The Forts of Celtic Britain

First published in 200 6 by O sprey Publishing

Artist's note

M idland H ouse.Wes t Way. Botley. O xfo rd O X2 OPH. U K

443 Par k A venue South. New York. N Y 100 16. U SA
E-mail: info@os preypublishing.com

2006 O sprey Publishing Limit ed

Readers may care to note that the original paintings from which
the colour plates in th is book were prepared are available for
pr ivate sale.All reproduction copyright whatsoever is retained by
the Publishers .All enquiries should be addressed to :

A ll rights reserved .Apart from any fair dealing fo r the purpose of private study.
research. criticism o r review. as per mitt ed under the C o pyright. D esigns and Patents
Act.

1988. no part of this publication may be reprodu ced. stored in a re trieval system.

or transm itte d in any for m or by any means. electronic. electri cal. chemical. mechanical.
op tical. photocopying. reco rding or otherwise. w ithout the pr ior wr itten permission of
the copyright owner. Enquir ies should be addressed to the Publisher s.

ISBN 10: 1 8460 3 064 1

ISBN 13: 9 78 1 B4603 064 2
C art ography: Map Studio. Rom sey. U K

Pete r BullArt Studio

8 Hurstwood Road
Bredhurst
Gillingham
ME73JZ
United Kingdom
The Publishers reg ret that th ey can enter into no co rrespondence
upon this matter.

Typeset in M onot ype Gill Sans and ITC Ston e Ser if

D esign: Ken Vail G raphic D esign. Cam br idge. U K

Measurements

Index by A lison W or thington

Originated by Un it ed G raphics. Singapore
Printed in Ch ina thr ough Bookbuilders

06 07 08 09 10

10 9 8 7 6 S 4 3 2 1

A CIP catalogue recor d fo r this book is available from the Briti sh Library.

FO R A CATALOGU E O F All BOOK S PUBLISHED BY O SPREY MI LITARY AND A VIATIO N

PlEASE CO N TAC T:

O sprey D irect.

do Random H ouse D istributio n C ent er. 400 H ahn Road.

W estminste r. MD 21 157
Email: info@os preydirect.co m

O spr ey Direct UK. P.O. Box 140.Wellingborough. Northants. NN 8 2FA. UK

E-mail: info@ospreydirect.co.uk

www.ospreyp ub lishing.com

Distanc es. ranges . and dimen sions are mostly given in metric.To
convert t hese figures to Imperial values. th e following co nvers io n
formulae are provided :
I metre (m)
1.0936 yards
I kilometre (km) 0.6214 miles

The Fortress Study Group (FSG)

The o bject of the FSG is to advance the education of the public
in the study of all aspects of for tifications and the ir armaments.
especially works constructed to mount or res ist artille ry.The FSG
holds an annual conference in September over a long weekend
with visits and evening lectures. an annual tour abroad lasting
about eight days. and an annual Members' Day.
The FSG journal FORT is published annually,and its newsletter
Casem ate is published three times a year. Membership is
international. For furthe r details , please contact
The Secreta ry. do 6 Lanark Place, London W 9 IBS, UK

Contents
Introduction

Chronology

Types of fortified sites

Locatio n

Design and construction

14

H ill -forts: form and function Building t he hill-forts Th e design of bro chs

Tour of a fortified site: Danebury

24

The living site

30

Maiden Castle The development of t he fortificati ons The settle ment T he econom ic and polit ical centre

Celtic fortifications in operation

42

The pr inciples of defence The defence of a hill-fort

Aftermath

52

The sites today

56

Scotl and England W ales

Bibliography

62

Glossary

63

Index

64

Introduction

Uffington Castle, Berkshire. This

subs tantial hill-fort was co nst ructed
arou nd 700 BC, and encom passes
an area of approximately nine acres .
A white horse symbo l cut into the
chalk hillside adjace nt to t he hillfort pre-dates the fort itself, and
suggests that Uffi ngto n may have
served as a site of bot h po litical
and religious significance. (Aut ho r's
co llect ion )

Before beginning any discussion of 'the forts of Celt ic Britain', it is important to

try to define just what constituted a Celtic fort, and who th e Celts actually were.
We also need to know when th ey bu ilt th e fortified struct ures whic h still dot the
landscape of modern Britain - if ind eed th ey were respo nsible for such structures.
Archaeologists and historian s are un ab le to defin e whethe r Britain tru ly was
Celtic, who the Celts actua lly were, or whe the r many of their 'fo rts' were really
desig ned as military enclos ures. Som e arch aeo logists even catego rize th e sto nebuil t brochs of north ern Scotland as catt le she ds; in trut h , th ey are more like
medieval sto ne keeps.
Identifying who the Celts were is someth ing of a histor ical minefield, the
evidence bein g drawn from the acco unts of classical writers, th e surv iving
archa eological remai ns, and traces of linguistic links which can still be found on
th e 'Celtic fringe' of Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittan y and th e Scottish Highl ands.
Un fortunately, th ese three strands fail to provide all th e answers, and sometimes
contradict each other. The first classical referen ces to th e Celts by Greek h istor ian s
occur in the 6th centur y BC, when th e peop le called th e 'Keltoi' were iden tified
as occupying the lands to the north of the Greek peninsula. The Keltoi raided
int o Greece and Italy, and in 390 BC they even sacked Rom e. The Roman s
subsequently paid more atte n tion to their neigh bour s, part icularly after th e
former expanded into northern Italy and th e French Mediterran ean coast. They
described th e peo ple th ey enco untered as the Celts (or Galli in Latin). Some
historians, such as Posidon ius (whose works were passed on by later copyists), may
even have lived amo ng the Celts wh ile learn ing what he could about th eir culture.
In th e mid-1st century BC, Julius Caesa r provided a more detailed descripti on
of th e Celts (or Gauls) of wha t is now France in his De Bel/1II11 Gallico (The Gallic
War). He began with his now fam ou s acco unt of th e land he co nquered:
All Ga ul is divided into th ree part s, o ne of wh ich th e Belgae in ha bit, th e
Aquita ni ano ther, th ose who in th eir ow n language are called Celts, or in
our lan guage Gau ls, the th ird. All th ese differ from each othe r in lan guag e,
custo ms an d laws.

Unfor tunately neither Caesar, Strabo, nor an y other classical writer had mu ch
to say of the Celts who lived in Britain. Instead we have to rely on linguistic or
archaeological evidence. Elements of what was once a pan- European Celtic
lang uage still survive on the 'Celtic fringe' of Europe, wher e Welsh , Irish and
Scots Gaelic all share th e same linguis tic roo ts. It was th e 18th-century Welsh
scho lar Edward Lh uyd who first iden tified thi s Celtic lin guistic tradition, and
who first esta blishe d th e existence of a finite Celtic culture. Indeed it was Lh uyd
wh o resurr ected th e word 'Ce ltic', which co inci ded with th e eme rging evidence
produ ced through th e new science of archaeology.
From th e mid-1 9th century onwards, archa eologists began to un earth artefacts
th at were att ributed to th e Celts - as defined by Lhuyd. Two sites in particular
came to be associated with particular ph ases of Celtic cultura l developmen t: the
Late Bron ze Age site at Hallstatt in Austria, and th e Iron Age religious site at La
Tene in Switzerland, whe re Celtic votive offerings were recove red from th e waters
of Lake Neufcha tel. Subsequently both sites gave th eir nam e to cultura l ph ases
into wh ich all material evide nce att ributed to th e Celts was placed. However, th is
was not th e wh ole sto ry. As evide nce of th e earlier Hallstatt ph ase can be found
in some part s of Euro pe and not in others, archa eologists presum ed th at th e
Celtic sph ere of influence expanded during th e Iron Age to cover all of France,
Spain, Britain , Ireland, Switzerland, Austria and part s of Italy and a swathe of
Eastern Euro pean countries traversed by th e River Danube. However, recent
archaeological evide nce ha s sho wn th at even dur ing th e Late Bron ze Age th e
indige no us (and presumably non- Celtic) peoples of Britain ma intained cultura l
an d com mercial links with th e Celtic peopl es on th e Euro pea n mainl an d. Wh ile
artefacts help exp lain links between different region s in th e Celtic world, th ey do
litt le to help us understand how th e indi gen ou s populat ion of Britain inte racted
with th e Celtic inco me rs from th e Late Bron ze Age on wards. In other words, the
division between th e Celts and th ose th at came before th em is somew hat blurr ed .
The on ly clear archaeological evide nce we can find is th e rem ains of pre-Celtic
and post-Celtic sett lemen ts, religiou s centres and defensiv e works.
While in recent years archa eologists and historians have becom e mor e hesitant
in defining exactly who or what th e Celts were, th ere is at least some agreeme n t
on whe n th ey lived in Britain. The Celts were essentially an Iron Age culture, a
term first devised by Dani sh an tiquarians to help th em catalogue the ir mu seum
co llections . Today th e British Iron Age is used as shortha nd for th e period from
aro und 700 BC (whe n the produ ct ion of iron first took place in Britain) until just
after th e Rom an invasion of southe rn England in AD 43. Even th ese paramete rs
are far from fixed : for exam ple, it is gene rally held th at in Scotland, where th e

The earthen rampart of Uffington

Castle .Archaeological evidence has
shown that whe n it was first built
the ditch was th ree met res deep er
than it is tod ay. (Autho r's collect ion)

While the basic shape of Uffington

Castle 's defensive line is pentago nal,
the ditch and rampart curve in
places to take advantage of minor
changes in t he contours.W hen
first built the ra mpart wo uld have
been to pped by a simple wooden
palisade. (Author's collection)

Rom an pene t ratio n was limited , th e Iron Age co n tin ued un til the 5th cen tury AD.
For th e purposes of th is book we will limi t the study of Celtic fortifications to an
even briefer period - from aro und sao BC un til a few decad es afte r the first Rom an
in vasion of Britain , c. AD 80, wh en most of main land Britain had fallen under
Rom an co n trol. Wh ile th e Celtic period co n tin ued mu ch later in Scotland, Wales
and Irelan d, the nature of 'Dark Age' Celtic fo rtificatio ns is a su bject wor th y o f
ano the r study, and will th erefore rem ain outside th e bounda ries o f this book .
Sim ilarly, the aut hor has avoi ded cove rage of Irelan d, a lan d with its ow n Celtic
tale to tell, whic h is o nce again deserving of its own book.
No part of the survivi ng ph ysical rem ains o f Iron Age Celtic Britain is more
spectac ular that th e fortificatio ns that still dot th e British lan dscape, from
th e great earthe n hill- fort s o f so ut hern Eng land (such as Maid en Castle) to th e
im posing sto ne-built broch s of no rth ern Scotland . While none of th ese were
stro ng enough to keep out a determined att ac k by th e Roman war ma chi ne, th ey
still domi na ted th e landscape, and to th e pre-Roma n peopl e o f Celtic Britain th ey
wo uld have represented th e ultim ate state me n t in politi cal, mi litary and social
po wer. This book will provide a brief survey of th e typ es of fortificatio ns used, and
will show how th ey develop ed ove r time and how th ey change d from region to
region . It is also hoped th at , in some way, it will explain how th ese great
fortifi cati ons were defended, in th eir role as th e last bastions of Celtic civilizatio n
in Britain .

Chronology
Note: all th e dates provided below for th e gene ral ph ases of archaeological
periods are open to interpretation . They represen t th e broad conse ns us of
archaeologists and h istorian s.
2100
2000
1750
1323
1000
800
700

BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC

600 BC
500 BC
400 BC
200 BC
150 BC

100 BC
60 BC
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD

43
47
49
60
82
122
410

A D 500

Ear ly Bro nze Age begins.

T he first hilltop en closures are built in Britain.
Middle Bro nze Age begins.
Death of King Tutank hamen in Egypt.
Late Bron ze Age pe rio d beg ins.
W idesp read prod uct io n of ' beake r' potte ry in Brit ain.
Early Iro n Age peri od begins. Develop ment of C eltic Hallst at t culture
in Au st ria.
Culture kno w n as ' Iro n Age A' arrives in Britain.W idesp read bu ilding
of hill-for ts th rou ghout Britain. Flou rish ing of cultu re in Ancie nt G reece.
Middle Iro n Age peri od. C ult ure known as 'Iro n Age B' arrives in Britain.
C eltic immigra tio n into Britain - ge neral growth of British popul at ion.
Dat e associate d w ith t he first spread of broch s in north ern Scotl and .
First appearance of C eltic La T ene ar tefa cts in Britain.
Dat e regarde d as re presenti ng the high po int of C elt ic cultu re in Euro pe .
C ultu re known as ' Iro n Age C' arr ives in Brit ain. Rise of large t ribal
kingdo ms in Brit ain; period of warfare and ge ne ral unrest. Many hill-fo rt
defences are exten sive ly improved.
Lat e Iron Age pe riod . First w hee l-made potte ry pr oduced in Britain.
Julius Caesar begins his ten-year co nquest of Gaul. Migration of the Belgic
peop le (Belgae) to Britain.
Th e Rom an invasio n of Britain - the beginning of the Roman occupat ion .
Rom an r ule consol idated so uth of the rivers Trent and Seve rn .
Rom an invasion of Wal es.
Dat e by which mo st hill-fo rts in southern Brit ain are abandon ed.
T he Rom an invasion of Scotl and .
Building of Hadri an's W all.
End of the Rom an occupation of Britain. Beginning of the pe riod kno wn
as 'Sub-Ro man Britain '.
End of the Iron Age in Scotl and . Gene rally acce pt ed date fo r the
beginning of th e Early Histo ric Period .

The weste rn gatew ay at Uffingto n

Castle is simpler than in many hillforts , altho ugh its nature has been
altered in the last two centuries.
A ramp (seen in the foreground)
crosses the ditch, leading to a
second smaller rampart and ditch
structure located where the figures
are standing. (Author 's co llection)

Types of fortified sites

This map of the promontory fort at

Burghead . Moray was drawn up by
th e 18th-century military surveyor
General William Roy.Although the
fort was associ ated with the Piers,
it was almost ce rta inly built earlie r.
during the Late Iron Age. Much of
the fort was destroyed during the
expansion of the town soon after
Roy produced his drawing. (Society
of Ant iquaries. London )

\ -

Altho ugh hill-forts and brochs are the most commonly found type of Celtic
fortification in Brita in, ot her types of fortified sites ex isted in ta ndem wit h
them . The scope of th is boo k precludes a study of th e less defensible of these,
suc h as lake Villages and cran nogs, largely becau se th ese struc tures lacked any
obv ious mean s of defen ce save th eir encircleme n t by water. Altho ugh th e lake
Village at Glasto n bury, Som erset was su rro un ded by a wood en palisade, it was
prob abl y not designed to keep in trude rs out but rather as a protecti ve barri er to
prevent ch ildren and anim als fallin g into the sur roun ding lake. Sim ilarl y wh ile
buildings built over th e wat er, such as Oakbank Cran nog in Scotland 's Loch
Tay, ma y well have been defensible for a sho rt time, it lacked the protection to
keep determ in ed attackers at bay. For the purposes of thi s study we sha ll
conce n trate on th e Celtic sites th at appear to have been desig ned with defence
in min d .
Celtic fortifi cations come in a variety of types, altho ugh with th e possib le
exception of broc hs they all share certain characteristics. Over th e years
archa eologists have developed termin ology that he lps them classify the intricate
systems of ditch es and banks th ey encoun ter. These are often augmented with
more Wide ly understood fortification term s to help explain how th ese features
were supposed to work. For exam ple, many arch aeologists use th e word s 'ban k'
and 'ra m part' interchangeably, but to be more accurate th e fortification term
'ra m part' sho uld really on ly be appli ed to th e innerm ost bank surro unding th e
fort's enclosure. If a fort is enclosed by a single circuit of bank and ditch, it is
described as a 'univa llate' fort . More com plex fort ificati on s are described as
'bivallate' (if th ey have two such lines of defenc e), 'trivallate' (if th ey have three
circuits of bank and dit ch ), and 'm ultivallate' (if th e fort is defended by more
than three lines of defence). If th e banks are set close
together th ey are described as 'com pact', whil e th e
opposite are regarded as 'dispersed' .
Given th e range of different types of fortificati ons ,
most fall into four general categories. The first are the
pure hill-forts, whose defences are placed to make
best use of th e terrain. The perim eter of the enclosure
follows th e co nto urs of the hilltop on whic h the fort
is built, and consequent ly th ese fortificatio ns are
rarely circular or even regular. Instead th e lines bend
in accordance with th e shape of th e hill. The result
is an irregularly shaped defensive position, but one
that makes best possib le use of the lie of the land. A
variation on th is is th e headland or promontory forts
found on rocky spurs of coastline wh ere th e site
could be made defensible with relatively little work .
In sites such as Burghead in Moray, Scotland, or Rame
Head in Cornwall these fortification s close off th e
landward side of a headland by mean s of a defen sive
bank and ditch system similar to that found in hillfort s. The only difference is that on th e rem aining
sides of th e defended position th e sea itself provides
a natural barrier to attackers. It is wo rth noting that
forts of thi s kind are not always found on th e coast.
On rare occasion s wh ere the terrain provid es a similar

adva ntage far from the sea, such as at the confluence of two large rivers, a similar
position could also be established. An example of this is th e Iron Age sett lement
at Dyke Hills in Oxfordsh ire, where th e River Thame meets the River Thames near
mo de rn-day Dorcheste r-on-Thames. There a bivallate defens ive line was created to
pro tect th e sett lement, while the two rivers protected th e remaining three sides of
the site.
A variant on th e h ill-fort is what has unsat isfactorily been described as the
plateau fort, or valley fort. These are similar to the more common hill-forts, but
were buil t on sites th at possessed no defen sive adva ntages such as slopes or even
rivers. Inst ead th ey had to rely on their own man -made defences to keep attac kers
at bay. The on ly real adva ntage of this type of fortificat ion seems to be th at in
ma ny cases th e enclosure inclu ded a natu ral spring, so tha t, unlike man y hillforts, th e defenders had access to water and thus in th eory could bett er with stand
a siege. Ofte n these appea r to have been built in areas of goo d farml and, in valleys
or on broad ridges wh ere no more obviously defensible feature was available. An
exam ple of thi s type of early Iron Age fort is Rain sborough in Northa mptonsh ire,
wh ich was excavated dur ing th e 1960 s. There th e fortification stoo d on th e edge
of a plateau, whe re th e ground th en fell away gen tly int o th e Che rwell Valley
below. It enclosed an area of some 2.5 hectares, and altho ugh its defen ces were
uni vallat e, th e archaeologists un covered traces of an outer bank th at had been
filled in at some stage during th e fort's occupa tion. The occupan ts may have come
to regret th e siting of th eir fort : archaeologists also un covered evide nce th at th e
gateway had been destroyed by fire, and a skeleto n was found amid th e burned
ruins of a guardho use. The inference is of course th at the fort was attacked and
captured probably at some point in th e 3rd cen tury BC
Ano ther distin ct group of forts com prises th ose th at were clearly built as nondefensible enclosures, probably to house livestock or to provide a seasona l hom e
for a farming comm unity. Sites of this kind were ofte n built on th e sides of a hill
or in a flat area, and often invo lved m ultipl e enclosures encircling a central area.
Wh ile not primarily designed as a defen sive position, th ese could serve as an
emergency refuge in tim e of dan ger. Examples of forts of th is type include
Lorde ns haws in Northumberland and Clovelly Dykes in Devon , and th ey are
generally locat ed in either the north of Eng land, the south-west, or in th e western

Th e Iron Age hill-fo rt at Woden Law

in the Scottish Bo rd ers was built
in three phases, and in its final for m
cons iste d of a doub le ram part and
dit ch.The curving double bank in
the foreg round has been ide ntified
as a Rom an siegework, sugges ting
that t he small hill-fort might have
been besieged during Agricola's
cam paign in southern Scotland
ar oun d AD 8D-81 . (RCAHMS)

Th e areas of major dist r ibut ion of hill-forts in Br itain,T he main

'
sites mentioned in the text are also indicated,
,>

. "

Hill-forts
Major areas of hill-fortconcentration

50miles
lOOkm

(
, ~

A.'~ .~

v';' A'<

~ ./- Craig Phadraig

-: .;

"

\) ,J"~ ~ /'

Burghead
~~ .
~

~a!:,O 'Noth

COTLANO;:- ~~
-,',~f;
:;:;;r';/S~
ca~eh~~un ~own
~~ _
e

/..

..

~'

Caterthun

"--,
. Barry Hill
. Ounsinane/

d ::;""" 'b" ,~
0V;/;~!
~,.
.,~
r,( '
tJ

ton Dun ,,"' . .

(Edinburgh Castle) Ounsapie

lj

IRE L:AND

0"

NOR T H

- , Woden Law

SEA

Eildon Hill North

.U
IR I SH SEA
.r~J,

. Almondbury

J)\

OId OSW: tryr- \

~,.....'

jr
'I

ENGLAND

~~

Caer Caradoc
. Crott Ambrey

~edon Hill

r~./ ~~
\

'--..r'

--

j Rainsborough
ifi nghoe Beacon
. Uffington
Worlebury
Bratton Camp.

Beacon

~I

Ir

Ladle Hill

Oanebury . Old~inchester Hill

South Yambury. '
Cadbury.
Oldt arum. St Catherine:s Hill
Hambledon Winklebury
BuryHIli
HIli
Hod Hill

Mt~~~~
. ~

, 0

10

ENGLIS H CHANNEL

The major are as of bro ch conc entrat ion in Scotland; th e sites

mentioned in t he te xt are also indicated by arne.

srocns
Major areasof brocn concentration
50miles
!

