CELTS – HILLFORTS

Aim: To use hillforts to show that Celtic society was heroic and hierarchical.

CASE STUDIES: Hillforts

THE TRADITIONAL VIEW

In terms of understanding Celtic society, it was traditionally assumed that the increasing number and complexity of hillforts was testimony to the heroic, warlike and violent nature of Celtic society. Stuart Piggott believed that the development of multivallate hillforts (those with increasing numbers of ditches and ramparts) was a response to Iron Age population movements and invasions by continental Celts.

For example, Piggott looked at Hownam Rings near Jedburgh in the Borders. His excavations revealed that it developed from being a simple enclosed settlement

(enclosed by a wooden fence/palisade) to one with first a single stone rampart then two stone ramparts, which over time fell into disrepair. He argued that defences grew stronger as waves of warlike invaders swept across the country until the Roman interlude established peace and order and made it safe to let the defensive rings fall into disrepair.

Hownam Rings – a multivallate fort

Other hillfort features are highly suggestive of a defensive purpose. Many forts in central and eastern Scotland are timber-laced, which means that their ramparts –

1

whether built of earth or of stone – were reinforced with horizontal timbers which helped hold the structure together. An example is at Finavon in Angus, where the massive walls stood to a height of some 6m (18ft). At Finavon, as in a number of other cases, the ramparts appear to have been deliberately and systematically burned, causing the molten stone to fuse together into a glassy mass which is known as a vitrified fort. Ian Armit argues that it would have taken a lot of time and effort to gather enough fuel to create a fire which would have been hot enough to produce vitrification. Such a fierce fire suggests that vitrification was not simply an accidental by-product of war, but rather:

a premeditated act of intense symbolic power as the seats of a warrior aristocracy were permanently and spectacularly razed”.

Excavations at Finavon, Angus, showing holes for timber-lacing in the stonework of the ramparts

Meanwhile at Dreva Craig (Peeblesshire), chevaux de frise have been found. These were densely-packed rows of upright stones which were deliberately set in the ground to impede access, and would have provided a particular obstacle to mounted warriors.

All of this evidence suggests that hillforts were built for defence in a society which was increasingly warlike.

THE REVISED VIEW OF HILLFORTS

It is now believed that the traditional interpretation of hillforts as being primarily defensive constructions created by “Celtic” invaders was misguided since hillforts were used, before, during and after the supposed Celtic incursions. There is too little evidence to support the idea of successive waves of Celtic invasion and too little

2

evidence to validate the idea that settlements became progressively more defensive during the LPRIA. Settlements were being enclosed and defended long before the so-called invasions. Indeed, while it was once believed that timber-laced forts were introduced to Scotland from France, excavation of a number of Scottish examples such as Burnswark Hill has shown that they pre-date their supposed continental prototypes by several centuries.

Meanwhile detailed excavations at Broxmouth fort in East Lothian showed that bi-vallate defences had been constructed as early as c.700BC, but that these were subsequently replaced by a single rampart. Over time the defences were allowed to decay until by c.200BC they were entirely derelict and an unenclosed settlement of stone-walled roundhouses occupied the site. As Ian Armit points out, this suggests that the pattern of hillfort development was rather more complex than Piggott had claimed, and indeed the increasing tendency towards open, unenclosed settlements in many parts of Scotland towards the end of the LPRIA suggests that the tribes of Northern Britain were increasingly stable and prosperous in the years before the Roman invasions.

Chesters, East Lothian

The suggestion that hillforts may have served to convey the prestige of their builders is reinforced by examples such as Chesters in East Lothian. This is a multivallate fort whose defences look very impressive and at first

glance suggest a defensive purpose. However, the fort is directly overlooked by higher ground and would therefore have been extremely vulnerable to attack by missiles such as slings – exactly the sort of warfare from which hillforts had supposedly been built to protect their occupants. Armit therefore argues that forts such as Chesters were constructed more a symbols of power than as military strongholds. However, he observes that it can often be impossible to identify the

3

precise reason why many hillforts were built and that it can be hard to tell the difference between defence and prestige:

Elaborate gateways, for example, might be designed either to impress outsiders entering the settlement, or to strengthen defensive weak points (or both). Forts may be built on hills to help them repel attack, or because the occupants wanted physical dominance of the surrounding landscape.Ian Armit, Celtic Scotland, B T Batsford/Historic Scotland, 2005, pp. 54-55.

Finally, we should remember that hillforts – particularly in the fertile lowlands - were built in an agrarian landscape and would have been surrounded by pastoral and arable farmland. Agriculture appears to have intensified in the lowlands around 300BC, possibly because the development of superior iron (rather than bronze and stone) axes and ploughshares made forest clearance and cultivation easier. For example, there is evidence of Iron Age field systems surrounding the hillfort at Chesters in East Lothian. A massive souterrain was built into the silted-up ditch of Castlelaw hillfort in the Pentland Hills, possibly as late as the 2nd century AD, and may have been used to store surplus grain which was traded with the Roman army; this clearly suggests that the local farmers were producing a surplus. Meanwhile in some upland areas long, linear earthworks were built which would have defined boundaries and aided livestock control, suggesting the growth of extensive stock farms and “ranches”. Indeed, some smaller “hillforts” show no evidence of human habitation and may simply have been pens for corralling cattle and sheep. Overall the impression is of increasingly settled, politically stable and economically prosperous societies in the south and east of Scotland from around 300BC.

