drawing of the wall and ditch
• Figure 10.13 The oppidum of Moulay (Mayenne). A: General topographical plan of the oppidum of Moulay (Excavation E. Le Goff © Inrap, E. Bourhis); B: reconstruction of the external Petit Mesnil rampart (after Le Goff, 2016, 126); C and D: aerial views of
• Figure 10.14 1. The location of the fortified sites in the civitas of the Bituriges (map: Sophie Krausz) showing the presence of muri gallici and dump ramparts. 2. Luant, Camp de César (Indre), plan of the fortification, profile and iron nails (source: O
• Figure 10.16 The distribution of massive dump ramparts in France
• Figure 10.17 Reconstructed profile of the ditch at the top of rue Moyenne in Bourges (Cher). Solid line: the profile surveyed in 1987 (source: J. Troadec 1987). Dashed line: proposed southern slope (graphical reconstruction: author).
• Figure 10.18 Reconstructed profiles of massive dump ramparts with their ditches at (1) Châteaumeillant and (2) as proposed at Bourges (source: author).
• Figure 10.19 The oppida in the civitas of the Bituriges Cubi in the first century BC
• Figure 10.20 The extent of the oppidum of Châteaumeillant-Mediolanum (Cher) and the proposed lines of the murus gallicus and the dump rampart (source: author).
• Figure 10.21 The rampart and ditch at Châteaumeillant (Cher). Excavation across the wide flat-bottomed ditch; reconstruction of the flat-bottomed ditch and the rampart (source: author).
• Figure 10.22 3D reconstruction of the fortifications at the oppidum of Châteaumeillant (Cher)
• Figure 10.23 Excavation of the massive dump rampart of Châteaumeillant in July 2016
• Figure 10.24 The rampart at Châteaumeillant during excavation, July 2018
• Figure 11.1 The three present-day regions of north-western Iberia: Galicia, Asturias and Cantabria. Asturias and Cantabria, linked by the Cantabrian Mountains, occupy the central part of the Cantabrian region.
• Figure 11.2 Clear connections can be established between the high mountains and coastal settlements (upper), as is shown for the major promontory fort of La Campa Torres (lower picture foreground) with the Cantabrian Mountains
• Figure 11.3 North-west Iberia, highlighting areas where Cantabrian-type and Douro-Minho-type saunas were constructed.
• Figure 11.4 Key areas of Cantabria as mentioned in the text.
• Figure 11.5 Graph showing the radiocarbon dates available for Asturias by 2002 (based on Alonso 2002). The chronological evidence for different site types in Cantabria is summarized in the lower part of the chart
• Figure 11.6 In the foreground below, a bar chart showing the sizes of the 29 promontory forts studied by Camino (1995). In the background, the site of La Cavona representing the most frequent size (almost 60%) of this type of site: less than 0.5 ha.
• Figure 11.7 Pie chart showing the size ranges of all coastal promontory forts in Asturias by size ranges: 80% are 1 ha or less in extent, as is the diminutive site of La Garita in the background.
• Figure 11.8 The hillfort of Moriyon, dated between the 4th and the 1st centuries BC, controlling the Villaviciosa estuary in eastern Asturias.
• Figure 11.9 Plan of the hillfort of Pendia (4th century BC to AD second century) in western Asturias, with an analysis of the use of internal space.
• Figure 11.10 A comparison between the use of space in the hillfort of Pendia (0.5 ha) and in the hillfort of Coaña (1.6 ha), both in western Asturias.
• 12. Hillforts and oppida: some thoughts on fortified settlements
• Figure 12.1 Sites and places mentioned in the text
• Figure 12.2 Map of the Federal States of Germany superimposed on a Digital Terrain Model
• Figure 12.3 The distribution of early Iron Age Fürstensitze (blue dots) and sites of Herrenhof type (red squares)
• Figure 12.4 Plan of the early Hallstatt Herrenhof site at Wolkshausen-Rittershausen
• Figure 12.5 Plan of the fortification system surrounding the Glauberg. 1. Urnfield Culture promontory wall, reused in later phases. 2. Early Iron Age (late Hallstatt and early La Tène) wall surrounding the plateau, also reused in later phases. 3. Annexe
• Figure 12.6 Map of the Glauberg and the various burials within its vicinity,
• Figure 12.7 Plan of the fortifications and potential fortifications on the Dünsberg in Hesse based on multiple directional hillshading of LiDAR data [courtesy of Hessisches Landesamt für Bodenmanagement und Geoinformationen].
• bibliography
• figures
• Back cover