100km

Shetland
Islands "

A T LA N T IC

C EA N

I
Midhowe
Gurness .
Howe

,.

~~

~~

1\

..... ,........'.......~ Orkney

Islands

NOR T H

5 EA
'.~ p
0

o'

II

The Iro n Age hill-fort on Barry Hill.

Angus on the edge of th e Scottish
Highlands was built over two
phases : the large oval bank of
rubble th at rep res ents the lat er
phase was built on top of an
earlier ear thwork.A lesser outwork
protected the southern and eastern
approaches to th e fort . while a small
area on th e no rth side may have
se rved as an animal enclosure.
(RCAHMS)

coastal fringe of Wales. Clovelly Dykes is a prime

example, with a central compound of 1.2 hectares
surrounded by an oval bank and ditch, whi ch in
turn was ringed by another full bank and ditch,
then two more low-banked enclosures, some of
wh ich had associated ditches in front of th em. The
site also boasted a large annex enclosure on its
western side, pro tected by another ditch . In all the
fortification encompassed an area of some 9.6
hectares. Th is co mp lex site was expanded during its
period of occupancy, as it seems the outer enclos ures
were added after the in nerm ost enclosure was bu ilt.
Given the min or na ture of th e outer works it is
probable th at th ese served as livestock enclos ures,
wh ile th e inn er enclos ure hou sed a sma ll farming
com m un ity or even a large farmstead .
Even sma ller fortified enclosures have been
fou nd, pa rtic ular ly in Scotland whe re th ese
structures are kn own as ring forts or rath s. These
sma ll enclosures were almos t always un ivallate,
pro tected by a circular or near -circular ban k and
dit ch syste m . In some cases th e en closure enco m passed a natural or artificial
mou nd, but th ey could also be built on level ground, such as th e ring fort s found
in Glen Lyon, wh ich may have been built as boundary markers or outpos ts,
guarding the developed Iron Age comm uni ty of Loch Tay an d th e sum mer
pastures in th e h ills between th e glen and th e loch . Othe r ring wor ks seem to h ave
served to protect farm ho uses, a little like th e fortified farmhou ses foun d in
med ieval Europe. Exam ples of th ese include Dan-y-Coed and Woods ide, both in
Dyfed, Wales. What is unusual about these last two sites is th at they were stro ngly
fortified, with a bivallate defen sive system, and both were approac hed along a
pathway lin ed by more banks. It has been suggested th at thi s banked approac h
served as a means of herding cattle to and from th e main enclosure. The
im pression th at th ese were farming settle me nts rath er tha n villages is en hance d
by archaeological evide nce of roundho uses lackin g central hearths - suggesting
th e presen ce of farm buildings rath er th an dwellin g hou ses.
Fina lly th ere are th e broch s, th e majestic sto ne towers foun d in n orthern
Scotla nd . The re may well h ave been a cro ssover betw een th ese buildings an d
th e sto ne -clad ring forts of cen tral Scotland or th e sto ne -built hill-f orts found
in Wales. However, th ere is virtua lly n o evide n ce th at th e peopl e who built
th ese structures had any assoc iation with th e builders of Celtic sites in th e rest
of Britai n. Given the limited sco pe of this book we can on ly tou ch on thei r
basic features and sugges t h ow th ey m ight have served th e peopl e wh o built
th em . Arm it (2003) covers th e sub ject in co ns ide rable detail, an d is th orou ghl y
recommended for th ose who want to explore this topi c further.

Location

12

The h ill-forts of Celtic Britain , th e large earth-bu ilt structures th at can be found
th rou gh out th e land, are mostly con centrated in two broad areas. The first of
th ese areas forms an elongated trian gle running from th e island of Anglesey in
Wales southwa rds th rou gh th e rest of Wales, beyond th e Welsh mountains, th en
across th e River Severn in to mod ern-day Eng land . From th ere th e swathe runs
southwards to th e sou th Devo n coas t, an d south -east and east to th e head wat ers
of th e River Th am es, co ntin uing to th e Kentish shore. The seco nd large band of
hill- forts runs th rou gh th e easte rn lowlands of Scotland, from th e Beaul y Firth
near Invern ess round th e coast to Aberdee n, th en south th rou gh Angus and Fife
to th e Loth ians . From th ere it th en runs in a south-easte rly direction toward s
the Solway Firth, wh ich marks the Eng lish border. Hill-forts did exist outside

these areas, but not in such great num bers. Within these genera l bands the size
and sty le of the forts varied co nsiderably. In very broad ter ms the forts found
in Wales, Scotland and the north of England tend to be smaller and more
numerous than the hill-for ts found in the south of England . There are of course
exceptio ns: Traprain Law and Tre'r Ceiri were as impressively large as many
found further south.
These fortifications were built over a span of seve ral centuries, and not all
remained in continuous occupation throughout the Iron Age. Th e fact that
certain areas of mainland Britain seem almost devoid of hill -for ts while others
have a profusion has never been fully exp lained, but may well represen t so me
form of socia l difference betwee n th e in habi tants . Some archaeologists have
argued th at man y of th ese forts represent territorial divisions, whe re th e forts
represen t poli tica l sta te me nts of land owners hi p an d bo un da ries as mu ch as
fortificat ions in thei r ow n right - akin to th e feuda l castles of th e medi eval
period . Certain ly so me of th ese forts might well have served as political cen tres
of po wer; th e proximity of man y to lat er Rom an provin cial cen tres is often
used to suppo rt this argument. Un fortu na te ly we kn ow all too littl e abo ut th e
distribution and political organizati on of Britain 's Iro n Age populati on, so th e
terr itor ial importance of hill -fort s remains a matter of speculation .
The sto ne-bu ilt brochs are concentrated in th e north of Scot land, parti cu larly
in th e northern isles of Orkn ey and She tlan d, and th e Western Isles. However,
isolated exa mples can also be found as far south as th e Scottish Bord ers. Th eir
construction is unique: th e largest surviving structures look more like giant kiln s
tha n forti fications. As not ed previou sly, th ey also resembl e th e sto ne-built keeps
built in th e century afte r th e Norma n Co nquest of Eng land. Due to limit ation s
of space, any descripti on of th ese two fortifi cation types ha s to remai n fairly
general; however, each n eeds to be dea lt with separate ly as, in all but thei r
purpose, hill -for ts and broc hs have litt le or nothing in co m mo n. A related
for m of Iron Age fortificatio n is th e 'dun ', wh ich in essence repr esents a sma ller
version of a broch - more like a sma ll sto ne enclosure th an a tower. Wh ile th ese
may have been used as nothing more th an fortified hou ses or farm comp lexes,
some may well have served as im portant forti fied sites in th eir own right.

The vitrified hill-fort of Mither

Tap on top of Bennachie . Grampian
is one of the most spectacular
locat ions for an Iron Age fort in
Scotland.The uppe r slo pes of the
mountain were encircled by a stone
rampart. wh ile traces of an inner
defensive ring can also be seen. It is
considered likely that the Battle of
Mons Graup ius between Agricola 's
Romans and the Caledonii in AD 84
was fought close to the foo t of the
mountain. (Stratford Arch ive)

13

Design and construct ion

Toda y, Celtic fortificati on s, parti cularl y hill-forts , are readily identifiable by th e
remains of th eir ramparts and ditches - a stil l formidable system of fieldworks
which serve as visible reminders of an Iron Age past in Britain. The fact that
they can still be seen is a testi mony to the skill with wh ich these fortificatio ns
were sited and bu ilt, and to th e lon gevity o f the materials th eir build ers used .
These fort s were built using sto ne, earth and timber, and all but th e last of th ese
ma terials have weathered the centuries. Altho ugh th e era was known as th e Iron
Age, very littl e ferrous ma terial was used in fort constructio n - the exception
being th e odd gate hin ge or bracke t. Sim ilarly mortar was a post-Roman build ing
ma terial, and the Celts of Britain used dry-ston e construction techniqu es in th eir
forti ficatio ns. This was not necessarily a drawback. The fact that the Broch of
Mou sa in Shetland is still standing after two millennia proves th at th ese
structures were bu ilt to last.

Hill-forts: form and function

The small hill-fort of Caburn, Sussex

was built during the early Iron Age.
although archaeologists now believe
its defences were strengthened
around the mid-I st centu ry AD.
poss ibly in res po nse t o t he Ro man
invasion of Brita in.The site was
abandoned soon afterwards.
(Co urtesy of Steve Dane s)

14

The ter m hill -fort is defined as a fortified enclosure , designed to take advantage
of a h ill or rise for its defensive advan tage . The fortificatio n could consis t of one
or more circular or part-circular ea rt he n or even sto ne ramparts, built to fo llow
th e con to urs of th e hill th e fort was sited on. In man y cases th ese rampart s are
often associated with atte ndan t externa l dit ch es. Th e structures date from th e
Late Bron ze Age and th e Iron Age.
Beyond th is rathe r gene ral definition , th e variation in types an d size of hillforts is con siderable, as are th e dates given by archaeo logists for th e occupa tion.
These fortificatio ns varied from what amo unted to little more th an a sma ll
cattle enclos ure to a fort big eno ugh to acco mmodate a reason ably sized town .
The larger settleme n t h ill-fort s - th e type Ju lius Caesar called oppida whe n he
enco untered th em in Gaul - were clearly of great imp ortance to th e people wh o
bui lt them , and fun ction ed as muc h as a statemen t of regiona l power as a place
of refuge in time of conflict. Few British sites mat ched th e scale of th ese Gallic
forts, alth ough hill-forts like Maiden Castle came close. Some hill-forts fun ction ed
as perm an ent settleme nts whilst othe rs appear on ly to have been occup ied in
tim e of dan ger, during a particular season, or for some specia l even t. Some show
little or no evidence of milit ary use, and sho uld th erefore be seen more as
enclosures to pen in dom estic ani mals rath er than as fortified stro ng points. The
only broad definition of use is that the hill-forts were built to prot ect settlem ents
or livestock from atta ck.
Inevitabl y th ere is some debate over how and why th ese hill-fort s were used,
and whe n. Most appear to have been used for at least tem porary habitat ion or as
fortified military enca mpme nts during th e th ree centuries before
th e Rom an conq uest of Britain, whic h constitute th e Midd le and
Late Iron Age, and all but a few fell int o disuse after th e Rom an
occupatio n. However, a few were re-occupied in th e 5th century AD
after th e Rom an s left, and a few were even used as field fortification s
by th e Ang lo-Saxons during th e Viking incursion s thr ee centuries
later. In areas such as northe rn Scotland and Wales, whe re th e
Rom an influen ce was less pro no unced , hill-fort s tended to remain
in use for longer.
Inevitably th ese multip le periods of occupation and d ifferent
types of use have tended to mask th e real purp ose behind th ese
fortified enclosures, and to enco urage vigorous excha nges between

archaeologists. The easiest way to appro ach th is difficult subject

is by expanding th is broad definition of th e archetypa l h ill-fort,
showing how it might have fun ction ed, and then looking at
specific exam ples to see how the hill-fort changed over time,
and how different fortified sites were used in different ways.
Looking at a hill-fort from outside its perim eter it is easy to
forget th at its most imp ortant feature was not th e serried ranks
of ban ks and ditch es protect ing its circumference, but th e area
inside the earthworks that it was sup posed to protect. In the
case of the majorit y of hill-forts th e archaeological evide nce
of what once stood in a fort's int erior is slight - at best th e
traces of a few earthe n tracks, semi-perma ne nt timber huts,
sto ne-clad wells or refuse pits. Most of th ese features are on ly
visible thro ugh archaeological excavation, and most h ill-for t digs have revealed
th e shadowy traces of th ese signs of habit ation , suggesting th at the majorit y of
hill-forts served as dwellin g sites - wh ether design ed as perm an ent sett lemen ts
or as temporary refuges. Whil e most sites in southe rn Eng land were built on
relatively low-lyin g hills, othe rs in Scotland and Wales were probabl y too high up
to remain in use through out th e year. In these cases th ese h igh er hill-fort s were
probably used during th e summe r, wh en livestock was moved to hillside pastur es.
Hill-forts were clearly built to serve a local agrar ian com muni ty rather than a
military garrison, and so th ey were almos t always locat ed wh ere goo d farml and
was with in easy reach. The peop le who built th em were farme rs rath er than
me rchants or trad ers, and whil e th ere is archaeological evide nce of metal working
and other in dustry, we can find littl e archaeological or historical evidence of
hill-forts serving as trad in g cen tres or even th e sites of travellin g 'fairs'. All th e
evidence we have comes from the presen ce of ceram ic or metal artefacts wh ose
place of origin lay far beyond th e boundaries of th e com m un ity that built th e
fort in whi ch th e objects were found. Similarly we can on ly guess at th e
admin istrative or region al imp ort an ce of most hill-fort s, as th e dearth of written
evidence preclud es anythi ng more th an speculation.

At Caburn, Sussex there is evide nce

that a seco nd ram part and a broad
but shallow ditch were added to the
earlie r defens ive works in res ponse
to the Roman threat.Traces of both
phases of construction can be seen
here. (Co urt esy of Steve Danes)

Build ing the hill-forts

Although archaeo logy can rarely tell us exactly wh y a hil l-fort was built in a
particular location , or even wh o built it, it can usually reveal someth ing of th e
way th e fort was built, an d how it developed over tim e. In addition we can draw
on other archaeo logical evidence to improve our understanding of th e peop le

The hill-fort at Caburn, Susse x

had on ly one entrance. site d on its
no rth-eastern face.Archaeologists
believe the mid- Ist-century AD
gateway cons isted of a four-post
box ho using a recessed gate .
The rampart itself was lined by
a substantial palisade consisting
of wooden posts set a fo ot apart.
laced with hor izonta l braces and
filled with chalk ru bble. (Co urtesy
of Steve Danes)

I5

The well-sited hill-fort on Beacon

Hill. Hampshire en closed an area of
approximately 3.6 hectares. It was
protected by a bank. a ditch and a
co umer scarp bank - pictured here
as a path that now encircle s the
site .The traces of 20 roundhouses
have been det ect ed o n its plat eaulike enclosure. (Co urt esy of Marcus
Cowper)

16

who in habited Britain during th e Late Bronze

Age and the Iron Age, and to show what too ls
and techniques th ey could app ly to a major
building project such as this .
The site of th e fort seem ed to be crucia l. In
some places hill-forts were built within sigh t
of each other, which has led to the theory that
they co nstituted an interconnected network
of defen ces - akin to an Iron Age Magino t
Line. While this no tion has largely been discredi ted, it does appear that forts were bu ilt to
dominate the im mediate hin terland, usually
on a hill over look ing an arable and po pulous
valley. Wh atever th e reason for construction ,
th ese Iron Age 'e ngineers' certai nly knew
how to ta ke adva ntage of the terrain. Almos t
wit ho ut exce ption Britis h Celtic h ill-forts
were sited to make the best possible use of th e
conto urs of th e hill on wh ich they were built. In other word s th e steepness of th e
slope on one or more sides of the position , th e proximity of rivers and stream s, or
th e visibility of any approach ing force were all facto rs used to decide whe re th e
fort sho uld be bu ilt.
The followi ng acco unt of th e building process is gleaned from the archae ological inves tigatio n of Ladle Hill fort, Ham psh ire, whic h was excava ted by
Professor Piggott in 1931. What was unusual about the site was th at it was never
com pleted, and so traces of several ph ases of building could be identifi ed. Abo ut
a th ird of the 3.3-hec ta re (8-acre) site was already delin eated by an existi ng
bou ndary ditc h before th e const ruction work began, and this feature was utilized
by th e bu ilders to help them . The rest of th e circumfe rence was de linea ted by a
series of ditch es, whe re th e excavated earth was piled int o mounds on th e inner
side of th e ditch . Piggott detected th e hand of at least 12 digging tea ms at work,
but the project ended before th e va rious team s could link th eir ditch es together.
In effect, Lad le Hill is a perfect exa m ple of an Iron Age buil ding site .
The first stage mus t have been to mark out th e near-circular course of the
ditch. We know enough about Celtic society to imagi ne that some form of
druidic religiou s ceremo ny would have been involved . In at least one hill-fort th e
rem ains of wh at might have been a sacrificial victim hav e been found, suggesting
th at th e British Celts took th e idea of hon ouring a deit y very seriously. However,
all our di rect acco unts of drui dic practices come from non -Celtic or post-Roma n
Celtic sources, and the exac t nature of th ese ceremonies is very mu ch a matt er of
speculation. After th e ceremo nies came th e hard labour - diggin g th e dit ch . As
already noted, several team s began work at the same time in different part s of the
perime te r. At Ladle Hill thi s first dit ch was never co m pleted, but th e sections th at
were dug were of a fairly uniform size, approx ima te ly 1.Sm deep and 3m wide.
Rather than simply dumpi ng the soil on the inner face of the ditch to form th e
ram part, the teams carried the ir soil a few yards inside th e fort, creating a series
of temporary soil dumps. This allowed th e walls to be built wit h some care: a base
and inner revetm ent of large cha lk boulders was created, and th e rest of th e soil
was used as infill. A timber framework would have been constructed - essentially
a wooden cage within whic h th e rubble and soil would have been poured . The
slope on the outer side of the bank would have been more substantial than on the
inn er face, so a stone or timber revetment wou ld have been essen tial to keep
th e soil in place. Th is inner revetm ent was substan tial, as it was also design ed to
rein force th e bank and prevent it from collapsing . This was not an easy task, given
th e simple tools availab le, and the co nstructio n of a revetment of th is kind
represented a feat of engineering that belied the idea tha t the builders lacked
engineering skills. Amazing ly, in sites where evidence of th is timber framewor k

has survived, there is no sign that nails were used; the

structure was either slotted together, or tied into place. It
also involved a lot of work. Evidently the idea of carrying
the same load of soil twice was clearly considered a
necessary sacrifice in order that th e finished wall cou ld be
built in a methodical manner. At Ladle Hill the eastern
portion of th e rampart was built to what mu st have
been its full planned height of aro und four metres, with
a substa ntial chalk revetm ent bracin g it. The bank was
approximately seven metres wide, tapering on its outside
face to a narrower platform of ap prox ima te ly one metre.
A simi lar sma ller section of rampart was completed on
the fort's western side, but th e two sections rem ain ed
uncon nected. It is almost as if the num ber of skilled wallbuilders was sma ller tha n th e num ber of men requ ired to
dig and tran sport th e soil - which was almos t certa inly th e
case. This suggests th e presen ce of experienced supervisors.
Lad le Hill is not th e o n ly fort whe re th e work remained unfinished . In
several othe r cases improvements to existing fortifi cati ons show signs of having
neve r been co m pleted, particularly in th e south of Englan d . As many of these
feat ures hav e been dat ed to around th e mid-l st cen tury AD, th ese ma y well
have repre sented eme rgency co ns truct ion pro grammes begun as a response to
the Rom an in vasion of Britain. The fact th at th ey were un finish ed ma y be
explained by eithe r th e speed of th e Roman adva nce th rou gh th e region, o r by
the dive rsio n o f the labour force into mob ile armies, cha rged wit h co n testing
the invas ion . It is in te resti ng th at in most of th ese cases th e work also appea rs
to have been undert aken by seve ral team s wo rking sim ultaneously. The tim e
taken to build a fort in thi s mann er wou ld obvio usly depend up on th e size and
availability of th e workforce, or th e size of a perceived threat to th e community
that undertook th e work . In th e case of larger hill -forts such as Maiden Castle
co nstruction of th e perimeter defences could well have tak en several years,
part icularly as th e workforce alm ost certainly had to fit th e work in betw een
the seaso n al dem ands imposed by arable farming during th e Iron Age.
Once the rampart and dit ch had been completed, th e fort-builders would
begin work on th e palisade, which would surmo unt th e bank. In most cases thi s
involved th e sin king of a line of timb er posts abo ut one met re apart aro un d th e
outer edge of th e ram part, th en link ing th ese with cross-braces . The structure
would the n be co m pleted by filling th e gaps between th e posts with large stakes,
the reby creating a solid palisade. We sha ll look int o th e nature of th ese timber
defences in more detail , but at Ladl e Hill th e wooden perim eter would have
been co m pleted by th e building of one or more gateways. As th e fort was never
fin ished and its perimeter never completely dug, we cannot be sure how many
gates were planned to be in corporated into th e Ladle Hill defen ces. However, if
we look at th e evide nce from othe r forts such as Dan ebury in Hampshir e we can
imagine how th ese would have looked . Stout posts would have been du g
between two in wardl y turning spurs of rampart , and th e palisade would have run
up to these gate posts. For easier o pen ing th e woo de n gate would have been built
in two parts; th ese were secure d to th e post s using iron fittin gs.
The co m pleted structure would have involved a substa ntial ditch - no dou bt
dee per and possibly wide r th an th e preliminary ditch th at was du g before wo rk
sto pped on th e site. In fort s of similar size th e dit ch could be up to three or four
metres deep . From th ere a steep glacis would rise up seven metres toward s a
wooden palisade, su pported and braced using stout timber posts and beam s. A
narrow wall-wa lk behind th e palisade would hav e provid ed a fighting platform,
an d from th ere th e bank would have fallen sharply away toward s th e int erior of
the for t. A sto ne revetm ent would have prevented thi s bank from bein g eroded
through use. We can no t tell if a more elabo rate structure was plan ned at Ladle

The hill-fort of St. Catherine's Hill,

Hampshire was excavated in the
late I920s, the first scientific hillfort excavation in Britain.The oval
perimeter encloses a gently sloping
hilltop area of nine hectares.Th is
main gateway shows signs of being
hastily re-fortified. the builders
creating an elaborate defensive
system inco rporating a chalk-walled
approach and guardhouses.The
hill-fort shows signs of being
stormed in the mid-I st century
AD, presumably by the Romans.
(Co urtesy of Marcus Cowper)

17

18

LEFT The defences of a hill-fort: Old Oswestry, 50 Be

This impressive hill-fort encloses an area of 5.3 hectares
( 13 acres) . and was the subject of an excavation during the
late 1930s. It appears the fort was built in th ree phases
fro m aro und 600 BC unt il the ar rival of the Romans in the
mid- Ist centu ry AD. During each phase an add itional bank
and ditch was added to the st ructu re . although the final
(o ute rmost) phase of construction undertaken arou nd
ISO BC was by far the most extensive. During this last
phase the gate house was strengthened w ith the add ition
of a series of banked enclosures o r anne xes on e ither side

of it. Most prob ably th ese served as miniature fortified

pos itions from wh ich the defende rs co uld fire upo n any
attac ker who attempted to rea ch th e gateway via t he
walkway bridge. Li ke most hill-forts , the principal line
of defe nce was the innermost bank o r ram part - the
oute r banks and ditch es would have se rved to slow down
an attacker. o r even to kee p him beyo nd slingsho t range
of the inner defe nces .The we ak po int of any hill-fort
was its wooden gateway, so th is was where the defende rs
co ncentrated the ir efforts , developing 'killing groun ds'
which covered all approa ches to the vulne rable gateway.