Focussing on two of the largest and most complex hillforts in Scotland we can explore some more contemporary ideas on their use.

KEY SITES FOR SCOTTISH IRON AGE – HILLFORTS

EILDON HILL NORTH (the Borders) and TRAPRAIN LAW (East Lothian)

These two forts are fairly distinctive for many reasons: Their size – they are both huge Their date – they were both amongst the earliest Iron Age enclosures Their type – both are densely occupied hillforts Their purpose – they may both have been used as tribal capitals or as proto-

urban centres

4

Their origin – both had their origins as densely occupied hillforts in the Bronze Age.

Eildon Hill North is one of three Eildon Hills outside Melrose in the Borders.

The fort is massive since its defences cover a range of three miles and there are over 500 house platforms within the enclosed 16 hectares. The fort was started around 1000BC (before the “Celts”, during the Bronze Age) and modified many times from 1000BC onwards. It is possible that the 500 house platforms weren’t all from the same period of occupation; however, people like Ian Armit think that the platforms were all contemporary and would have been in use at the same time as one another.

Traprain Law is the other key site for the Southern Scottish Iron Age. It is in East Lothian, between Haddington and Dunbar. It was occupied for centuries before the Iron Age began and may have acted as a tribal capital for the Votadini of south-east Scotland.

Important points about the two forts:1. They suggest that there must have been some type of hierarchy in Bronze

Age and Iron Age society. To enable the construction of such huge forts there must have been a powerful aristocracy which would have marshalled the labour

5

to build the fort. To make people do something like build a fort, there must be a power structure whereby a chief held authority over labourers.

2. They suggest that the Iron Age forts were not built exclusively for defence because covering such as large area would have made it to difficult to defend from attackers.

3. They suggest that tribal chiefs may have exercised power and authority by controlling the exchange of goods such as bronze, copper and tin. Lots of these materials have been found in the two forts and so maybe these places were centres of specialised production and distribution. Their patronage of skilled craftsmen, and their control of the production and distribution of prestige items of metalwork, would have reinforced the tribal leaders’ high status.

4. It is possible that some larger forts were for holding “seasonal meetings”. Eildon Hill North is not surrounded by enough good arable land to sustain a community all year round. Perhaps people just met there at certain times of the year, for festivals or fairs?

5. It is probable that there would have been a small permanent population on these forts, perhaps including the tribal aristocracy, priests and craft-workers.

6. The “defences” may have been largely for display and to add a ritual dimension to bolster the status of the warrior elite living in the fort.

So, it seems that these forts suggest that LPRIA society may have been HIERARCHICAL, CONCERNED WITH PRESTIGE AND DISPLAYS OF POWER, PRODUCING AND EXCHANGING SPECIALISED GOODS – all good indicators of a fairly complex society.

So, what were hillforts for? Stronghold or Symbol?Hillforts varied greatly in size and fulfilled various purposes:

Meeting places of communal gathering or even religious significance Some had a small resident population They were for defence in some instances Many were built for show – as symbols of power rather than a military

stronghold They suggest a hierarchical society: strong leaders must have existed to

coordinate and/or coerce the workforce They were built for a variety of reasons – to repel attacks or/and to show

dominance/power over an area

6

They were built for different reasons according to social needs – for example, there are so many forts in southern Scotland (the Lothians and Tweeddale) they can’t all have been homes of the aristocracy, and in this area it is likely that the majority of the rural population lived in these forts. This suggests a fragmented society where there was lots of local independence and small clans competed for territory. But in other areas where there are fewer forts, for example north of the Tay, it is likely that they were prestigious symbols of power occupied by elites who exercised power over the majority of the population, who lived in open settlements in the valleys.

When did they go out of use?It used to be thought that forts went out of use as a result of the Roman invasions when the Scottish tribes were allegedly defeated in battle. Instead small, enclosed (but not defensive) settlements appeared, showing the more peaceful nature of Roman society in Scotland (pax Romana – Roman peace).

However, some forts were actually out of use before the Roman invasions whilst others continued to exist during and after the Roman period. Indeed, it is estimated that 20% of upland forts were still occupied during the Roman interlude in Scotland. In general, therefore, it seems that by the later Iron Age forts were being replaced by more open settlements - perhaps due to changes in society whereby society was becoming increasingly hierarchical in structure and there were fewer, but more important and powerful, chiefs in control. The fact that forts fell out of use at different times, before and during the Roman period, may suggest that this growing centralisation of authority took place over an extended period of time.

TASKS

1. Outline the traditional view of the purposes of hillforts, mentioning Stuart Piggott’s study of Hownam Rings.

2. What other reasons are there to believe hillforts were defensive in purpose?3. Why do contemporary archaeologists now believe that the development of hillforts

in Scotland is not proof of “Celtic” invasions from the continent during the LPRIA?4. What reason is there to believe that hillforts were built for prestige rather than

purely for defensive purposes?5. How can a study of hillforts support the idea that LPRIA society was settled and

agrarian?7

6. Briefly describe the hillforts at Eildon Hill North and Traprain Law.7. What do these sites, and hillforts in general, suggest about the nature of society in

Northern Britain during the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age?

8