Hill, whe re defensive wo rks outside th e gateway or additiona l countersca rp

ditches would ha ve been add ed . Wha t we can calculate is th e time taken for the
bu ilde rs to com plete th e structure th ey began wor k on .
Had it been co m pleted, th e hill -fort at Ladle Hill would ha ve in volved th e
tra ns portation of some 11,000m 3 of soil, boulder and rubbl e du g from th e dit ch ;
in additio n, if suitable stones could not be found th ese wou ld have had to be
mo ved to the site from elsewhere. On ce th e mat erial from the dit ch had been
graded and sorted it would have had to be moved again , thi s tim e to th e site of
the ram part. If we appl y the construction yardstick where a man can dig and
transport one cubic metr e of soil per day (given th e sim ple tools ava ilable), and
assuming th at half as much tim e again wou ld be needed for th e subsequent retransportation of th e soil at th e rampart site, thi s means th e diggin g and soil
mo ving alo ne would have taken aro und 16,500 man days of work. Includ ed in
th is total is the time taken to build th e revetm ent. Given th e perimeter of th e
ban k would have been about 680m long, we can assume th e build ers would have
nee ded about 1,000 sma ll trees to prov ide th e posts, braces and stakes needed to
build the palisade and gateway. We can add another 500 man days for th is work ,
giving a rough tot al of 17,000 man days. Archa eologists have de termin ed that
for each hectare enclosed withi n a fort th e defen ces could hou se and pro tect
approximately 60 people. Tha t gives us a wor kforce of 200, a tot al th at would
include wome n and children (who would have been used to tran sport th e soil
in baskets). If we redu ce th e wo rkforce by a qu art er to include th e lesser
contribution of th e elde rly and th e ch ild ren, we are left with a total pro ject time
of approximately 112 days, or rou ghl y four months.

The hill-fort o n Beacon Hill.

Hampshire was served by o nly
one ent rance sited on its sou thwestern face. co nsisting of bank
and rampart that turned back on
itself to hou se a simple gate. This
entrance was mirro red by a similar
feat ure on the co unte rscarp bank.
wh ile the entrance was furt he r
protected by an addition al smaller
semi-circular bank and ditc h beyo nd
the counterscarp. (Courtesy of
Marcus Cowper)

19

The Scottish Border hill-fort of

W o den Law. Roxburgh originally
consisted of a single stone bank
and ditch. sited on the edge of
a preci pito us slope. During t he
1st century AD an additional
pe rimeter of two banks and
correspo nding ditc hes were added
to the fo rt ificat ion .Archaeologists
are st ill deb at ing whe t her th e
Rom an siegeworks locat ed clo se
to the fo rt we re use d in anger. or
rath er se rved as a tr aining groun d.
(RCA HMS)

The same equation can be exte nded to incl ude othe r sim ilar hill-forts,
includ ing Maide n Castle. The on ly differen ce would have bee n that in severa l of
th ese sites the defences were built in severa l phases, ofte n a cen tury or more
apart. These earlier works were ofte n inco rporated int o th e new design , wh ich
reduced th e amoun t of wor k involved. However, in its fina l phase Maiden Castle
was pro tected by no fewer th an three ban ks and a countersca rp bank, and three
ditch es. In additio n the gate ho use defences were significan tly grander th an those
th at would have bee n built at Ladle Hill. The hill-fort historian A.H.A. Hogg
estima ted th at in time of peace th e defen ces of Maiden Castle could have bee n
im proved from one building phase to ano ther in a period of approx ima te ly
five to seven months. As thi s would have involved an un acceptable degree of
disru pti on to th e farm ing life of th e com m un ity, he argues that th e wo rk would
have been spread out over two or even th ree seasons. In many ways Ladle Castle
was the ideal size - a sma ller hill-fort would almos t certain ly have served a
sma ller population, wh ich meant th e work invo lved would have taken lon ger.
Here again th e wor k would have im posed on th e agrar ian calenda r, and so would
prob ably have been undertaken ove r at least two yea rs.

The design of brochs

20

Un like th e h ill-fort s found elsewhe re in Britain , th e broch s of north ern Scotland

were defensive wor ks design ed to pro tect a relatively sma ll number of people.
The term 'broc h' is gene rally used to refer to a free-sta nding, round, sto ne -built
tower, altho ugh severa l of th ese may also have been built as a centrepiece of
a forti fied sett leme n t. Their or igins rem ain someth ing of a mystery. One early
theory was th at th ey were built by an influ x of newcomers - refugees from th e
Rom an invas ion of Britai n. However, since no sim ilar structures existed fur ther
south, th is notion is easy to disprove. Also, most broc hs have bee n dated to
betwee n sao and 200 BC, although th ey rem ain ed in co nti nuo us use un til th e
Rom an perio d. The best-surviv ing broc h struc ture at Mousa in She tland was built
aro und AD 100, and rema ined in use for approxima tely two cen turies. The dat es
app ly to other sites too, as at some da te after AD 100 the majority of broc hs
appear to have fallen int o disre pair. In structures such as th e Brach of Gurness,
where the tower was surro unded by a fortified settlement, th e Vi llage itself seems
to have been aba ndo ned, and the sto ne re-used to construct farm buildi ngs close
to th e old site .

The com mu nities served by th ese fortifi cati on s mu st have been sma ll
compared to th e Iron Age com mun ities who built hill-fort s, but th en th e two
types of fort ification do not bear close comparison. Given th e correlatio n between
hill-fort size and th e estimated number of peopl e wh o lived in or beneath it, on ly
the smallest h ill-fort s can be compa red in scale to th ese broch s. Both involved a
co nsiderable amo unt of effort for th e sma ll agrarian com m un ity who built th em ,
particularly whe n some hill-fort s or broch s seem to have been little more th an
fortified farms, serving at most one or two extended famili es. It has th erefore been
suggested th at in places like Orkney or She tland, wh ere these broch structures are
common, neighbour in g com m un ities pooled th eir efforts and helped out in th e
construction of each othe r's tower - similar to th e com muna l barn -building
tradition of th e Amish co mm un ity in th e Un ited States.
A typical bro ch was built using dr y-ston e walling, and was approx ima tely
20m in diam eter. The broch at Mou sa sta nds some 13m high , altho ugh othe rs
migh t well have been lower structures - no more th an five metres in height. The
walls were doubl e-skinned, with a cavity between th em wide eno ugh to fit a
staircase th at wo und its way up to th e to p of th e tower. In most large brochs th e
walls are approx imately three metres thick. The structure was en tered th rou gh a
small, low doorw ay; th ese were ofte n flanked by guard cha mbers to improve th e
secur ity of th e fortificat ion . The in ter ior was almos t certain ly divided into floors,
each level bein g accessed fro m th e sta irway and its atten da nt galleries. In broc hs
such as Gurness, Midhowe and Mousa th e lower floor co nta ined a sto ne-lined
well and food storage pit s, whi ch meant th e defenders could withsta nd a len gth y
siege. Archaeo logica l evidence suggests th at th e who le struct ure was cap ped by a
con ical pit ched roo f of th at ch or turf, with timber or even wha lebo ne suppo rts.
The same dry-ston e walling techniques have been practised in the north of
Scotland ever since, as exemp lified by old cro fts and farm boundary walls.
Broch s always seem to have been buil t in easily defensible locati ons, but
they wou ld also h ave had to be co ns tructed close to th e ara ble land worked by

Eildon Hill North, Roxburgh is one

of three hills dubbed 'Trim ont ium'
by th e Romans , and the site of
Scotl and's largest hill-fort, enclo sing
an are a of some 16 hectares. It was
thought to be the main st ro ngho ld
of the Selgovae before it was
captured by th e Rom ans in AD 80 ,
alt ho ugh re cent ly archaeo logists
have called thi s assumption into
question . (Historic Scotland )

21

RIGHT Reconstruction of a broch,AD 100

Th e rem ains of some 500 brochs are to be found in
northe rn and we ste rn Scotland.Th is illustration shows a
reconstruction of a broch based o n surviving examples ,
such as the impressive Broch of G urn ess in Orkney.Th is
broch has two thick walls sep arat ed by a small passageway.
This space se rves as a stairwell that winds its way up to

The oval pe rimeter of the hill-fort

of St. Catherine's Hill.just outside
Winchester. Hampshire.The
enclosu re (o n the right of the
picture) slopes gent ly towards th e
chalk hill's summit, which is now
crowned by a small copse - the
site of a medieval chapel. It was
constructed around 400 BC. and
was occupied unt il the period of
the Roman invasion of Britain.
(C o urtesy of Marcus Cowper)

22

t he top of the structure. which prov ides access to t he

inte rior floo r levels.The broch has a small entrance.
protected by guard chambers, while the lowe r floor of the
structure houses a well and storage pits.The broch is
app roached through a small village. itself protected by a
stone wall, as well as a bivallate arrangement of banks and
revetted ditches.

the com m un ity who built th e struc ture . In man y cases th e struc tures were built
close to th e sea: Gurness and Midhowe were both built on th e Orkney seashore,
separated fro m each ot he r by th e wat ers of Eyn ha llow Sou nd. The Broc h of
Gurness is parti cul arl y impressive, becau se a sma ll sett leme n t of at least six sets
of hou ses was built ben eath th e tower itself. Each was ente red fro m a main
passageway that led th rou gh th e village to th e broch . Some of th ese buildings
were entered from sma ll co ur tya rds, flanked by sto rage she ds. Th e result
resembled a sto ne -built warren . Surro und ing th e village was a substan tial sto ne
wall at least two met res high , which may h ave been surmo un ted by a sto ne
walkway and parap et. Th e who le co m plex was en te red through a double gate,
reach ed by a sto ne- lined approach that span ne d a dit ch running around th e
landward s side of th e village . Beyond this a series of two banks and dit ch es
co m pleted wha t mu st have appeared a most formidable site. The neighbouring
broch of Midh owe was smaller, with a less develop ed defen sive syste m
surro unding th e tower and sett leme n t.
Structures such as th ese suggested th at th e society wh o built th em was one
under threat , eithe r from n eighbouring co m mun ities or more likely from
outsiders. Were th ey built as a reaction to a wave of arme d Celtic settlers from
th e south, or were th ey sym bo ls of com m uni ty power in an othe rwise stable
society? So far arch aeo logists have failed to provid e a clear answer. Wh oever built
th em and for wha teve r reason , th ey remain as pot ent reminders of th e Iron Age
com m un ities wh o felt th e need to defend th em selves in such a dramat ic fashi on.

23

To ur of a for t ified site :

Danebury

By the time of the Roman invasion

of Brita in in the mid- Ist century
AD. Rom an military engineering
was highly developed. and so
the fortifications the invaders
encountered proved relatively
easy to capture.This is a detail
from Trajan's Column in Rome,
showing assault troops . an
ona ger and crew, skirmishers
and siegew orks. (St ratfo rd Archi ve)

24

Although every hill-fort is different, the easiest way to understand what th ey

looked like and how they func tioned is to conduct a tour of one particular site as
it looked in its heyday. Hill-forts remained in use for long periods, often several
cen turies, so thi s will do little to exp lain th e deve lopment of the site, altho ugh it
will offer a snaps hot of what it would have looked like at one part icular stage of
its developmen t, just before it fell into disuse. For the pur poses of th is exercise th e
sma ll h ill-fort at Dane bury in Hampsh ire offers one of th e best veh icles; at just 5.3
hectares it is sma ll eno ugh to act as a mod el for other larger and more co m plex
sites. It has also been com prehe nsively excava ted, so we know a lot about th e site
com pared with othe r similar fort s.
The first hill-fort at Danebury was built around th e mid- 6th century BC, and
altho ugh changes were mad e to th e fortifications over th e cen turies, th e h ill-fort
remained in use unt il aro und 100 Be. At tha t tim e its occupa tion came to an
abrupt and possibly blood y end. Whil e it is not part of thi s exercise to provide
a detail ed account of th e changes th e hill-fort underwent durin g thi s period , a
brief outline will help our understanding of th e site. Professor Barr y Cun liffe wh o
directed its excavation in th e 1970s divided the development of Danebury into
four ph ases, th e last of wh ich in volved th e use of th e fort in th e Sub-Rom an
Period . Phase 3 represents how th e fort would have looked just before its
dram atic end, and th is is th e one we sha ll focus on here.
The fort sat on a sma ll chalky hilltop above th e River Test, 143m above sea
level, a few miles to th e east of th e modern town of Winch ester. As th e rolling

do wn land surrounding the fort was not part icularly

high, the fort would have been visible for some
distance. On a clear day th e hill-for t of Beacon Hi ll
can be seen to the north , whil e to the west th e aspect
is of the open countryside of Salisbury Plain . The
landscape sur rounding it would have been open,
although extensive wood land lay to the south . The
River Test provided water for catt le grazing , while a
spring half a mile from the hilltop prov ided water
for the sett leme nt it enclosed. In fact Cun liffe and
his team have shown that during the Iron Age
Danebury was surro unded by field systems, which
date from between SSO an d 100 BC - ma king
them contem porary with th e fort. The presen ce of
Neolithic barrows in th e same area suggests th at
Danebury was already an im por tan t location for th e
local populatio n long before the hill-fort was buil t. A
chalk road ran eastwa rds from th e main en trance
towards a ford ove r th e River Test (where th ere was a
profusion of field boundaries), wh ile a sma ller track
circled the outer ditch from the main gate until it reached th e most southe rly part
of the fort; at thi s point th e track th en headed south alon g th e rise wh ich led to
Wallop Brook, ano the r heavily cultivated area.
Approach ing th e fort from th e river, th e most obvious feature of th e
fortification would be its ram part, a circular cha lk ban k th at stoo d about five
metres above th e level of th e hillside. It was roughly trian gular in section, and was
surmounted by a sma ll wooden palisade. The who le ban k was approx imately
eight metres wide at its base, altho ugh it narrowed to acco m mo date a one-metrewide walkway set at th e rear of th e palisade itself. Imm ediately in front of th e
ram part lay th e 'V-sha ped' ditch, four met res deep at its centre, and climbing
slightly more acutely on its inne r face. The dit ch itself had been used to qu arry
stones and chalk rubbl e to use in the co nstruction or heightening of th e rampart
behind it, so it was substa ntial, measuring approx imately 10m across. In front of
the ditch ran a berm or counterscarp bank, a rounded feature that, at two metres
high, would hide th e dit ch from any attac ker, but would be overloo ked by
defenders standing on th e rampart . The defen ces were not th e same all th e way
aroun d th e circumference of th e fort. The ramparts on th e southe rn side of th e fort

Without exception Ce lt ic
fo rt ificat io ns in Britain prove d
unab le to protect t hemselves
fro m the Ro mans. who used siege
engine s firing stone shot to batte r
a path t hrough their fragile t imber
palisades .These red sandstone
exam ples of ballista shot were
recove red from the Burnswar k
hill-fort in th e Sco ttish Bo rd ers.
(N atio nal Museum s of Scot land)

The sma ll but impressive Scottish

hill-fort at W hite Catert hun, Angus
consists of a strongly forti fied.
rub ble-built enclosure. surrounded
by two or t hree concentric.
elliptically shaped ram parts. plus
an addit iona l eastern en closu re
protected by a single bank. It sta nds
less than a mile away from another
small hill-fort. Brown Cate rthun .
(RCAHMS)

25

The early developm ent of a hill-fort:

Oanebury, 120 BC
As a hill-fort, Danebury in Hampshire is typica l of many
similar Iro n Age fortifications that lie scattered across
southern Britain. However, unlike most others the site
was t horoug hly excavated over a period of 20 years.
As a resul t we now know more about how the hill-fort
of Danebu ry evolved and what it looked like than most
con tem porary fortified sites in Britain.The inset A shows
a plan of th e earlier fort on the site, while the main
illust ration shows th e hill-fort at the height of its
RIGHT

The hill-fort at O ld W incheste r

Hill. Hampshire is site d at one
end of a ste ep-side d ridge. Its
oval-shaped defences consist of
a single bank and ditch, with an
e ntra nce at bo th t he eastern and
we stern sides.The site was clearly
an important one before t he Iro n
Age, as seve ral Bronz e Age burial
mound s ar e found wit hin t he
enclos ure . (Co urtesy of Marcus
Cowper )

26

development, befo re its sudden abandonment around

120 Be. Sho rtly after th is date the entrance on the
south-western corner of the defences (B) was sealed
off, leaving only one heavily fortified gateway on the fort's
north-east corner (C) .The three sections of ramparts (0)
show the way the fort deve loped over the centuries: the
simpler defensive works of the site were improved during
the Late Iron Age, while the ramparts themselves were
progressively heightened and strengthened over the fort's
period of o ccupation, from around 500 Be onwards.

were less substa ntial th an on th e northern face, whil e th e ditch itself narr owed
slightly to around eight metres across.
Visitors would approach th e easte rn en trance to th e fort und er th e gaze of
sentinels on th e ramparts , wh ere th e guards co uld easily close th e large wood en
gates at sh ort notice if required, or drive intruders away with a hail of slings ho ts.
The chalky approach road was nine metr es wide - eno ugh for two chariots to
eme rge from th e fort side by side . The gate itself was a co m plicated affair, with
two sections of outworks lyin g in front of th e gateway. Even before a visitor
reach ed th e entrance an outlyin g dit ch had to be crossed, a wide but shallow
tren ch that encircled th e wh ole hill -fort. Once past thi s obstacle th e visitor
wou ld be faced with a series of small banks - essentially th e coun terscarp of th e
main dit ch th at surrounded th e fort. These projected out to flank th e path, a
litt le like th e claws of an insect. However, th e ditch ended at th e main gate itself,
so th ese spurs form ed what is best described as a semi-circular oute r enclosure of
th e fort (see page 27).
Th e excava tions revea led that the gap betw een th e jaws of th e bank was
sealed by an oute r gate way, th e exac t nature of whi ch is still uncl ear. Inside this
enclosure two second section s of bank pro vid ed a furth er o bstacle befor e th e
gatehous e was reached, protecting th e flank s of th e en clos ure.
Where th e road cross ed the inner rampart th e banks turned outwards for
20-30m, creatin g a funn el through which an y visitor would have had to pass.
This is wh ere the main gateway stood , a stru cture that was about six metres
wid e, its approac h cove red by the proj ecting hornwork s of th e ram parts. It was

c
27

The remains of the stone rampart

of W hit e Caterthun hill-fort .Angus .
Although it was built within sight
of the adjacent Brown Caterthun
hill-fort. the latter was built with
conventional earthen banks, which
suggests a different period of
occupation. (Stratford Archive)

Dunsin ane Hill. Perthshire the lite rary last bast ion of Macb eth
- is the site of a sma ll Iron Age
hill-fort overlooking Str athmore.
A th ick. stone-fi lled inne r wall was
surro unded by two outer ra mpar ts ,
alth o ugh many of the fort's featu res
we re destroyed by exte nsive digging
by 19th-ce ntu ry antiquaria ns.
(RC AHMS)

28

a double gate, its two wings o pen ing inwards int o th e fort itself. Th ere is
evide nce th at some form of tow er or gallery structu re stoo d ove r th e gateway,
probably linking th e two en ds of th e in ne r rampart s to form a co ntinuo us band
of defe nces . A visitor wo uld have had to pass under th is struct ure to en ter th e
fort itself.
Once th rough the defe nces the wide cha lky road wo uld lead off in to th e
interior of the fort, narrowing as it wen t un til it reached th e far side of th e
enclosure. Other smaller roads forked off from th is ma in th orou ghfare like
branches from a tree, two to the left and th ree to th e right. The roads to th e left
were flanked by rows of square-shaped gra naries , probably raised off the gro und
slightly on nine posts - three on each face and one supporti ng the centre of
the structure. Each side of the building was
approximately six metres across, alt ho ugh a few
smaller, two me tre -wide, four-post grana ries or
hayrick platfo rms lay scattered between th e
larger buildings. Almost certai n ly each structure
contained baskets or cera mic jars filled with
wheat, oa ts or barley. To the righ t th e visitor
would have seen th e main sett leme nt area of
Dane bu ry, with a seeming ly irregular scatte ring
of th atch ed roundho uses th at extended as far as
the northern side of th e ea rthwor ks.
The last fork in th e road led off towards a
sh rine or temple structu re, built in what was
rough ly th e cen tre o f th e who le enclosure. It
was a squa re structure, approxi ma tely th e same
size as th e nine-post grana ry build ings, but of
more solid construction, with its walls set int o
the ground. Three sma ller sh rines lay a few
yards down the path towards the fork in the
road , a larger one on the left of the pat h and
two smaller ones to the right. All three were
square, the largest being just under three me tres
across , and th e entrances of all three st ruct ures
faced the visitor as he approached the main
temple 10m behind t he m on the pa t h.
Althoug h archaeology can not defini tely say
what was he ld in th ese shri nes, we know from

other evidence that th e Celtic peopl e who lived in Dane bury wo uld h ave
worsh ipped a ran ge of deiti es, an d surro unded images o f th eir gods with votive
offerings of food , dr ink or even scraps of cloth . Th e impo rtance of th ese
structures wou ld have been em phasi zed by th eir cen tral position with in th e
Dan ebu ry enclos ure .
The one thing missin g from th e picture created by th e arc haeology of th e site
is the im pression a visitor would have had of the peopl e who lived th ere. At its
he igh t Daneb ury had a populati on of between 300 and 500 peo ple, as well as
their do mes tic anima ls and pets. Chic kens would have scratc hed aro und th e
feet of any visitor, whil e th e sme ll of an ima ls held in wicker enclosures next to
the roundho uses would have been pervasive. San ita tion was largely unkn own ,
and hu ma n waste was sim ply dep osited in sma ll pit s th en loosely cove red ove r.
From ot he r sources we kn ow wha t th ese peo ple would have looked like, and
the appearance of th e Celts of th e Late Iron Age has been cove red in other
Osprey books (see Men -at -Arms 158, Rom e's Enem ies (2): Gallic and British Celts).
However, th e gene ral appea rance would have been of a fairly wealthy ru ral
economy, and a com m un ity th at en joyed both a stable po litical structure and
one wh ich could easily prov ide for th e welfare of its own people. Far from being
a primitive sett leme n t, Dan ebury would have been a well-organ ized farming
co m mun ity, whose inh abit ants en joyed a reason ably h igh sta ndard of livin g,
and whose safety was assure d by th e impressive defe ns ive works tha t protected
their village.

The small moorland hill-fort

of Lordenshaws, No rthumbe rland
consists of an oval enclo su re
of abo ut one-th ird of a hectare
surro unded by a substa nt ial do uble
ban k and ditch .An ancient trackway
st ill leads to its we stern entrance
(show n he re ), w hile the remains
of older enclos ures and dykes can
st ill be t rac ed outside the fort's
perimeter. (C o urt esy of Keith
Du rham )

29

The living site

Having examined the regional spread of these fortified sites in Iron Age Britain,
and looked at the varieties of fortified enclosures built by th e Celts or their
predecessors, we sha ll now look at how these fortifications were used by th e
people who buil t th em , and how well they served as defensive positions in time
of dan ger.
Hill-fort s were not mere fortifications . In most cases th ey also served as a place
of ha bitat ion for th e com m un ity who bu ilt th em . The defen sive qualities of
th e fort might n ot be tested for decades or even cen turies at a time, altho ugh th e
mere presen ce of th e defen ces would have acted as a deterrent to pot entially
hostile neighbour s. Most hill -fort s were in continuo us or near conti nuo us use
for several centur ies, and during th is time the shape and na tur e of the fort wou ld
have changed, as too might the size and politica l status of th e co m mun ity it
served. Like an y long-lived defensiv e wor k, im provemen ts would have been
undertak en to reflect changes in warfar e and weaponry, such as the introduction
of new fort-building techniques or types of missile weap on s into Britain.
Similarly the interior of th e fort wou ld also alter ove r tim e, and archa eological
excavations on several sites have proved that building types, the organ ization of
th e interior and even th e size of th e settle me nt were all sub ject to cha nge .

Maiden Castle
To better understand th e way hill-forts developed with the passage of time we
could do worse th an to look at probably th e most famo us examp le: Maiden Castle
in Dorset (see pages 38-39). This, th e largest hill-fort site in Britain , was subject to
two large-scale scientific investigat ion s, allowing us to trace its develop men t and to
und erstand the way it fun ction ed as a settle ment with more certainty than man y
ot he r sma ller sites. Maiden Castle was first excavated by Sir Mortimer Whee ler
between 1934 and 193 7. Further excavations were carried out in 1985-86. It has
been proposed th at th e name probably derived from th e pre-Celtic nam e for th e
hill-fort, 'Mai Dun ', wh ich approximates to 'big fort '. It occupies a prominent
saddle-sha ped ridge two miles from th e town of Dorchester, presenting a striking

30

The major hill-fort ofTraprain Law.

East Lothian is st ill an impressive
locat ion. des pite the damage
caused by 20th-century qua rrying.
Excavat ions have shown that the
site was occupied after the Ro man
invasion of southern Sco tland in
AD 80-8 1. thereby strengthen ing
the belief that the hill-fort was a
stronghold of the Votadan i. a tr ibe
who allie d themselves with the
Romans. (RC AHMS)

The hill-fort of Maiden Cas tle.

Dorset . photographed befo re Sir
Mortimer Wheeler's excavations
of the site in the late 1930s.
This dramat ic site was the largest
Iro n Age hill-fort ever built in
Britain, altho ugh t races of earlie r
oc cupation have been found
stretching back to the fo urth
millennium Be. (Stra tford Archive)

ap pearance to the visitor. The novelist Tho mas Hardy described its app earance with
considerable eloq uence:
At one's every step forward it rises high er aga inst th e sout h sky, wit h an
obtrusive person ality th at com pels th e sense s to regard it and cons ider ... The
pro file of th e who le stupendo us ruin , as seen at a distan ce of a mile eastwa rds,
is clearly cut as th at of a marbl e inlay. It is varied with protruberan ces, wh ich
from hereabo uts have the anima l aspect of warts, wens, kn uckles and hi ps. It
may indeed be liken ed to an eno rmo us man y-limbed o rganism of an
an tediluvia n tim e ... lyin g lifeless, and cove red with a thin green cloth,
wh ich hides its substance, wh ile revealin g its conto ur. I

T he development of the fortifications

Wheeler's excav ation was the first large-scale scientific study of a British hi ll-fort ,
and helped sha pe our understanding of th e peopl e who built these fortificati on s.
He proved th at th e fort was built in severa l ph ases, th e first bein g conce ntrated
o n the eastern half of th e ridge. An ear lier Neolith ic cam p and raised causeway o r
ba rrow had already been built o n th e same site, but by th e tim e th e fort-builders
arrived aro und 500 BC th e tra ces of th is earlier settle me n t and bank had all but
disappeared. The first fortification co nsisted of a dog-legged bank and ditch du g
across th e ridge from rough ly north to south, th ereby creating an enclos ure
bo unded on its rem ain in g three sides by th e stee p slope of th e ridge's eastern end.
The ban k was revett ed using tim ber, and pierced by a woo den gateway. Anot he r
ban k ran aro und th e top of th e ridge, and was pierced by a gatew ay at its eastern
en d. The enclosure was certa in ly occupied, as t races of timber enclosures dating
fro m this period have been found th ere.
Duri ng th e next century th e de fences fell in to disrepair, the rampa rts
collapsed and th e ditch silted up. Howeve r, aro und 400 BC t he locals decid ed to
rebuild th eir hill -for t, thi s tim e extending it to encom pass th e who le of the ridge,
an area of some 18li hectares (46 acres). The easte rn gateway was strengthened
with an additiona l sem i-circu lar ramp and dit ch , with th e gateway divided int o
I

Tho m as Hardy. 'A Tryst in an Anci en t Earthwork', from A Cllanged "'JIUI, und Other Tilles (Londo n, 19 13).

31

The head o f a Late Iro n Age javelin.

re cove re d from inside th e hill-for t
o f Tra prai n Law in East Lo th ian.Thi s
wo uld have bee n th e sta ndar d fo rm
of missile wea po n e mployed by the
defenders - of little use against the
siege engines used by th e Rom an
Army. (Na t io nal Museum of
Scotl and )

32

two cha n ne ls by a median bank. The rampart s and outlying ditch were exten ded
to th e western side of th e ridge, wh ere a second en trance was co nstructed, again
with a semi-circular lin e of oute r work s. Both ram parts were pierced by two
gateways approx imate ly 50m apart. Th is ph ase of th e development of Maid en
Castle ha s been link ed to th e cultura l ph ase kn own in Iron Age archaeology as
'A Culture', namely th e first identifi able British culture of th e Iron Age. Althou gh
th ese peopl e took advantage of th e new iron-making technology import ed from
th e mainland of Euro pe, it is now th ou ght th at th e majorit y of th ese peopl e were
indi gen ou s inhabit ants of th e region.
Aroun d th e same tim e as Maiden Castle was expa nded a new group app eared
in southe rn Eng land, th eir route traced by th e rem ains of th eir distin ctive
pottery, th e use of th e sling and th eir ow n parti cular ideas about fortifi cati on.
These peopl e were clearly identifi able as Celts.
Arou nd 250 BC th ese members of ' B Cu lture', as th ey are known, began to
make th eir mark on Maid en Castle; its defen ces went th rou gh an ex te ns ive
revision . As an offens ive wea po n th e sling proved superior in both ran ge and
firep ower to th e javelin used by th e 'A Culture' inhabitants. Wh ether thi s
defen sive improvem ent was mad e by th e old gro up or th e new is largely
unknown, but th e new sche me was certa in ly design ed to coun te r an d to take
adva ntage of th e sling's capabilit ies. On th e north ern side of th e ridge a
seco nda ry bank and dit ch was created, suppo rted by a sma ller spur bank on th e
n orth-western face of th e ridge to scree n th e western gateway. On th e south
side of th e ridge two banks and dit ch es were added, in addition to additiona l
bank defen ces in front of both gateways, design ed to fun ne l attac kers into a
'killing zo ne' for slings hot. Fina lly the origina l inner ramp art was repaired an d
hei ghten ed , the extra scale of the bank su ppo rted by a sto ne revetm ent buri ed
on th e in ne r face of th e ea rthe n ba n k.
Th e final form of Maid en Castle's form idable array of defen ces was prob abl y
co m pleted at so me stage during th e ea rly 1st cen tury Be. The rampart s were
en larged once again , wh ile a substa ntial co unte rsca rp bank was ad ded wh ich
enc ircled th e who le ridge . Wha t was most sign ificant about thi s th ird phase of
improvem ents was th e streng the n ing of th e two gate ways. On th e easte rn en d
th e outlying defen ces of th e o ld gateway were filled in or dem olish ed, an d in
th eir place a series of two large fortifi ed rampart s were added, both fro n ted
by a dit ch an d a sma ller co un te rscarp bank. On th e weste rn end of Maide n

Castle the old defences were greatly strengthened, and augmented by ano ther
outlying rampart, ditc h and cou n terscarp ditch. In addition smaller banks
with in the gateway co mplex acted as barriers to funnel attackers trying to
round th e last outlying rampart before th e gateho use.
The twin gateways th em selves were greatly streng the ne d with sto ne
revetmen ts, as was th e north-western en trance to th e gateway where it passed
the first line of th e outer defen ces. Betwee n th e twin gates and th e first outer
rampart a row of guard huts hou sed th e gate garr ison , suggesti ng a level of
m ilitary organizatio n th at had been lacking in previous defensive systems . In
mo st of th e outer dit ch es leading to th e gate ho use (and possibly elsewhe re
aroun d th e fort perim eter) woo de n sta kes were emplaced as chevaux de {rise,
obstacles designed to deter or hinder an y attacker. Finally, firin g platforms ma y
well ha ve been installed at various points along th e oute r rampart s, leading to
the gatehouse, so that a 'for lorn hop e' o f slinge rs could shoot into th e flanks or
rear of an assault part y. By now Maid en Castle had develop ed int o what was
probably th e best-d efended hill- fort in Britain .
Around the time th ese fina l improveme nts were being mad e to th e defences
a new gro up arr ived in southe rn England. Known as 'C Cultu re' peopl e, th ese
in comers were Celts of th e tribe known as th e Belgae, wh ose origins lay in what
is now northern France and southern Belgium . Within half a century these
inc omers had exte nded th eir con trol over most of south-east England, an d by
AD 25 at th e latest thi s had extended as far as Maiden Castle, wh ich th ey may
well have occ upied. Certain ly their influ en ce was felt wit hi n th e fort. The
Belgae, or those wh o ado pted th eir ways, repaired th e ramparts by rein forcin g
the ba n ks with a layer of earth and streng the ned th e wall walk an d palisade
th at surmo u nted it. Strangely eno ugh thi s palisad e was mounted on th e
in ner side of the rampart, leaving th e men who patrolled it exposed to fire
from outside the fort. This has been explaine d as being mor e of a secur ity
barrier th an a defen sive work - controlling access to th e rampart s as a privilege
reserved for th e warrior elite of th e garrison. The posts su ppo rting this palisade
were sunk deep into th e outer edge of th e ba n k, and so in effect they dou bled
as a reinfo rceme nt for th e sto ne revetment bu ried in th e bank itself.
These imp rovem ents did not help th e defenders
when th ey encountered Vespasian's II Legion in
AD 43. Maiden Castle was captured without much
difficulty by th e legionary commander, wh o would
soo n become a Roman empero r. After capturing
the hi ll-fort th e Rom an s destroyed th e fort 's
gateways, leaving it defen celess. The site rem ained
occupied for ano the r three decades, until th e
Romans established a new region al capital two
miles away in Durnovaria (Dorchester), named
after th e local tribe known as th e Durotrigii.
Around AD 70 Maiden Castle was aband on ed, and
its once formidable defen ces became a place of
pasture. The Rom an s had one fina l humiliation for
th is great symbol of Celtic power. In AD 3 13
Ch ristianity becam e th e official religion of the
Roman Empire, and around AD 380 a small square
temple was built on the eastern side of th e ridge,
within th e bounds of th e original fort. A large
circular sh rine was th en built beside what was once
the main th orough fare of th e hill-fort, occupying a
site that may once have belon ged to th e prin cipal
Celtic roundho use in th e fort. Both structures
had fallen int o disuse by th e end of th e 5th
cen tury AD.

The main easte rn gateway of

Maiden Castl e. Do rset is one of
the most complex of any Iron Age
hill-fort. with no fewer than four
lines of defence outlying th e inner
rampart and gate . prov iding th ree
opportunities to pour fire into an
atta cke r's flank before he rea ched
the gate itse lf. (RCAHM)

33

34

A living fort:Tre'r Ceiri, c.AD I SO

This unique, stone-built hill-fort crowns the sum mit of
t he easte rnm ost of the th ree peaks ofYr Eifl, o n the Llyn
Peninsula.The area enclosed by the fort's stone walls is
abo ut four hectares, and the walls themselves are in good
co nditio n.The archaeo logical evidence suggests that the
fo rt was built around 100 BC, at the end of the Late Iron
Age, and remained in use until the end of the pe riod
of Ro man occupation of Brita in.The remains of some
150 Ce ltic ro undho uses have been found on the site ,
which suggests it was once the centre of an iso lated

LEFT

but thrivin g community, perched o n the very edge of

Roman-occupied Britain.The defences of th e fort were
not greatly st re ngthe ned ove r time , but rath er a se ries
of small outworks we re added - guardhouses th at
cove red the steep approach roads to the top of the
summit. The rem ains of wall-ringed field enclos ures
surround the fort, prov ing th at Trer Ce iri remained
the ce nt re of a th riving agra rian co mmunity thro ughout
its period of occupatio n, and t hat its pop ulation increased
significantly during the I st centu ry AD, prob ably t hro ugh
the arr ival of refugees fleeing the Romans .

T he settlement
The one feature th at bo th excava tions at Maide n Castle failed to reveal in any
detail was the configura tion of the hill -fort 's inte rior. Afte r all, th e reason the
fortifications existed in th e first place was to protect the Iron Age community
who lived and wo rked th ere. Archaeology has revealed a littl e abo ut how th ese
people lived , and h ow th eir settleme n t was organized. Th e first settleme nt
there was a Neo lith ic one, establishe d aro und 4000 Be. However, th e
commu n ity th ere was relati vely small - prob ably no more th an 100 peopl e,
based on th e size of th e causeway cam p th ey built . It seems to have rem ain ed
a focus for the Neo lithic people of South Dorset, as abo ut 3 50 0 BC the long
ban k barrow was built, suggesting th e ridge was seen as a centre of religio us
importance. The area was aba ndo ned a few centu ries lat er, and it was no t until
the very end of th e Neo lith ic period , aro und 22 50 BC, that archaeologists have
been able to trace any furth er act ivity. During th e Bron ze Age there seems to
have been little occupation, although th e nearb y Frome Valley becam e a
relatively well-p opulated area. Th is all cha nge d aro und 50 0 BC, whe n th e Iron
Age peo ple of th e region bu ilt th eir hill -fort th ere.
Although little trace rem ains of th e settleme nts created by either th e Neolithic
sett lers or th eir early Iron Age ancestors, by comparing Maid en Castle with ot he r
sites in th e area we can see th at th ere seemed to be a tenden cy for communities
to congregate int o easily defended settleme n ts dur ing thi s period , prob ably du e
to an increased level of social unrest. The trouble with Maiden Castle is that th e

Traces of damaged featu res can

be found amid the heather covering
th e entrance to the hill-fort at
Lordenshaws, Northumberland.
These suggest that the twin banks
were once reverted by sto ne,
altho ugh the ramparts we re
subsequent ly damaged by late r
settlement dur ing the Dark Ages.
(Courtesy of Keith Durham)

35

An unusual feature of the small

circula r hill-fort at Lordenshaws is
that the site is enci rcled by seve ral
small cur ving banks. wh ile the sides
of the t rac k way leading to th e fort
itself we re o nce partially revetted
with stones. It has been suggested
th at these o ute r wo rks we re used
to ho use livestoc k. wh ile t he inne r
enclosure was used as a fo rtified
farm. (C o urtesy of Keith Durham)

36

ridge itse lf was farmed during the

centuries preceding its excavation, while
th e hill was also used as a source of stone
for local building work. This agricul ture
and quarrying disturbed much of the
fragile evidence left behind by th ese early
peo ple, and on ly th e barest clues rem ain
to suggest how th eir settleme nt might
have looked . Fortunately we can draw
parallels betw een Maiden Castle an d
othe r n earby fort s. For exa mple during
the late Bronze Age evidence of trade and
m anu facture ca n be fou nd in man y
communities in th at part of England. By
th e tim e th e Iron Age people bu ilt th eir
hill-fort mu ch of thi s activity had ceased,
and th e peopl e revert ed to a purely
agrarian eco no my. Consequently grain
storage becam e important, and th e ability
to store produce in locations such as hillfort s suggests an increasing level of centralized con trol over the population. In
othe r wo rds Maiden Castle probabl y acted as a seat of govern me n t for a local
tribe, whose influ en ce extended down th e Frome Valley to th e south-east, and
southwa rds towards the coast at Portl and.
There is evidence that th e land with in th is hint erlan d was extensively farmed
duri ng th e Iron Age, and that it was consi dered of good quality. The development
of so man y hill-fort s in th e Dorset area during th e early Iron Age suggests that
thi s land was contested by neighb ouring commun ities. It was th erefore a tim e
of upheaval, when th e inhabitants of Maiden Castle needed th e security offered
by a well-defend ed hill-fort settl em ent rath er th an by scatte red farmst eads and
unprotected Villages.
The earliest traces of stru ctures within the encl osure of Maiden Castle date
from aro und 400 BC, wh en th e h ill-fort was expanded to enco mpass th e entire
ridge. A series of limit ed excava tions hav e gone some way to sho wing how th e
site deve loped , but in ma ny cases, whe re geophysics rather th an excava tion has
to be relied up on , it is impossible to say wha t structures date from thi s mid-Iron
Age phase of occupatio n and whic h were built later. It does appear th at th e large
and slightly ridged plateau th at made up th e enclosure con tained a cen tral
metalled road running close to but not along th e spine of th e ridge, with what
might ha ve been non-metalled side roads radiating outwards from th e eastern
gateway. It seemed th e inhabitants avoided building either roadw ays or
structures on th e line of the Neolithic barrow, probably ou t of respect for the
dead th ey imagined lay beneath it.
Archaeo logists believe that during th e initial stages of th e fort's occupation
settleme nt was concentrated near th e median ridge of th e fort, leaving a lot of
ope n space towards th e edges of th e ridge. The settlement th en expanded
outwards. The only clear evidence of these earlier phases has been th e discovery of
a number of rubbish pits and post-holes in th e centre of th e fort. Traces of a 'fourposter' hut was discovered - a rectan gular structure which has also been found in
other Late Iron Age sites, particularly in th e hill-fort s around th e Welsh border. It
has been suggested th at th ese structures were too small to represent hou ses, so it is
surmi sed that th e buildings were storage barns. However, it has also been suggested
th at because the se structures were concen trated near th e ramparts of th e fort th ey
could be watchtowers of some sort, or even platforms built to hon our th e dead .
We are on firmer ground in th e later ph ases of occupation . Geophysical surveys
have show n th at an irregular scatte ring of timber and th atch roundho uses
occup ied th e bulk of th e site, in terspersed with sto rage pits and refuse dumps. The

Du nsap ie C rag in Ho lyrood Park

in Edinburgh is a small volcanic
plug th at was su rmounted by a
tiny Iron Age hill-fort. enclosed
wit hin a single bank.Traces of
two ro undho uses can be see n
inside the enclosure. wh ile evidence
of contemporary field systems
have been found clo se to the site .
(RCAHMS)

excavation co n ducted during th e 1980s also revealed a littl e m ore abo ut the
occupation of th e fort, and a number of these rou nd houses were excavated .
The rema ins of three huts were d iscovered in 1986, the largest of whic h
measur ed almost six metres in diameter. These struc tures were typical of the hu ts
associated wit h the Iron Age in Britain: wooden circular structures, surrounded by
a sligh t ditch and ba nk . The build ing was centred on an open hearth, while traces
of an oven were found to one side of this . The main st ructural timbers of the
dw ellin g co ns iste d of a circle of upr ight posts hold in g up a frame of timber bea ms .
The en trance to the hut faced so uth , an d was delineat ed by a sma ll fen ce leading
o nto a lim estone wa lkway. A post-h ole suggests th at the en trance was o nce
secur ed by a substa n tia l woode n door. The excavating team also d iscovered that
th e stru cture was in use for a lon g time, and was rebu ilt at least th ree times during
its occu pan cy.
Cu lt ivatio n a n d qu arrying has des troyed m uc h of the evidence of other huts
o n to p o f the plat eau , so all we ca n do is ima gin e th at d uri ng t he Late Iron Age
th e h ill-fo rt co n ta ined numerou s st ruc tures of this typ e. After all, ex pe rime ntal
arch aeo logists and re-enact or s h ave proved that a hut of th e size m entioned
above co u ld co m for ta bly h ou se an ex te n de d famil y grou p o f arou nd six ad u lts
an d ch ildren . Give n th e co rre latio n bet ween th e size of th e h ill-fort and the
popu latio n it h oused di scu ssed previously, we arrive at a projected to tal of
just over 180 huts, h ou sin g over a tho usand people. This nu m ber of buildings
seem s hi gh , give n the n eed to pr ovid e add it ion al space for sto rage facilit ies and
refu se pit s, n ot to m ention worksh op s, co m m u na l buildings an d rel igiou s
ce n tres within th e same enclosure.
In the de cades before the Roman in vasion these underground sto rage an d
refuse pit s we re filled in , an ac tio n whic h m ay well reflect the in flue nce of the
'C Cu ltur e' peop le wit h in th e for t. They were replaced with storage barns, which
im proved the ca pac ity an d the su ita bility of grain storage within th e hill-fort.
Even m o re spectac ula rly, the huts appea r to h ave bee n reorgan ized . Rather than
bein g scattered aro un d the rid ge, they we re co ncen t rated into rows, a littl e like
modern subur ba n st reets, with eac h roundhou se en clos ure space d eve n ly, a nd far
closer to each oth er than before. A row of three suc h h ou ses ha s been unco vered ,
includ in g o ne built using sto ne . Th e middle h ou se o f the three was built o n
th e foundati ons of an ea rlier struc ture, and was eve n te rraced sligh tly to take
advan tage of the nat ur al slope. The final h ou se of th e th ree was surrounded by
a sm all gu lly. All three st ruc tures a ppea r to h ave bee n repaired during their
occu pancy, wh ich suggests they rem aine d in use for so m e considerable t ime p robably surv iving beyond th e period of Roman in vasion in th e mid-1 st ce n tury
AD, roughly a cen tury after th e stru ctures were first built.

37

Maiden Castle, England,AD 43

Maiden Castle is the largest and best-known
hill-fort in Britain, its multivallate defences
dominating the Dorset countryside. The site
is shown as it would have looked at the time
of the Roman invasion of Britain in AD 43,
when it was almost certainly attacked by a
Roman legion. By that stage its defences
consisted of a formidable series of banks
and ditches, the last of which - the inner
rampart of the fort - ran around the
edge of the ridge on which the fort
stood.A series of archaeological
investigations of the site in the
1930s and the 1980s has revealed
a lot about how the fort would
have looked in this period, when
it provided a safe haven for a
com munity of as many as 1,000
people. Gran aries and storage
chambers occupy the outer parts
of the enclosure. while the main
habitation area is concentrated
towards the centre of the site.The
hill-fort is dominated by the complex
defences of its two gateways. the most
impressive of which is the formidable eastern
gateway in the lower right (an earlier version
of which is shown in the upper right inset).
The se ries of outer banks and ditches was
designed to break up any attack. and to
expose the attackers to a hail of javelins and
slingshots from both firing platforms on the
outer wo rks, and the fighting platform that
ringed the inner rampart. It has been
suggested that th e ro undhouses in front
of th e gat eway served as guard huts.

38

An earlier form of the eastern gateway

House

Flo o r plan of the later Roman temple

a nd house located in t his a re a (c.AD 380)
39

Thi s reorgani zation of th e houses suggests a major social change at Maid en

Castle. First ly, it shows that whoever was in cha rge of th e comm unity was ab le
to change th e bas ic structure of everyday life for what he or she probably saw
as th e greate r goo d. Archaeologist and the 1986 excavatio n director Niall
Sharpl es arg ued that:
The co ns truc tio n of regimented rows of ho uses may h ave been an attempt
to break down the extended kinship ties of individual fam ilies and
stren gthen th e im por ta nce of the larger urba n comm uni ty. The va riatio n
of house design , h owever, suggests that th e identity of th e ind ividua ls h ad
no t been totally abso rbed by wha tever co llective ideals were in force and is
in mark ed co ntrast to th e situa tion in some ot he r hill-fort s.

T he Iro n Age Broch of Midhow e

is lo cat ed o n th e sho re of the
O rkn ey island of Rousay. Like
the nearby broch set tle ment
at Gurness, it is surrounded by
stone outbuildings. protected
by an o ut lying sto ne-revet te d
ban k. (Histo ric Scotland )

40

This reorganization of th e enclos ure in evitably in volved a major upheaval for

the co m m un ity, and for th e first time th e prese nce of reside n tial an d com mu na l
areas can be traced with in th e int erior of th e hill-fort. Large areas appea r to have
been devot ed to grain sto rage, as th e rem ain s of sto rage barn s - th e struc tures
wh ich replaced th e earlier grain sto rage pit s - have been discovered. It seems
as if th e peopl e who ran th e co m mu ni ty wanted to be able to feed a larger
population th an normal in th e event of an attack, or needed additiona l grain to
feed a workforce brou ght in fro m th e su rrounding countrys ide to help improve
th e defen ces of th e hill -fort. Grain storage also help ed provid e a mean s of
cur rency and excha nge in th e rural Iron Age eco no my, and its presen ce would
have help ed enco urage th e creat ion of spec ialized trades and industries, whe re
lab our was paid in eithe r cash or gra in. Afte r all, th e Belgae used COinage, wh ich
suggests tha t by th e tim e th e Rom an s arrive d th e eco no my of Maiden Castle
was based both on agrari an produ ction a nd on trade and manufacture, th ereby
mir rorin g th e activity found in th e region during th e Bro nze Age.
After th e Rom an in vasion of AD 43 an d th e sligh ting of th e gate ho use
defen ces by th e Rom an army, this well-organi zed social struc ture appea rs

to have broken down . For the next few decades the population appeared to
decline steadily, and buildings were once again scattered across the site rather
than grouped together in streets. Only one house from this period was firmly
identified in the 1980s, but it is clear that some if not mos t of the lat er
'suburban ' houses fell into disuse. Other evidence of occupation is sparse,
although Professo r Wheeler uncovered the remains of five ho uses and several
storage pits as well as an iron-working area that he associated with the period
im mediately after the Roman invasion . Th ere was also evidence that the
sett lemen t spilled out through the disused eastern gateway and that buildings
were established within th e banks of the fort's outworks beyond the gate. At
the same time many of the out lying ditches were filled, suggesti ng a change of
em phasis from defence to accessibility. The settleme n t was abandoned a few
decades lat er, as th e regio nal cen tre of power shifte d two mil es east to th e n ew
Roma n civitas pe regrina (regional cap ita l) of Durnovaria (Dorc hes ter).

T he economic and political centre

Maiden Castle served a n agrarian co mm un ity, and so farming rather th an trade
or manufacture was of primar y imp ortan ce to th e peop le wh o lived there.
However, it also served as an im portant urb an centre that dominated th e
surrounding region , and traces of its political and eco n omic power h ave been
discovered. Food prod ucti on incr eased dur ing th e Iro n Age as new farm tools
and techniques helped im prove cro p yield, particularl y of wh eat and bar ley. At
the same tim e archaeologists h ave shown th at livestock was farm ed within the
area of Maid en Castle, and th e rem ain s of catt le, shee p, pigs and chic kens have
all been foun d with in th e hill- fort enclosure, along with th e rem ain s of dogs,
goats and wild a nima ls (dee r and hare). Th is all suggests th at food was readil y
available at Maide n Castle during th e Iron Age, and th at neighbou rin g farme rs
would probably dr ive the ir livestock or transport their grai n to th e site whe re it
would be exchanged, sold or han ded over as a form of taxa tio n.
Maiden Castle was well placed as a manufacturing cen tre, as local supp lies of
co pper and tin ore were availab le within its hin ter land . Archaeo logists have
recovered substan tial quantities of bronze and iron tools, and altho ugh th ere is
no evidence that bronze ob jects were ever prod uced withi n the h ill-fort, Professor
Wheeler did de tect signs th at bro nze was being reworked at a workshop located
in the south-west corne r of the fort. Iron was certa inly manu factured on th e site,
but the on ly clear evide nce for th is is in the perio d after th e Roman invas ion. It
is mo re likely th at iron tools and othe r objects were manufactur ed in specialist
centres elsewhere, and then bro ught to Maiden Castle as ob jects for barter. There
is evidence th at pott ery was pro duced within the con fin es of the fort, as th e
remains of clay-baking ovens were discovered. However, Maiden Castle lacked
a ready supply of water, and so other bett er-p laced location s were probably used
to supply its in habitants, who purcha sed the ceramic goo ds th ey needed in
exchange for agricultura l produ ce. The on ly ind ustr y th at may well have thri ved
on th e site was textil e prod uction , a business wh ich left littl e in th e way of
surviving evidence apart from bone tools used in the treatm ent of wool, as well
as bobbins, pin s and needles.
Witho ut in dustry or a religiou s cen tre it ca n be argue d that Maiden Castle
was not mu ch of a sett leme n t . It import ed most of its man ufactured goo ds
from elsewhere, an d wha t it did produce was pro bably just eno ugh to supply
its ow n po pu lation. Archaeologists have described settleme n ts such as th ese as
proto-ur ban - populati on centres that rely almos t exclusively on an agrarian
econom y for th eir surv ival. This mean s Maide n Castle m ight have been a
substan tial settleme n t wielding co nsiderable in flue nce ove r its hinterland, but
it was not a town in the accepted sense. It is bette r viewed as a fortified ru ral
co m m un ity, which exp lains why it was so easily ove rsha dowed by th e
establishment of a permanen t Roma n town ship offering all th e trad in g
o pportu nit ies th at Maide n Castle lacked .

41

Celtic fortifications In
operation
Hill-forts today are deceptive places: the smooth, grass-covered banks and
ditches have been rounded and weat he red over the centuries, and th e approach
to th em, alt ho ugh often somethi ng of a climb, is no longer an expe rience fraugh t
with dan ger. It wo uld have been a di fferent sto ry at the height of th e Late
Iron Age, where th e ramparts wo uld h ave been stee per an d high er, the dit ch es
impassa ble, and th e rampart s lined with well-armed defen ders. Sta kes and
im pedime n ta wou ld h in der any approac h over th e oute r banks and dit ch es
of the fort, wh ile th e mai n gate itself would present a labyrinth ine trap to an
un wary ene my.

The principles of defence

The most basic form of defens ive work was a sim ple timber palisade, ofte n
associa ted with a bank and outly ing dit ch . Archaeological evide nce shows th at
th ese were usually built by sin king a series of upri ght posts into th e top of th e
bank, th en linking th ese togeth er to form a rail-type fen ce. Thi s th en suppor ted
th e up right sta kes th at forme d th e frontage of th e palisade. In almos t all known
exam ples th e timbers were slotted, pegged or tied togeth er; th e use of iron
nails was extreme ly rare. Naturally eno ugh th e on ly surviving evide nce of th ese
structures is th e post-h oles, altho ugh in a few cases traces of th e palisade itself
have been detected . Man y Iron Age or Lat e Bron ze Age fort ification s app ear
to h ave begun as a palisaded enclos ure, and were on ly develop ed into more
com plex defended sites later. For exam ple, at Dinorben in Co nwy a line of
5th-cen tury BC post-h oles was found ben eath th e rampart , suggesting a palisade
predat ed th e existing bank. Some of th ese palisades have been dat ed as early
as th e 8th cen tury BC, some three centuries before th e appea rance of th e
co nven tional rampart and dit ch hill-fort s.
A development of th e basic palisade was th e box rampart , whe re a double
lin e of posts was su n k into a bank, some two or three metr es apart, th en 'laced'
together to form a wood en fram e. The struc ture was th en filled with soil to
creat e a solid rampart. Th e defen ces of Hod Hill, Dorset were built usin g this
method . At Dan ebury, Hampshire, arch aeo logists di scove red that th e fort was

42

Like Midhowe. the Broch of

Gu rn ess is ano ther Iro n Age
settlement built on the Orkney
seashore . although the who le
enclosed area is considerably
larger and more complex. It was
surro unded by stone wall. and then
by an ou tlying dou ble bank and
ditch . (Historic Scotl and )

o rigin ally bui lt usin g th is bo x m eth od , but at a lat er d at e the o rigina l st ruc ture
was rep laced by a la rge eart he n bank.
Buildi ng a ram pa rt withou t a box struc t ure appe ars to h ave developed
du rin g th e Early Iron Age, alt h ough a sim ple ti mber revetmen t was someti mes
used to h ol d th e ea rth o r sto ne in pla ce w he n the bank was being built .
An exam ple o f this typ e o f co ns t ruc t io n is found at Cissbu ry, Sussex, a large
20-hectare site whe re the palisad e for m ed th e o ute r retain ing wa ll o f an eart h en
ba n k behind it . Thes e earth en ba nk s ten d ed to be hi gh er than earlier st ruc t ures,
with a steeper ou ter face to ma ke it h ard er for an att ack er to rea ch t h e pa lisad e
or breastwork at the to p of th e ra mpart . Similarly a st eep in ne r face to the
ram part wa s ea sier to co n st ru ct, as it reduced t he amou n t of so il th at h ad to
be moved. At Wand lebury, Cam b ridgesh ire, th e ear lie r box st ruc tu re was
co n vert ed into an oute r de fensive lin e, wh ile a larger t im ber-fronte d bank was
bu ilt t hat rese m bled the o n e fou n d at Cissbur y. What these rem ains fail t o
p rovide is any so lid ev ide nc e fo r the palisad e or br eastwor k th at ran alo ng the
to p o f th e ra m part. Presu mably the timber revetment doubled as a pa lisade, as
it was h igh er th an th e bank for me d behind it.
Alth ough sto n e-built rampart s we re ver y different in appearance to eart he n
ones, a sim ilar approach was ado pted. The hi ll-for t at Tre'r Ceiri in Caern arfo n
was sur rou n ded by a sto ne -bu ilt ram pa rt whe re th e oute r face also form ed th e
palisade. A stone wa lkway ran behind this out er face, and the wa ll the n descend ed
toward s t he interior of th e enclosure by m eans of two ste pped revetments or
te rraces, wh ich im pa rte d greater streng th to th e who le struc ture . A m ore co m plex
stone ram pa rt is fou nd at Worlebury in Some rset,
wh ere archaeologists h ave shown th at th e origina l
com plex o f wa lls once stood to a height of ove r 10m.
As at Tre'r Ceiri th e main ram part was supported
by a series of sto ne revetmen ts o r terraces stepping
down toward s th e interior of th e fort, wh ile th e
outer face presen te d a n ear ve rtica l face to any
att acker. In effect thi s stre ng the ne d th e defen ce,
because eve n if th e outer wa ll were da maged, th e
stone revetments beh ind wo uld serve as seco ndary
walls, thus m aintaining th e in teg rity o f th e defen ce.
A var iatio n of th e co nve n tiona l sto ne ram part is
found in th e 'vitrified ' forts of Scotlan d, whe re the
walls were delib erat ely sub jecte d to th e effects of fire.
The process of setti ng fire to th e st ruc ture fused th e
rocks together in va rious degrees, an d in some
cases prod uced a di stincti ve glass-like coa ting th at
served as a binding age n t. Exam ples include th e
Tap O'Noth on Bennachi e, Gra m pian; Barr y Hill,
Perthsh ire; and Craig Phadrig outside Inverness.
Sim ilar vitrified struc tures were found in Ireland an d
in Cen t ral Europe, but outside Scotlan d th ey are no t
fou n d elsewhe re on th e British m ainland. In man y
cases th e Vitrified wa lls were th en reinfo rced or
revett ed by un vitrified sto ne, ofte n built up on both
the outer an d inner faces of th e vitri fied rampart.
However strong th e ram pa rts of an Iron Age fort
were, th e wea kest point of th e site was always th e
gateway - an d it was presumab ly th ere th at an
attacker wo u ld conce n tra te h is effor ts. Obviously
the builde rs placed great em phas is on strengthe ning
th e gateway defen ces, usually by placin g obstacles in
fron t of th em , wh ich would cha n ne l an attack in to
killin g zones whe re the defenders cou ld shower th e

The interior of the Broch of

Gurness is divided into small
compartm ents. built aro und a
central hearth (in the lower right
of the iliust rat io n).T he pre senc e
of a well and storage pits suggests
the broch was built primarily fo r
defence , an impression heightened
by the low doorway, protected by
small guard chamb e rs. (Histo ric
Scotl and )

43

attackers with javelin s and slingsho t sto nes. The simplest form of gateway would
be an open entrance, sealed with a temporary barrier such as cut logs or felled
trees. Usually th e passage th rough th e rampart was faced with stone, the n blocked
by one or more wooden gates. Maiden Castle appears to have had two gateways,
separated by a sho rt length of rampart. In some fort s, such as Dino rben, a
gateho use or guard post lay beh ind th e gate itself, wh ich suggests th e presenc e of
a perm an ent gate garrison. At Maiden Castle one of two small guard posts located
at th e eastern en trance was equip ped with a hearth, whi ch supports the the ory
th at th ese posts were perm an ently manned.
One surprising aspect is th e lack of iron fittings associated with Iron Age
gateways. At Sou th Cadbur y, Som erset, and Hembury, Devon , iron rings were
found whi ch might well have form ed part of a gate h inge. It appears th at in most
cases these h inges, like th e gates and gateposts themselves, were constructed using
wood. The width of th e gateway seems to have varied considerab ly; at Danebury
in Hamps hire th e gate itself had two leaves or sides, and was sup ported in th e
centre by a post set int o a stone-lined post-hole. At Breden Hill, Gloucestershire
th e gateway span ned a Sm-wide road, and was constructed in a similar fashion
to Danebury. What is int erestin g about both th ese gateways is th at both were
set between lon g passageways, formed by th e ramp art s turning outward (at
Danebury) or inward (at Bredon Hill). Defend ers on the ramp arts could th erefore
sho wer th e approac h to th e gate with sto nes even more effectively th an th ey
could when defending a more conve ntiona l gateway system. At Breden Hill it
app ears that th e line of rampa rts was spanned by a foot bridge whic h crossed the
approach road, wh ile th e gatewa y itself was set some 20m further back, at the end
of the inwa rd-turning horns of th e bank. Some archae olog ists have suggested th at
these gateways or footbridges were decorate d with troph ies of war such as severed
hea ds or skulls, or augmented by some form of triumphal arch. However, the
evidence for these features is either circums tan tial or no n-existen t.
The gateway itself was usually approached th rough a series of outer works,
which were designed to make th e attackers turn and expose their side to the
defenders. If the attacker was equipped with a shield then a left-hand turn in the

44

The Broc h of Mousa in Shet land

is the most impress ive broc h
stru ctur e to survive, its walls
still sta nding to a height of 13m.
The small doorway on t he left
of the st ruct ure was its on ly
entrance . (Stra tfo rd Arch ive)

approach meant th ey would lose th e protection of th e shield as th ey adva nce d.

At Hod Hill th e approach involved a turn to th e right, whi ch suggests th at an
un fin ished outwo rk in front of th e main gate was prob ably intended to provide
a forwar ds fighting position for th e defen ders, whe re th ey could assault th e
att ackers in th e rear and right flan k as they advanced towards th e gate. At
St Catherine's Hill in Hampshir e th e approach to th e gateway was free from
any such obstructions, but post-h oles on eithe r side of th e en trance suggest a
walkway migh t have pro jected forward to flan k th e gate itself in a fashio n similar
to the hornworks found at Dan ebury.
An addition al obstacle was some times used in th e form of chevaux de (rise;
these were wooden stakes em bedded in ditch es or banks to slow th e advance of
any attacker, wh o would have to thread th rough th e stakes. In Wales and
Scotland jagged rocks were used as an alternative to wooden stakes, whil e in a
few sites in Wales such as Pen-y-Gaer in Conwy boulders were strewn outside the
perimeter to achi eve the same effect. In short the people of Iron Age Britain used
every means they could to place an attacker at a disadvantage: building their
forts on h illtop s, creati ng networks of banks and ditches, constructing complex
en trances, and placing additio na l obstacles in the path of any attac k. As such
they used all the princip les of defen ce th at could be foun d in lat er period s. Their
on ly lim itation lay in th e manner in whi ch th ese Celtic peopl es fough t, and in
the limi ted weaponry ava ilable to th em . As long as th ey faced oppone nts from a
similar cu lture, their fortifi cat ions were virtua lly impregnable. However, whe n
they encoun tered a tech nologically superior opponent the weaknesse s of th ese
defensive syste ms were exposed, and the y proved as defe nsib le as a medi eva l
castle attacked by Renaissanc e artillery, or stone-buil t Victo rian fort s bombarded
by mo de rn rifled ord nance.

T he defence of a hill-fort
The Celtic fortification s of Britain were certain ly not designed to withstand an
A section of th e Bro ch of Mousa
att ack by a professional standing army suc h as th e one fielded by Rom e in th e
shows how the walls were dou bleIst cen tury AD. The Greek historian Strab o said of th e Celts that th ey 'were war
skinned above groun d level. allowing
mad, high spi rited, and quick to battl e, but othe rwise straightforward, and not
space for t he stairwa y between
of evil character'. By nec essity th e way th ey designed th eir fortifi cati ons was
th e tw o walls.As at Gurne ss.
in fluen ced by the manner in which th ey waged war. In particular, th eir ability
the groun d floo r co ntained wells
and storage pits. (Stratford Arch ive)
to defe nd brochs, hill-f orts or oth er fortifi ed sites depended on th eir tactical
ability, their available weapons, and th eir skill in
using th em .
It is important to cons ider th e weapons at th eir
disposal in order to und erstand wha t part th ese
played in the defence of a fortified position. We
know from th e writings of Rom an historians such as
Caesar, Tacitus, Dio and Sueto n ius amo ng others
how the Celts fought , and what weapons th ey used.
The principa l missile weapon in use in Britain was
the sling, which fired a sma ll rou nd sto ne a distance
of up to 60m . Altho ugh primaril y a hun ting weapon,
it could also be used in time of war. The large caches
of slingshot stones recovered from several hill-forts
are clear in dication s that thes e weap ons were
considered crucial in th e defen ce of a fortified
position. An opponent would rarely be killed by a
slingshot, but th e sto ne it fired could break bon es or
crack skulls. A hara ssing fire could be aimed at an
approach ing force, and as th e attackers clamb ered
over th e outer lines of banks and ditches they would
c-o
SfCOON
be slowed, thus rem aining in optimum range for
zo
I
longer than if their approach went unhampered.

45

~
C1'

Hill-fort gates: Dinorben, c.500-1 00 BC

A
B

Ramparts
Ditches

Gateway
Guard cham bers

E
F

Glacis
Parapet

G
H

Outer ditches
App ro ach roa d

LEFT Hill-fort gates: Dinorben, c.500-1 00 Be

The hill-fort of Dinorben,Wales made the best poss ible
use of th e natural defences of the site on wh ich it was
built, pro tected on th ree sides by a steep escarpment, as
shown in the plan view at top right.The remaining side
was protected by a th ick stone rampa rt and three outly ing
ditches.The site was excavated on three occas ions, and
this information allows us to reco nst ruct the three
phases of deve lopment of the fort's gateway. In the first
phase ( I) a simple stone-fronted wall was built aro und
a timber-laced frame , although there is evidence that this
st ructu re replaced an earlier wooden palisade. bank and

ditch. A bulwark on one side of th e gate provided a

conven ient platfo rm for the defe nde rs. During the next
phase (2) the o riginal walls we re extensively widened to
around 10m. protected by a stone-filled ea rthen glacis.
The gatew ay itself was flanked by two guard chamber s,
while a deep ditch encircled the landward side of the
fort. In the final phase (3) the stone ramparts of the fort
we re heightened to create a bre astwork, while additional
ditches we re cut in fro nt of th e gateway.The approach
to the gateway was revetted using stone, and angled so
that any attacke r wou ld have to expose his unshielded
side to the defende rs' fire as he approached.

Once th e ene my reach ed th e last ditch th ey would be with in javeli n ran ge.
Although th ey were slow in flight, if eno ugh light th rowin g spea rs were th rown
at a target th e barra ge wo uld almos t certa in ly cause casua lties, bein g di fficult to
avoid . Given that th ey were usually th rown ove rarm from a rampart aga inst
troo ps approaching th e firer from below, th ey were difficult weap on s to aim
with an y effect. Instead th ey should be co ns ide red mor e of an indirect fire
weapo n - a last form of defen sive fire befor e th e attackers reach ed th e rampart
or gateway . Finally, th e defenders would throw wha teve r th ey had to hand,
such as piles of roc ks. Once th e attac kers h ad scaled th e bank and had reac he d
t he rampart, th e fighting wou ld be hand-to-h and, usin g spear, swo rd an d
sh ield . Bows were almos t certai n ly used as hunting wea po ns by th e Celts in
Britain , altho ugh th ey appea r to h ave been fairly rare. Strange ly th ere is no
accoun t of th em bei ng used as a military wea po n .
The practical limitat ion s of these weapons influenced th e way th e Celts bu ilt
fortifications. After all, th e peo ple who built the brochs and hill-forts of Celtic
Britain almost certa inly had no experience of the Roma n way of
war, and had no in kling of the vast techn ological gap between
their defens ive methods and the Rom an form of siege warfare,
with its secure fortified camps, siege engines and concen trated
bombardments. They built to defend them selves against wha t
they knew - raids by fellow Celts, or even large-scale assaults
a determined tribal enemy. Th is meant maintaining a welldefended perim eter, and encircling thi s with man-m ade or
natural terrain designed to hinder an attacker, eithe r by forcing
the m to endure a rain of missiles as th ey approach ed th e
inner ramparts, or by tirin g them as they struggled to climb
up towards th e waiting defenders. Given th ese parameters,
hill-forts app ear to have been successful in doing what th ey
were designed for. Although we know less about how brochs
were defend ed, th eir similarity to later Norman keeps or even
Border Reiver stro ngho lds spea ks volumes about th e practicality
of their design .
We know a littl e abo ut th e type of wa rfare for wh ich th e
great hill -forts were built fro m Julius Caesar, wh o describ ed
Celtic siege tact ics as th ey existe d in th e mid-l st cen tury Be.
His com men ts are brief but revealing:
There was a town of th e Rem i, by nam e Bibrax, eight miles
dista nt from th is camp. This th e Belgae on th eir march began
to attack with great vigour. [The assault] was with difficult y
sustained for th at da y. The Gauls' mode of besieging is th e
same as th at of the Belgae: when after having drawn a large
numb er of men around th e whole of th e fortifications, sto nes

Archaeological evide nce suggests

that the inter io r of the Broch of
Mousa was once divided by wooden
floors .Access to each level was
through a narrow stone stairway
built between the outer and inner
skins of the wall.The stair ended in
a wall walk. although it appears the
who le st ructure was once cove red
by a conical timber and thatched
roof. (Historic Scotland )

47

have begun to be cast against th e wall on all sides, and th e wall has been
stripped of its defenders, [then ], form ing a testudo, th ey advance to th e gates
and undermine th e wall: which was easily effected on thi s occasion; for whil e
so large a nu mber were casting sto nes and darts, no on e was able to ma intain
his position upon th e wall. When nig ht had put an end to th e assault, lccius,
who was then in comma nd of the tow n, one of the Rem i, a man of the
highest ran k and influen ce amo ng h is people, and one of th ose who had
come to Caesar as ambassado r Ito sue] for peace, sends messenge rs to hi m, Ito
report] 'That, unl ess assista nce were sent to h im he could not hold out any
lon ger.' (Til e Gallic Wars)
Caesar duly march ed to th e aid of th e Remi and dest royed th e Belgae in
battle. The acco un t m ight well have been written a cen tu ry befor e th e hill -fort s
of Britain faced an attack by th e Rom an s, but th e tribal warfare for wh ich th e
forts were design ed would h ardl y ha ve cha nge d much . Th e mention that
th e attackers assaulted the gat e is particu larly revea ling, as the evide nce from
Dan ebury and seve ral othe r fort s suggests that th e gate way was th e weak point
of th e defen ces. Once th e defenders cou ld reach it they wou ld be able to set it
on fire, which mig ht well ha ve been wh at happen ed at Dan ebury. Of co urse
Caesar's co m me nt that th e Celts form ed a testudo (or 'to rto ise', an attacking
formati on used by th e Roman army) is misleading. It was sim ply the best
means he had of describing a den se assa ult co lum n of Celtic warri ors.
A problem with descriptions of the Celtic forts of Britain and th e way th ey
were att acked or defended is th at we mu st rely on a mi xture of n on- Celti c
observers, and ofte n fragm entary or misleading archaeo logical evide nce. Th e
combination of the two can some times h ave dr amatically misleading result s.
Dur in g h is excavatio ns of Maid en Castle Sir Mortimer Wh eeler becam e
co nvin ced that th e h ill-fort had been attacked by th e Rom ans , wh o stormed
th eir way into th e fort 's easte rn gateway. He had goo d reason to be co nv ince d,
as the hill -for t stood dir ect ly in th e path of th e Roman inv asion, an d hi s team
uncovered th e remains of wh at he th ou ght were war graves .
In AD 43 the Rom an II (Augusta) Legion advan ced rapid ly th rough southern
Eng land, led by its com ma nde r, the futur e Roman empero r Vespasian. According
to h is biograp her, Vespasian subdued 'two very formidab le tribes and over
20 towns' (or rath er hill-fort s), one of which was probab ly Maiden Castle; th e
tribes were probably th e Belgae and th e Durotri gii. By th e time th e Romans
reach ed Maiden Castle the defenders had prepared them selves as best they could;

48

Dun Carlo way (Du n Ch arlabh aigh)

is another small but well-prese rved
Late Iron Age broch , whose re mains
perch specta cularly above Lo ch
Roag on Lewis.The broch was
damaged du ring a 16th-centu ry
Highland feud when it was used
as a hideo ut. but th e doubl e-skinned
natu re of its wa ll construction
is all t he mo re clea rly show n
by th e ruino us conditio n.
(Historic Scotl and)

archaeologists have found th e rem ains of substantial cache s of stone shot for
slings, th e ma jo rity of whic h appear to have bee n gat hered fro m nearby Chesil
Beach. Sir Mortimer Wheeler argu ed that Vespasian would have crossed th e River
Fro me wh ere Dorchester now stands, and ha ving seen how formidable th e
western defen ces wer e, o rdered his legion to concentrate in front of the east ern
gate. The hill -for t, d escribed by th e h isto rian Leonard Cott rell in 1958 as the
wo rk of a 'Vauban of th e Iro n Age', wou ld indeed have looked form idable. In
h is rep ort o n the excavations published in 1943, Wheeler described what he
though t occurred next:
First th e regime n t o f a rtillery wh ich usuall y acco m pa n ied a legion was
ordered into action a nd put down a barrage of ballista arrows. The arrows
have bee n found about th e site, and buried amo ngst the outworks, as was
a man wit h an arrowhead sti ll embedded in one of h is ver teb rae (to be see n
in th e Dorch est er Mu seum). Follo win g th e barr age, th e Roman infantry
adva nce d up th e slo pe, cutting its way fro m rampart to rampart until it
reached t he innermost bay, where some circu lar hu ts had recently been
built . These were set alig h t, and u n der th e rising clo uds of smoke th e ga tes
were sto rme d an d th e positi on carr ied . But resistan ce had been obsti na te
an d th e fur y o f th e legionaries was aroused . For a spa ce, co n fus ion, and
massacre do mi na ted th e sce ne . Men an d wo men, yo ung and o ld, we re
savagely cut dow n be fore th e t roo ps were ca lled to heel.
A systematic slight ing of t he defen ces follo wed, whereafter th e legion was
wit hdrawn, doubtless taking hostages with it, and th e dazed inhabitants
were left to bury their dead amo ngs t th e ashes of th e huts bes ide th e gates .
The tas k was carried ou t anxiously and wit ho ut order, but, even so, from few
graves were o m itted th ose tr ibutes of food and d rink which were the proper
requisites of th e dead . Wit h th eir cu ps an d food -vessels and trinkets,
the bones, ofte n two or more skeleto ns huddled into a sing le grave and
many of the skulls deeply score d with swor d cuts , ma de a sad and drama tic
showing - the ea rliest British war-cemetery known to us.
Wh ile today o ne mi ght applaud th e flair wit h wh ich a rchaeo log ists wro te
repo rts in th ose days, su bseq ue n t excavatio ns have revealed th at seve ral
assu m ptio ns Sir Mo rti mer Wheeler made to develop his ' Battl e of t he East Gate'
t heo ry ca n no t now be sustained. His assa u lt theory rests o n th e prese nce of h is
'war-cem etery', but h e failed to show that of the 52 bodies di sco vered there,
o n ly 14 had died by vio lent means . Today a rchaeo log ists co ns ide r it more likely
th at the site was indeed a cemetery, but o ne wh ich developed ove r ti me , and
to wh ich bodies we re broug h t for burial. They were therefore no t bur ied where
th ey had fallen in defen ce of th e easte rn ga teway. Mod ern fore nsic st udies ha ve
even sho wn that so me o f th ose that sustaine d wounds did n ot die from t hem ,
but ins tea d lived o n for so me time afte r receiving th em .
Wheeler based his acco unt of th e burning of th e fort's guard h uts on his
d iscovery of a charcoal layer just o utsi de the eastern gateway. However,
archaeo logists now believe th is was produ ced by iron- working, th e evide nce
of which in th e form of Celtic arrow hea ds now suppo rts thi s th eor y rather
than provides us with evide nce of an assault. After all, bows were used in
insign ifican t numbers by th e Celts at this time, and thei r prese nce does not
necessarily suggest th at a unit of Celtic archers made a last sta nd on th e spo t. The
o n ly piece of evide nce that ha s successfully stood th e test of time is the slighting
of the gateway - as revealed by th e collapsed sides o f th e sto ne-clad gateway. The
remains were over laid by early Rom an pottery, suggesting the collapse occu rred
prior to Rom an settleme n t in th e area - a date co nsistent with the Rom an
in vasio n . Th is is co nsisten t with th e idea of Vespasian's progress th rou gh southe rn
England, and may repr esent a deliberate policy of destroyin g th e gateways of
Celtic fortificatio ns as a mean s of guara nteeing the subj uga tion of the in ha bita n ts.

49

Maiden Castle was not the only hill-fort attacked by the Romans, or even
by the Celts. Around 100 BC the hill-fort of Danebury was destroyed, or at least
its gateway was burned down . Tools and horse trappings were abandoned,
suggesting a hurried departure of the inhabitants, or a violent end. The remains
of 21 mutilated bodi es were fou nd in two grave pits close to the gate , of both
sexes, and ranging in age from four to 45. The pits were never properly cove red,
suggesting o pen graves int o wh ich th e bodies were th rown . All this poin ts
towards a violent end to th e occupation of Danebur y, but once again archaeology
sto ps sho rt of explain ing wha t exactly happen ed. Professor Barry Cun liffe, th e
di rector of th e Dane bury excavat ion, suggested th at th e end of th e fort was a
result of ten sion created by a popu lat ion expansion in southern Englan d, but th e
full sto ry may never be known .
At Hod Hill, Dorset th ere is evide nce of th e hurried repair an d improveme n t
of th e defens ive works, possibly undertaken as a response to news of th e Rom an
invasion. The last-m inute im provemen ts did littl e to help th e defe nde rs, as the re
is evide nce th at Hod Hill was attacked by th e Rom an ar my in AD 43, almos t
certain ly the work of Vespasian and h is II (Augusta) Legion as it marched west
through modern-day Dorset. The site was excavated d uring th e 1950s by Sir Ian
Richmond, who was parti cularly keen to find evidence of a Rom an assault. Wha t
he d id discover was even more intriguin g. One of th e roundhouses withi n th e
enclosure was larger tha n th ose aro und it, which might suggest it was th e hom e
of a chiefta in or an imp ortant admin istrative buildin g. Archaeologists un covered
11 Rom an ballista bolt s amid its ruins, bur ied nose-first as if fired from th e same
locat ion somewhe re outside th e south-east corne r of th e fort. The accuracy of
the fire was parti cularly impressive, as th e bo lts were co nce ntrated aro und th at
one target. It has been suggested th at whe n th e defe nde rs of Hod Hill refused
to sur rende r, the Rom ans dem on str ated the efficiency of th eir siege train by
destroying th is one hut - thus prompting th e ga rrison to open their gates. As
th ere is no othe r evide nce of battle thi s remai ns a plausible explana tion of
what happen ed, but as usual th e eviden ce is open to int erpretation . Certa in ly
Vespasian considere d the site to be impo rta nt: he orde red the build ing of a
Rom an aux iliary cam p in the nort h-east co rner of the Iron Age defen ces.
Ano the r site worth noting is th at of Burnswark in Dumfr ies, a hill-fort flanked
by th e remai ns of two Rom an siege camps. Wh en the site was first excavated
in 1898 it was assumed th at Burnswark had been besieged by the Rom an s, whose
camps were built with in siege-engine range of th e ramparts. However, more recen t
excavations conducted in th e 1970s have proved that th e Rom an siegewor ks were

50

Clickhimin in Shetland is another

bro ch settlement, built in variou s
stages between 200 and SO Be.
The entrance to t he broch itself
was protected by t his 'blo ckho use',
and an outl ying circular sto ne
rampart enclose d the surrou nding
settlement. (Historic Scotland)

Dun Telve is one of cwo Iron Age

brochs built in Glen Elg.Rosssh ire ,
close to t he Isle of Skye (its partn e r
be ing Dun Trod dan). It is the largest
surv iving broch structure to be
found on the Scott ish mainland.
with its remaining section of wall
extending to a height of just over
10m. (Stratfor d Archive)

built after th e fort fell int o disuse, almost certai nly providin g a training groun d for
the Roma n troops statio ned in southern Scotland during th e late 1st century and
early 2nd century AD. In effect th e hill-fort had becom e a Rom an firing rang e. Th is
suggests th at th e Rom an s took th e reduction of hill-forts seriously, possibly as a
means of preparing for campaig ns against the un-pacified Celtic tribes to the
north . These works are in stark con trast to the lack of Roman siegeworks in
the rest of Britain, whic h suggests th at if th e Rom an s ever enco untered a fortress
that defied th em , th ey would lay siege to it in accordance with th eir milita ry
doctrine, establishing secure camps from wh ich to bombard th e defences.
Once the defenders were driven from th e ramparts th e Rom an s would probably
send in auxiliar y troops to secure the fort, holding their veteran legiona ries back
as a reserve.
This is how th e Rom an s fough t at Mon s Graupius (AD 84) agai ns t th e
Caledon ii, or wh en th ey pacified Gaul, judaea and Dacia. The lack of fort ified
camps in th e British Isles suggests th at instances of resistan ce agai nst th e
Romans were rare. It is more likely tha t the methods suggested at Hod Hill - a
demonstration of Roman mil itar y might - were sufficie n t to force the sur render
of mos t of Brita in 's Celtic fortresses. Wh ile it is appealing to imagi ne th e
defen ce of sites suc h as Maide n Castle as roma ntic last stan ds by th e Celtic
in habitan ts in Britain , th e truth was probabl y mu ch more mundan e. Faced
with the futili ty of resistan ce, th e defenders made peace with th e in vad ers, so
bringing the era of their political and military independence to a close .

51

Aftermath
The Rom an invasion of Britain in AD 43 sou nded th e dea th kne ll for Celtic
culture in southern Britain . We have already seen how h ill-forts like Maide n
Castle continued to be used for two or even th ree deca des afte rwa rds, befo re
th ey were repl aced by a Rom an provin cial town a few mil es away. In the case
of Maid en Castle th ere is ev ide nce that th e pop ulat ion began to drift awa y
from th e old fortified settlem ent durin g this period, so that in the space of one
o r two gene rations th e population dwindled awa y until on ly a few inhabitants
rem ain ed . The Rom an s brou ght peace in th eir wake (if we ign ore th e lceni
revo lt of AD 6 1- 63), and th erefor e th e British populati on had less need to
pro tec t th em selves and th eir co m m u n ities. Th e Rom an policy of sligh ting th e
defen ces of th e hill -forts th at submitte d to th em or were cap tured mad e these
places ind efen sible, and speeded th e drift towards n ew settleme n ts. However,
th e proc ess of pacification was not com pletely smooth . Archaeologists have
sho wn th at th e gateway of th e hill -fort of South Cadbury in Som erset was
dest royed aro un d AD 70- 80, wh ich sugges ts th e fort rema in ed occupied after
AD 43, but th at it was prob ably attac ked and destroyed by th e Romans in what
might well have been a punitive and ret aliator y action . It appears th at th e fort
was th en co m plete ly abandoned until th e Rom an occupation of southe rn
Britain ca me to an end around AD 410 .
The pattern appears fairly clear. In areas where th e Rom an s bro ugh t th e
popul ati on directly under th eir co ntrol the o ld fortifications fell into disuse - if
not im me diate ly, th en with in less than three generations . In th e north an d
west of wh at is n ow Eng land, wh ere th e Roman izat ion of th e populati on was
less th orou gh , th e occ upa tion of some forts co n tin ued for man y decad es, and
in so me cases th rou gh out th e Rom an period . Un fortu nate ly we know all too
littl e about thi s period of occ upancy, including wh ether these sites retained
th eir olde r levels of pop ulatio n and sen se of com m un ity, o r if their po pulation
declined almost as d ramatica lly as th at of th e hill -fort dwe llers of southe rn
Eng lan d. Some hill-forts were certain ly eithe r abandoned or else changed th eir
role fro m fortified sett leme n ts into fortifi ed farmstea ds, with a co nsequent drop
in populati on. The process of Rom an ex pansio n was a gradual one, as Agricola
on ly pu sh ed into wha t is now southe rn Scotl and in AD 82-83. By th en the
stro ngho lds of th e Brigant es of toda y's northern England had fallen un der
Roman co ntrol, so the Celts of Scotland and Wales rem ained th e o n ly trul y
in dependent in d igen ou s tribes in th e British Isles.

52

Th e eastern gateway defences of

Maiden Castle, photographed dur ing
Sir Mortim e r Wheeler's excavation
t he re in 1935.The shee r scale of
the banks wou ld make any assau lt a
difficult proposition for an Iron Age
force. alt houg h the defences would
prese nt less difficulty to a Roman
e nginee r. (T he Society of
Antiqua ries, Lo ndo n)

We know from archaeology that man y of the more

important h ill-fo rts in bo th southern Scotland and Wales
remained in use duri ng the pe riod of Roman occupation,
ev ide nce th at is su pported by th e h isto rical reco rd . These
tribes becam e Rom an 'cl ien ts', an d wh ile allowed to gove rn
the mselves , th ey becam e ' Rornani zed', losin g their m ilit ar y
an d econom ic freed om in th e process. Hill-forts such as
Trap ra in Law in East Lothian became an important reg ional
cen t re again after the Romans departed, as the ca pita l
o f th e Goddodi n tribe - t h e new power in post-Roman
sou t h ern Scot lan d . The situa t io n in Wales was sim ila r. As
t he region became a Roman militar y ga rriso n rath er th an
a fu lly integra ted part of Roman Britain, th ere was less
incen t ive for the in d ige nous population to aba n don th eir
o ld ways - o r thei r o ld fort ified settle men ts . Alt houg h
Roma n punitive ex pe d itio ns ens ured th at th e tri besm en of
the Welsh m ountain s were n ot co ns ide red a threat , for the
most part th ese peopl e m an aged to ret ain a grea te r degree
o f indep endence t han their Ce ltic n eighbours to th e east.
Co n sequen tl y h ill-fo rt s su ch as Tre'r Ce iri rem ained in
co n tin uo us oc cu patio n during th e Roman peri od.
In Wales and so uthe rn Scotl and a h an d ful of hill- forts were presse d into serv ice
by the Roman s, who used them as mil itary training gro u nds. At Caer-y-Twr in
Anglesey a section of wa ll was de molishe d, an d it has bee n sugges ted that th is was
do ne by th e Rom an s as part of a tra ini ng exe rcise - pract isin g fo r a pun itive
expeditio n , as th e attack o n South Cadb ury might h ave been . We h ave already
men tione d how the h ill-fort o f Burnswark in Dum friessh ire was flank ed by tw o
Rom an cam ps, both o f wh ich boa sted a series of pit s design ed for siege engi nes
lin in g th e forward edge o f th e Rom an siege line . Slings hot stones mad e fro m
baked clay we re also fou nd o n th e site, sugges ti ng th e Rom an s practised their
siege techniqu es aga ins t the aba n do ned h ill-fo rt, but ma n ned the defen ces with
their own aux iliaries to h eighten the realism of th e exercise. The n there is th e

Du ring his 1935 excavat ion Sir

Mortime r Wheeler examin ed t he
compositio n of t he defensive inne r
rampart of Maiden Castl e. and
discove red it was con st r ucted using
cha lk ru bble and stone. overlaid
with earth.The rampart was then
topped by a wooden palisade . (The
Society of Ant iquaries. London)

Among the arte facts discovere d

at Maiden Castle du ring th e
1986 excavation were sm all cache s
of sto nes - presum ably used as
ammu nition fo r Celtic slingshots .
The se wo uld have bee n the
primary form of defensive firepower
available to the Ancient British
defenders of hill-forts in t he south
of England du ring th e period of th e
Ro man invasio n. (English Heritage)

53

Rom an attac k on a hill-fort: Burnswark

The evidence for a Ro man assault on a hill-fo rt is scant,
although archa eological finds at both Maiden Castle
and Hod Hill in southern England both suggest that the
defenders att empted to resist the Romans. Burnsw ar k in
so uthern Scotland is unique in that the Romans built two
milita ry encampments o n eithe r side of the small hill-fort,
co mplete with artillery pos itions for Roman siege engines.
Howeve r, the archaeological evidence suggests that the
hill-fo rt was abandon ed before t he Roman camps we re built.
It is now supposed that these Roman wo rks were tra ining

LEFT

cam ps, where the Roman garri son in Scotland could practise
siege techniques.They would th en employ these skills du ring
o ne of several punitive Roman exped itions into northern
Scotland , or when called upo n to quell a revo lt further
south. The hill-fort defences were des igned around the
slingshot - the standa rd defensive missile we apo n of
Ancient Britain.At Burnswark caches of clay slingshot stones
we re found - akin to mo dern dummy bullets.This suggests
th e Romans used auxiliaries to represent Celtic defende rs
during the ir moc k attac ks on Burnsw ark fort.Also shown
are two types of Roman ballista (to p left and right).

exam ple of Hod Hill, wh ere a Rom an fort was built in to one corne r of th e old Iron
Age earthwor ks. Whil e thi s was probably a matt er of prim e locat ion and eco no my
of effort, it certain ly appea rs th at th e Rom an s were aware of th e th reat posed by
the occupancy of h ill-forts by hostile tribesmen or rebels, and train ed th em selves
to deal with just such a situation.
Fina lly we have already seen how some hill -fort s such as Dane bury in
Ham pshire served as religiou s as well as politi cal cen tres. It is th erefore not
co m pletely sur prising th at after its fall Daneb ury rem ained in use during the
Roman period , as evidenc ed by cartwheel tracks and Romanized fin ds discovered
on top of th e olde r layers of occupancy and defenc e. It ha s been suggested that
the fort housed a sma ll religiou s com mun ity, wh ich remained in residenc e to
maintain th e sanctity of a sacred site. A sim ilar site may well have existed in
Maiden Castle, as th e older Rom an o-British Ch ristian tem ple built th ere might
well have been placed on th e site of an older place of wo rsh ip.
These Iron Age hill -forts came in to th eir own agai n after th e Rom an s left
Britain. Duri ng th e 5th and 6th cen tur ies AD several were re-occu pied, as the
defenceless towns of Sub-Roman Britain were vu lne rable to attack by a grow ing
number of in vaders. However , it appears th at the peop le of Sub-Roman Britain
appeared well aware of the defen sive possibilit ies of sites such as South Cadbur y
and Castle Dare, bot h of whic h were re-fortified duri ng wha t is some times
known as th e 'Arth urian' period. In less Rom ani zed areas, fort s such as Dinas
Em rys in Wales and Dun Eidi n (Edinburg h) or Traprain Law in Scotland becam e
im portant political cen tres once again - which mu st be left fo r ano the r study.

Not far from the hill-fort of

Lorde nshaws. Northumb erland
is this stone , containing a se ries
of 'cup and r ing' marks. C up marks
car ved into bo ulders and ot he r
stones are believed to date to the
Bronze Age. alt ho ugh no satisfactory
ex planatio n has so far been given
as to their purpose . However. one
19th-centu ry antiquarian suggested
the se marks re presente d a re lief
map of local hill-forts.Thei r
prox imity to several fortified sites
suggests that t hese locat io ns we re
of lo cal importance lo ng before
any fortificatio n was built there.
(Co urtesy of Keith Durham)

55

The sites today

The following select ion of Iron Age Celtic fortifications incl udes sites owned
and ma intained by national bodies such as Eng lish Heritage, Scottis h Heritage
or Welsh Heritage, or by local aut horities such as Hampshi re Coun ty Council.
Almos t all of th e sites listed are open to th e publi c, and some form of self-guide d
tour is ava ilable to visitors. A few others have been included because th e sites are
highl y visible, even th ou gh di rect access to th em is sometimes restricted, ofte n
because the site is no longer in goo d repair. Some sites are even supported by a
mu seum eithe r at th e site or in a nearb y town , whe re artefacts recovered from
th e excava tion of th e site are now displayed.
Finally a handful of nation al or major regional mu seums are included in th e
followin g list, as th ey co n ta in artefacts whi ch have eit he r been recovered fro m
th e sites of Iron Age fortifi cati on s mentioned in this book, or wh ich h elp
expa n d our understanding of th e peopl e who built th ese defen sive wo rks.
Where appro priate website links h ave been included .
As th is book has limit ed itself to a discussion of Celtic fortifications found on
th e mainland of Britai n or th e Scottish islands, sites and mu seums in both th e
Republic of Ireland an d Northe rn Ireland have been omitte d. The re are hundreds
of Iron Age fortifi ed sites th rou gh out Britain, so on ly a han dful of th ese can be
included in th e followin g list. For a more detailed gazettee r of hill-forts in Britain ,
readers are directed to A.H.A. Hogg's Hill-forts of Britain (1975), a work tha t
in cludes a detailed if somewha t dat ed survey of all known sites.

Scotland
Fortified sites
The Brach of Mousa, Shetland
The finest surv iving broch struc ture, sta nding ove r 13m high . Owne d by
Scottis h Herit age. Located on th e island of Mou sa, accessible by ferry boat
from San dwick, 14 mil es south of Lerwick, She tland. See th e Historic Scotl and
website (www.h istoric-scotkmd.gov.ulc for ferry inf ormati on an d o pen ing times.
Altern ati vely call the Histor ic Scotl and office in Skara Brae, Orkney for up-to-date
informati on: (01856) 84181 5.
Click h im in Brach, Shetland
Broch tower and associated settleme nt and oute r defen ces. Owned by Scottish
Heritage. Located one mile south-west of Lerwick, Shetland. See th e Visit Shetland
website (www.visitsnetland.comi for open ing tim es and contact inform ation .

56

Hambledon Hill, Dorset was built

in two pha ses on a narrow, winding
ridge, the oldest portion of the site
being on the northern end of the
ridge - to the right of this view. In
its final form the hill-fort enclosed
an area of approximat e ly
10 hec tares. (RC AHM)

The impressive Iron Age hill-fort

at Yarnbury in W iltshire was built
aro und an ear lier fort dur ing the
Ist ce nt ur y BC . and has been
associated with the Belgae.
The distinct ive ravelin in fro nt
of th e gateway pro bably acted
as a miniat ur e fort in its own
right . (RC AHM)

Th e Broc h of Gu rness, Orkney

A supe rbly situa ted Iron Age broch and fortified village. The site also contains a
small museum . Owned by Scottis h Heritage . Located 15 m iles north -west of
Kirkwall, Orkney. Open in the summe r season o n ly (1 April to 30 September) For
further in fo rmat io n call (01856) 75 1414 or visit th e Histo ric Scotland website
listed above.
Th e Br och of Midhowe, Orkney
A well-preserved seasho re broch an d sett leme n t. Owne d by Scottish Heritage.
Located o n th e island of Rou say. Accessible by ferry from Tingwa ll, o n th e Orkney
main land. Call (01856) 751360 for ferry details, and (01856) 841815 fo r access
in formatio n and openi ng tim es, or visit th e Histori c Scotland website listed above.
Du n Ca rlo wa y Bro ch , Lewi s
A broc h perch ed above Loch Roag o n th e western coast of Lewis. Owne d by th e
Doune Broch Centre . Open in th e sum mer season on ly (1 April to 30 Septe mber).
Visitor centre and mu seum ad jacent to th e site. For further informat ion call
(01851) 643338, or see www.lllldiscoveredscotiall d.co.llk/l ewis/d lllicarioway/illdex.lltlllI
and www.thelllodem mltiqlla riall .colll/site/ 791.
Du n Telve, Glen elg
One of two broch towers in Glene lg on th e Scottis h mainland near Skye, both
standing over 10m h igh . Owne d by Scottis h Heritage. For visito r information
call (0 1667) 460232.
Tra p rain Law, East Lot hia n
An impressive h ill-fort, dom inati ng th e East Lothia n coasta l plain . Private
ownersh ip but public access permi tt ed. Consult the following websites for detail ed
in fo rmation o n access to th e site: wIVlv.cyberscotia.colII/a llciell t-lothiall / ill dex.htllll
and IVlVlv.thel llo dem mltiqll ariCllI.colII/site/607 .
Wh ite Ca tert h u n a n d Bro wn Ca te rt h u n , An gus
Located nea r Brech in , Ang us wit h in sight of each ot her, th e hi ll-for ts of Wh ite
Catert hun and Brown Cate rt h un a re in privat e hands, but accessible to th e
public. See the follow ing websi tes for furt he r in for ma tio n:
ww w.thelllodem all tiqll ariml.colII /site/ 3 03 1. wlVlV.stoll epages.colII/scoti all d/
blVCilterthun.h till I an d IVIVIV.IIIIdiscoveredscotI a II d.co.II k/bri dgeI id/catertI /lI1IS.

Eild o n Hill No rt h, Scottish Bo rd ers

Located nea r Melrose in th e Scott ish Bord ers. In pri vat e hands but accessible to
t he pub lic. See the followi ng website for mor e in formation :
IVIVlv.discovertl leborders.co.llk/places/ 202.ll tlll l .

Wode n Law, Scottish Bo rders

Located n ear Hownam in the Scott ish Bo rders. In pr ivat e hands but access ible
to th e public. See th e fo llow in g web site fo r m ore infor m atio n:
1V1V1V.lll egalith ic.co.uk/ ar ti cte.php ?sid= 1064 9 .
Bu rnsw a rk, Dumfries & Ga llo w a y

An Iron Age hill-fort th at was used by th e Rom an s as a military train ing gro und .
In private hands but accessible to th e public. See the following websites for mor e

57

information : IVIVIV. roman-brita ill . erg/places/ bun ISlVa rk.h till

and 1V1V1V.tllelllod emalltiquariall .colll /site/641 2.
Museu ms
The Ork ney Museu m , Ta n ke rness House, Kirk w all, Ork ney
An exce llent co llection of Iro n Age ar tefacts, as we ll as a de ta iled introduction
to pr ehi storic Ork ney. For de ta ils call (0 1856) 773 19 1, or visit th e museum
websi te : www.orkneyheritage.com.
Shetland Mu seum, Lower HiIlhead, Lerwick, Sh etland
A fascin ating co llect io n of arc haeolog ical artefacts relati ng to She tland's Iron
Age pas t. For det ails call (0 1595) 695 05 7, or visit the museum website :
1V1V1V.slletla nd-museum .org.uk/in dex .htm .
Na tio n a l Mu se um of Sco tland , Ch a m b er Street, Ed in b urgh
Scotland's premier h ist ory museum, it co n ta ins num erou s Iron Age artefacts,
including ob jects and hoard s recove red from Tra prain Law and ot he r fortified
sites . Ope n dail y from lOam to 5pm . For furt he r in formati on visit th e mu seum
website: 1V1V1V.III11S.ac.uk/s cotland/h om e/ iI uiex.asp.
Oa k ba n k Cra n n og, Ken more, Loc h Tay, Perthsh ire
A reco nst ruc tio n of an Iron Age loch dw elling (or 'cran n og' ), th e st ruc ture is
based o n th e archaeo log ical in vest igat ion of the or igina l cran nog locat ed on
th e op pos ite bank o f Lo ch Tay. The Oa kba n k Cran nog Cen tre site in cludes an
ex h ibit io n th at help s in ter pret the Iron Age landscap e of the area, integrating
crannogs with the h interland, an d even the rin g for ts guard ing the area . The
aut hor participat ed in the under wat er excavatio n of the o rigina l st ruc ture bac k
in the mid-1980s. The Oakba n k Cra n nog Ce n t re is ope n from 15 March to
3 1 Oc to be r. Call (0 188 7) 8305 83 for furth er inf ormati on, o r visit th eir website:
Ilttp:!/ 1V1V1V.cralll lOg.co.lIk/i ndex .h till I.

Hod Hill in Do rset is unique in that

the Romans built an auxiliary fort
in t he north-west quad rant of the
Iron Age fo rtificatio n.The hill-for t
was first built ar o und 400 BC. but
was modifi ed ex te nsively unt il t he
Roman invasion.Th e presen ce
of iron bolts from Rom an siege
e ngines co nfirms Rom an rep o rts
t hat the hill-fo rt was st orme d and
captured by th e II Legio n in AD 43 .
(RC AHM)

England
For t ified sites
Ma iden Castl e, n ear Do rc heste r, Do rset
Th e largest Iron Age h ill-for t in Britain , the imposin g fortific ations of Maid en
Castle were excavated during the 1930s and 1980 s. The site is now maintain ed by
Eng lish Herita ge. Maid en Castle is o pen th rou gh out the year, and a self-guided
trail is provided . Website: 1V1V1V.englisll-lleritage.org.uk/server/sllOlV/ CoIIProperty.279.
Danebury, n ear Stockb ridge, Hampshire
Th e Iron Age hill -for t of Dan ebury was exte ns ively excava ted over some
20 yea rs, making it th e most closely stud ied hill -fort site in Britain . Danebury
is now main tained by Ham pshire County Co uncil.
The site is open th roughout th e yea r, and a selfguided trail is provided, Website: 1VIVIV.l1l1I1ts.gol'.uk
/countryside /da nebury/in dex.html.
Stanwick, n ear Forcett, No rt h Yorks hire
Excava ted by Sir Mortimer Wheeler in th e early
1950s, Sta n wic k wa s t h e Late Iron age ca pita l o f
the Brigantes, the most important tr ibe in preRom an no rthern Brita in . The oldes t sectio n o f th e
3 1O-hectare site is n ow main tained by Eng lish
Heritage. The site is o pe n th rou gh out th e yea r, and
a self-gu ide d trail is provid ed . Web site:
Il'l vlV.ellgl isll-l leritage.org.llk!selv er/sllOlV/ oIIProperty.384.

58

Old Saru m , near Winchester, Ham pshire

The Iron Age hi ll-fort at Old Sarum (the origina l site
of the town o f Win ch ester) rem ain ed in nearco nstan t use un til th e 12th cen tury, and becam e th e

The hill-for t at W inklebury.

Wiltsh ire was built in three phases.
the earliest being the stagger ed
barrier stretching acro ss the steepsided ridge (in the backgrou nd of
this view).The defences were then
exte nded aro und the edge of the
slo pe during the 3rd century Be.
Finally in the mid-I st century BC
the defences we re con solidated
into the smaller. oval-shaped hill-fort
seen in the fore grou nd. (RCAHM)

site of a Norma n castle. The site is now maint ain ed by English Heritage. Old
Saru m is open th rou ghout th e year, and a self-guide d trail is provided. Website:
IV\I'l I'.el lglisll-l leritage.org .llk!sen 'er/ sl lOw/ CoI1Property.293 .

Blackb u ry Ca m p, n ea r Honiton, Devon

Sitting astride a nar row ridge, th e Iron Age hill-fort at Blackbur y Camp (also
known as Blackbury Castle) was excava ted during th e 1950s, when th e site's
unusual entrance was examined in detail. The site is now main tained by English
Heritage. Blackbury Cam p is open th rough out the year, and a self-gu ided trail is
provided, Website: H'lI'l v.ellglisl l-lleritage.org.llk!server/ sl lOl v/ COI1Property.239 .
Bratto n Ca m p, near West bury, Wiltshire
The well-pr eserv ed Iron Age h ill-fort at Bratton Cam p was built beside an olde r
Neolith ic bar row, and sha res its hill with a whi te horse carved into th e chalk
slo pes. The site is now main tain ed by English Heritag e. Bratton is ope n
th roughout th e year, and a self-guided trail is prov ided . Website :
www.engtish-lieritage.otg.uk /server/show/Controperty.zez.
Old Oswestry, Oswestry, Shrops hire
A large and complex hill -fort situated a mil e from th e modern town of Oswestr y,
on the Welsh borders. The site is now ma intained by Eng lish Heritage. It is open
throughout the year, and a self-guided trail is provided, Website: www.engl ishIleritage.org.lI k/ sen'er/ sl lOlv/ CoI1Property.349 .

59

Uffi ngton Cas tle, n ear Wan tage, Oxfords h ire

The hill-fort at Uffington domina ted the 'Ridgeway ',
an ancient upland track that crossed central and
southern England during the Bronze Age and Iron
Age. The Bronze Age whi te horse carved into an
adjacent h illside is the largest and oldest carving of
th is type in Britain, while a series of nearby burial
mo unds also predate the h ill-fort, and attest to
Uffingto n 's pre historic importance. The site is now
mainta ined by English Heritage . Uffingto n Castle is
open th rou gh out th e year, and a self-guided trail is
prov ided, Website: www.englis hheri tage.org.uk/server/
SIIOW/COIIProperty.224 .

Museums

T he hill-fo rt of Pen Dinas

ove rlook ing Aberyst wyt h in
Cardigan was ex cavate d in the
1930s. when it was re vealed t he
fo rt was built in th ree phases,
th e final one being co mpleted
du ring th e Ist ce nt ury AD,
an d en com passing bo th hills
o n the same ridge. (RCAHM)

60

The British Mu seum, Russell Stree t, Lon don

Th e prem ier history mu seum in Britain, th e British
Museum contains a vast co llection of Iron Age
artefact s. The mu seum boasts one of th e best
archa eo log ical books hop s in th e wor ld . Nearest
underground stations are Holborn or Russell Square.
For open ing times and furt her inform at ion con tact th e m useum on (0207) 323
8299, or visit th eir website at www.thebritishmuseum .ac.uk .
Do rse t Cou n ty Museu m, High West Street, Dorchester, Dorset
A superb archaeological co llectio n, includi ng artefacts relatin g to Maid en
Castle an d othe r Iron Age hill -forts in th e area. Co n tac t th e mu seum on
(013 05) 262735 or visit th eir website for furth er informati on and open ing
tim es: w ww.dorsetcoll lltylll llselll ll.org/i ll dex .l1tlll .
Hull a n d East Riding Muse um, High Street, Hull
The co llection co n tains an Iron Age logboat and othe r artefac ts relating to th e
Iron Age in nor th ern Eng land . Con tact th e mu seum on (014 82) 3003 00. No
ded icated website at present .
But ser An cien t Farm, Horndean, Waterlo ov ille, Hampsh ire
A reconstruct ion of an Iron Age village. Ge ne rally open at weekend s on ly. For
details co ntac t th e farm on (0 1239) 8913 19, or visit th eir website:
www.butser.org.uk.
Flag Fen , The Droveway, No rthey Road , Pet erborough
A reconstructed Late Bron ze Age sett leme n t, complete with a wor king farm.
The wat erlogged timbers of th e origin al lake-dwelling settle me nt are still in
situ, and can be viewed by visitors. The site also contain s th e reconstru ction of
an Iron Age roun dho use . The Flag Fen site is open all year. Call (0 1733) 313414
for information , o r visit th eir websit e: ww w.tlagfen .com ,
Museu m of th e Iro n Age, 6 Ch u rch Close, An d over, Hampshire
The mu seum is th e on ly one in Britain dedic at ed to th e interpr etati on of an
Iron Age hill -fort, in this case Dan ebury. The m useum contains reco nstruc tio ns
an d mod els of th e fort as well as artefacts recove red durin g its excav atio n . Open
through ou t th e year from Tuesdays to Satur days . For furth er in form at ion ca ll
(0126 4) 366283, or visit th eir website : www.lw ll ts.gov.lI k/ lII l1sell lll/ iro llilgelll .
Pea t Moors Cen tre, Shapwick Road, Westhay, Somerse t
A fascinatin g preh istoric int erpr etat ion centre on th e outskirts of Glasto nbury, th e
site includes a series of recon stru ction s, inclu din g Iron Age roundho uses based on
th ose found at th e Glasto nbury lake village, and an inter-pretation of th e
prehi stor ic trackways known as th e 'Some rset Levels' wh ich once crossed th e
boggy area aro und the site. Open from 1 April until 31 Octo ber, daily (except
Wednesdays). For furthe r inform ation call (01458) 860697, or visit th eir website:
wWw.sOll lerset.gov.llk/sOlllerset/Cllltllrel leritage/l leri tage/pII IC.

W a le s
Fo rti fied sites
Tre' r Ceiri, Llyn Peninsu la , Gwynedd
A specta cular sto ne -built hill-fort. Full public access via footpaths. Websit e:
www.penl lyn.com /I /sIlery/il i thfaen/S ,II tm l.
Din as Em rys , Ffest in iog, Gwynedd
A small hill-fort, wit h sto ng post-Roman links. Privat e ow nersh ip, but access
available by perm ission from local farm er. Websi te :
IV IV IV. vort igen 15 tudies.org.uk /a rtci t/ di na s.litm .
Caer-y-Tw r, n ea r Ho lyh ead, Anglesey
A sm all but im po rtan t hill- fo rt, in pr ivat e ow ne rsh ip but access ible to th e
public via footpaths leading up Holyh ead m ountain from th e town. Websit e:
1V1V1V.lIl egaI i til ic.co. uk/article.phpr sid -ci 955.
Pen Dinas, Aberystwyt h , Cered ig
A hill- fort ove rloo king the m od ern town of Aberys twy t h. Public access.
Website: www.lValespast.colll/articfe.sll tlll l?id= 4 1.
Castell He nllys, Meline, Crymych , Pem b rokesh ir e
A pa rtially reconstructed Iron Age hill- fort wit h reconstructed round ho uses.
Own ed by th e Pembroke Coast Nationa l Park . Shop and sma ll interp retation
cen tre on site . Call (0 1239) 89131 9 for details. Websi te: www.castell henllys.com ,

Warham hill-fort in Norfolk

was protected by two substantial
circular ra mpar ts separated by
a ditch. although the position of
the o riginal gateway is unclear.The
banks encompassed a 1.4 hectare
enclosure. (RCAHM)

Museu m s
Th e Na tional Muse um of Wales, Ca t h a ys Pa rk, Ca rd iff
The mu seum displays cover the Iron Age in Wales, and th e collection incl udes
artefacts recover ed from hill- fort s. Ope n daily (except Mondays) from lOam to
Spm. For further information visit th e mu seum website:
www.m useum wales.ac.uk/en/ho me.

61

Bibliography
Arm it, Ian Towers in tile North : Tile Brochs ofScotland
(Stroud, Glouceste rshi re: Tempus Publis hi ng, 2003)
Arrnit, Ian Celtic Scotland (London : B.T. Batsfo rd for
Histor ic Scotl and, 2005)
Barr ett, [ .C. et al., Cadbury Castle, Somerset (Lo ndo n:
B.T. Bat sford for Eng lish Heritage, 2001)
Bradl ey, R. and Ellison, A. Rallis Hill - British
A rchaeological Reports No . 19 (Ox for d:
Arch aeo press, 1975)
Ch ad wick, No ra and Cun liffe, Barry Th e Celts:
A Penguin History (Londo n: Penguin, 199 7)
Cu n liffe, Barry and Miles, David Aspects of the Iron
Age in Central Sout h Britain (Oxfo rd : Oxford
University School of Archa eo logy, 1984 )
Cun liffe, Barry Iron Age Communities in Britain
(Londo n : Routledge, 1991; 3rd edition)
Cun liffe, Barry Danebury (Lon do n: B.T. Bat sford for
Eng lish Heritage, 1993)
Cun liffe, Barry Iron Age Britain (Londo n: B.T. Batsford,
1995 )
Cun liffe, Barr y The Ancien t Celts (Oxford : Ox ford
Un iversity Press, 1997)
Cun liffe, Barry Facing the Ocean: Tile Atlantic and its
Peoples, 8000 BC to AD 1500 (Oxford: Ox ford
Un iversity Press, 200 4)
Cun liffe, Barry Iron Age Com m un ities in Britain: An
Account of England, Scotland and Wal es [rom the
Seventh Century BC III I til the Rom an Conquest
(Londo n: Routledge , 2004 )
Dyer, James Penguin Guide to Prehistoric England and
Wal es (London: Penguin , 1981 )
Dyer, James Hillforts of England and Wales (Risbo rough,
Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications, 200 3)
Foj ut , Nopel The Brochs of Gurness and Mid howe
(Ed in bur gh : Historic Scot land, 2001 )
Forde-Iohnston, James Hillfort s of the Iron Age in
England and Wa les: A Survey of the Surfa ce Evidence
(Live rpo ol: Un iversity of Liverp ool, 1976)
Guilbe rt, G. (ed .) Hill- fort Studies (Leiceste r: Leicester
Unive rsity Press, 1981)
Harding, D.W. The Iron Age in the Upper Thames Basin
(Oxford : Oxford Un ive rsity Press, 19 72)

62

Harding, D.W. (ed .) Hillforts: Later Prehistoric

Earthworks in Britain and Ireland (Lo ndo n:
Academic Press, 1976)
Harding, D.W. Celts in Conflict: Hillfort Studies, 1922 -77
(Edinburgh , Un iversity of Edinburg h, 1979)
Haw kes, Jac q ue tta A Guide to the Prehistoric and Rom an
Monuments in England and Wa les (Lon do n: Cha tto
& Windus, 1951)
Hogg, A.H.A. Hill-forts of Britain (Lo ndo n: Hart-Davis,
MacGibbon, 1975)
Hogg, A.H.A. British Hil/-Forts: A n Index - British
Archaeological Reports No. 62 (Lo ndo n,
Archaeopress, 1979)
James, Simon Uncovering the World of tile Celts
(Lon do n: Thames & Hud son , 2005)
James, Simo n and Rigby, Valerie Britain and the Celtic
Iron Age (Lon do n : British Mu seum Press, 199 7)
Konsta m, Ang us Historic A tlas of the Celtic World
( ew York: Facts on File, 200 1)
Musso n, Ch ris The Breidden Hillfort: A Later Prehistoric
Settlement (Lo ndo n : Co unc il for British
Archaeology, 1991)
Pryo r, Francis Britain BC: Life in Britain and Ireland
before the Romans (Lo ndon : Harper Perennia l, 2003 )
Ritch ie, An na and Graha m Scotland: Archaeology and
Early History (Edin burg h: Edi n burg h University
Press, 1981 )
Ritchi e, J.N.G. Th e Brochs of Scotland (Aylesbur y,
Buckingh am shire: Shire Publi cati ons, 198 8)
Sha rples, Niall M. Maid en Castle (Londo n: B.T.
Bat sford for Eng lish Heritage, 1991 )
Sharpl es, Niall M. Scallowa y: A Broch, Late Iron Age
Settlemen t and Medieval Ceme tery in Shetland Oxbow Monographs on A rchaeology (Londo n :
Oxbow Books, 1998 )
Wainwright, Richard A Guide to Prehistoric Rema ins
in Britain (Londo n, Co ns table, 1978)
Wh eeler, (Sir) Mortim er Maidel/ Castle, Dorset:
Offici al Guidebook (Lo ndo n : Her Majesty's
Sta tione ry Office - Departm ent of th e
Env iro n me n t, Ancie n t Monuments and
Historic Buildings, 1972)

Glossary
An ext ension to the earth wo rks of an Iron Age
fort. ofte n built as a later addit ion to the
fort ificat ion system.
Bank
In terms of hill-forts. these are often associ ated
with ramparts. although more accurat ely the
latter rep resents the final bank before the inne r
enclosure. Banks were usually but not always
built behind a ditch. from which the so il for
the bank was excavated .
Berm
A flat space between the foo t of a bank and
the start of a ditch .
Bivallat e
An Iro n Age fortification system where t he
central enclosure is surrounded by two sets
of banks and associated ditches.
Bronze Ag e The pe riod from around 2100 BC unt il
700 BC when bronze was produced by the
indige no us peoples of Britain.
C om pact
A bivallate, tr ivallate o r multivallate hill-fort where
the systems of banks and ditches are close
toge ther - usually within 10m of each ot her.
C ont our for t The technical term for a hill-fort built to
take advantage of the contours of a hill.
Invariably the shape of the fort follows the
contou r line. producing an irreg ular shape to
the fortification.
C ount e r scar p The exterior slo pe or wall of a ditch. which
in t he case of hill-forts was sometimes revet ted
using stone or timber.
D isper sed A bivallate, tr ivallate or multivallate hill-fo rt where
the systems of banks and ditches are well spaced
out - usually mo re than 10m from each other.
Ear t hw ork An earthen em bankment. part of a fortification.
In most cases a bank or ram part is classified as
an earthwork.
G lacis
The slo pe extending down from the outer
works of a fortifi cation over which an attacker
would have to move as he approached the fort.
H ill -for t
A defensive earthwork o r stone-built Iron Age
structu re built on an easily defens ible pos ition.
usually the plateau or summ it of a hill.
Iron Age
The perio d from around 700 BC until t he
Roman co nquest of Brita in in 43 AD whe n the
inhabitants of Brita in pro duce d and use d iron .
M ult iple enclosu re fort A form of earthwork or
fortification where the defences form a
netwo rk of banks and sometimes ditches. In
terms of Iron Age fortifications it is generally
presumed that these sites were non-military in
nature. and the mult iple e nclosures co ntaine d
Annex

with in its defences we re pro bably use d to

hou se farm buildings or livest ock.
Mul ti va llat e An Iron Age fortificatio n system whe re the
central enclosu re is surro unded by more t han
three sets of banks and associated ditc hes.
Neolithic
The pe riod between aro und 4200 BC and
2100 BC in Brita in dur ing wh ich the indige no us
peoples of Britain built sta nding stone
mon uments. and bur ied the ir prestig ious
dead in bar rows o r buria l mounds.
Oppidum A Roman te rm for a fortified to wn o r
large settlement. usually associate d wit h a
hill-top pos ition.
Palisade
A wooden fence of sta kes. posts and beams tha t
formed a defe nsive bar rier. In most cases these
surmounted the rampart s of an Iron Age fort.
Plateau fort An Iron Age fort ification built on flat or
slop ing ground. where there was no natu ral
advantage of terrain that coul d augme nt the
defensive qualities of t he site .The fort had to
rely on its man-made defences for protection .
Pro montory fort An Iron Age fort ification built on a
headland o r promontory. where th ree sides of
the position we re protected by the sea o r even
by rivers . leaving just one side wh ich requ ired
protection from man-made defensive wo rks.
Rampart
In terms of hill-fo rts and oth er Iron Age
fortifications. a rampart was th e last bank
defence before the inne r enclosure of the fort.
A rampart was often surmounted by a palisade.
breastwork or other form of parapet.
Revetment A timber or stone facing to a bank. ditch
counterscarp or ram part. designed to protect it
from e rosion. o r to impart addit io nal st re ngth
to the st ructure.
T imber-laced The archaeologi cal term for a bank o r
rampar t of earth or stone that was constructed
aro und a timbe r frame.
Trivallate An Iro n Age for tificatio n system where the
central enclosure is surrounded by three sets
of banks and associated ditc hes.
Univallate An Iro n Age fortification syste m where the
central enclosure is surrounded by just o ne
set of banks and associ ated ditches.
V itrified
The term applied to a stone-built Iron Age
fortificat ion where the sto nes we re heated
until they completely or partially fuse d tog ether.
This process imparted greater stre ngth to the
finished structu re .

63

Index
Figures in b o ld refer to illustrations
agriculture 4 1, 60

ballistas 54
banks 8,9, 16,25
Bar ry Hill 12
Beacon Hill 16, 19
Blac kbury Camp 59
Brat ton Camp 59
Bred o n Hill 44
bro chs
definition 4. 12
design 20-2
e ntrances 23,40.43-4,50
. interiors 43.45.47
lo cati on I I , 13
see also individual brochs by name
Brown Caterth un 57
Burghead 8,8
Bur nswa rk 50-1 ,53 ,54.57-8
Butse r Ancient Fa rm 60
Cabu rn 14-15
Caer-y- Twr 53, 61
Caesar. Julius 4-5, 47- 8
Cast ell He nllys 61
Celts: defi nition 4-6
chevaux de frise 45
Cissb ury 43
Cl ickh imin 50,56
Clovelly Dykes 9-12
cr annogs 8, 58
Cun liffe , Profes sor Bar ry 24,25, 50
cup a nd ring mar ks 55
daily life 29
Dan -y-Coed 12
Daneb ury 27
history of 24-9.42- 3.48.50,55
no wa days 58
de fe nce principles 42-5
Dinas Emrys 61
Dinorben 42.44,46
ditch es 17, 25
d ruid ic prac tic es 16
Du n Ca rlow ay (C har labha igh) 48 ,5 7
Du n Telve 5 1.57
duns 13
Du nsap ie C rag 37
Du nsinane Hill 28
Dyke Hills 9
Eildo n Hill No rth 21 ,57

Cabu rn 15
co nst r uctio n 17
Danebu r y 26-8
defending 43-5
Dinorben 44.46
Lo rd e nshaws 29
Maiden Castle 33, 33, 38- 9,44, 52
O ld O swest ry 18
St. Cat he rine's Hill 17. 45
Uffi ngt o n Castl e 7
Glastonbu r y lake village 8,61
Glen Lyo n ring forts 12
gra na r ies 28
G urn ess 20.21, 22,42-3 ,57
Hallstatt.Au st ria 5
Hambledo n Hill 56
Hardy.T hom as 3 I
hea dland forts 8-9
Hembu ry 44
hill-forts
co nst ruct io n 15-20
defending 45-5 1
definit io n 8-9
form and func t ion 14-15
lo catio n an d site 10. 12- 13, 16
see also individual hill-forts by name
Hod Hill 42. 45. 50. 55. 58
Iron Age
A an d B Cultu re s 32
C Cultu re 33
definition 5-6
jave lin head s 32
Ladle Hill 16-20
Lhuyd, Edward 5
locatio n 10-11 ,1 2-13
Lo rd en shaws 29,35-6
Maide n Castl e
co nstructio n 20
as econom ic and pol itic al ce nt re 4 1
fo rtifi cations 30-3 ,3 I. 33 , 38-9. 44.

52-3
nowadays 58
and the Ro mans 33, 48-9, 52. 55
as se ttl em e nt 35-41
manufactu ring 41
Midhowe 21. 22. 40, 57
Mit her Tap 13
Mons G raupius, Battle of (AD 84) 13,5 1
Mou sa 20. 21.44-5 ,47,56
muse um s 58, 60-1

Flag Fe n 60

64

gateways and e ntran ces

Beaco n Hill 19
bro chs 23,40.43-4,50

O akbank C ran nog 8, 58

O ld O swest ry 18, 59
O ld Saru m 58-9
Ol d W inch est e r Hill 26

palisades 17. 42
Peat Moors Centre 61
Pe n Dinas 61, 61
Piggo t t. Professo r I6
plateau forts 9
promonto ry forts 8-9
Rainsborough 9
Rame Head 8
ram par ts
Cabu rn 15
co nstruction 42-3
Dan eb ury 25- 6. 27
defin ition 8
Dino rb e n 46
Duns inane Hill 28
Maide n Castle 53
Mith e r Tap 13
Uffington Castle 5-6
Wh ite Cat e r t hu n 25. 28
W od e n Law 9
Richmond. Sir Ian 50
ring fo rts/raths 12
Ro man s in Br ita in 13.33.48-56
rou ndhouses 37-40,37-9.60.6 1
St. Ca theri ne 's Hill 17.22,45
settle me nts 28-9. 35-4 1,38- 9. 60
Sha rples. Niall 40
shrines 28-9
sieges 24.45-51 ,54
slingshot st ones 53
Somerset Levels 61
South Cadb ury 44,52
Stan wic k 58
sto ne shot 25
La Ten e, Switze rland 5
Trap rain Law 30.53,57
Tre'r Cei ri 34 , 43.53.6 1
Uffington Castle 4-7,60
valley fo rts 9
Vespasian . Rom an em pe ror 33.48-9.

50
vitrifie d forts 13,43
W andl e bury 43
W arham 60
wea po ns 32,32. 45-7
W he ele r, Sir Mortimer 30, 31, 4 1. 48-9.

53
Wh ite Cate r t hu n 25.28,5 7
Wi nkleb ury 59
W oden Law 9,20,57
Woo ds ide 12
Wo rleb ury 43
Yarn bury 57

Related Titles
ISBN

SERI ES

No. TITLE

1 841 764302

Fortress

Hadrian 's Wall AD 122-410

1 841 768324

Fortress

31

Rome's No rt he rn Fron t ier AD 70-235

1 84176 7824

Elite

126

Siege Warfare in th e Roman World

1 8417 6 3926

Essential Hist ories

42

Caesar's Civ il War

085045606 I

Men-at-Arms

158

Rome's Ene m ies (2) Ga llic & British Ce lts

1 841 7648 7 6

Men-at-Arms

374

Roma n Military C lo t h in g (I ) 100 BC-AD 200

1 84 176559 7

Me n -at -Arms

390

Roman Military C lo th in g (2) AD 200-400

1 841 76 6054

New Vangua rd

78

Greek a n d Ro m an Siege Machi ne ry 399 BC-AD 363

1 841 76 6348

New Vangua rd

89

Greek an d Roman Art ille ry 399 BC- AD 363

18553241 99

Warrior

Late Roman In fant rym an AD 236-565

1 85 5325 675

Warrior

IS

Late Rom an Cava lrym a n AD 236- 565

1 841 76 14 3 5

Warrior

30

Ce lt ic Warrio r

1 84 1763462

Warrior

50

Picti sh Wa rrio r AD 297-84 1

1 84 1766003

Warri or

71

Roman Legionary 58 BC-AD 69

1 841 76 6011

Warrior

72

Im perial Roman Legio na ry AD 161- 284

Visit the Osprey website

Information about forthcoming books
Author information
Read extracts and see sample pages
Sign up for our free newsletters
Com petit ions and pr izes

www.ospreyp ublishing.co m

To order an y of these titles, or for more informati on o n Osp rey Publishing, con tac t:
Osprey Direct (North America) Toll free: 1-866-620 -6941 Fax: 1-800-659-2436 E-mail: info@ospreydirect.com
Osprey Direct (UK) Tel: +44 (0) 1933 443863 Fax: +44 (0) 1933 443849 E-mail: info@ospreydirect.co .uk

www.o spreypublishing.com

De sign, tec hno logy and history o f key fort resses,

The Forts of

strateg ic po sition s and defe nsive syste ms

eel tic Britain

The most spectacular ph ysical
rema ins of Iron Age Celtic Britain
are th e fortifications th at still dot
th e landscape, from the great
earthen hill-forts of southe rn
England (such as Maiden Castle)
to the imposing stone-built
brochs of northern Scotl and.

Photographs
Full colour artwork

1--'
. --- 1
T
SCOTlAND

-=-0::-.-- -

While none of these were stro ng

eno ugh to keep out a determined
attack by the Roman war machine,
to th e pre-Roman peopl e of Celtic
Britain they represented th e

NOR T H

ultimate stateme nt in politi cal,

SEA

military and social power.

This book pro vides a survey of

IRELAND

th e types of fortifications created,

sho wing how th ey developed over
ENGLAND

tim e and varied from region to

r-" r.--

__ '1'- -

region . It also highlights th e role

of th ese fortifications as th e last
FRANCE

Unrivalled detail

Co lour maps

bastions of Celtic civilization

in Britain .

I SBN 1- 84603- 064-1

OSPREY
PU BL IS H I NG

www.ospreypublishing.com

78 18 46 030642